PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - More KC-46A woes....
View Single Post
Old 4th Nov 2014, 11:18
  #72 (permalink)  
LowObservable
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,580
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
KenV - You are stretching the facilities argument a bit.

Correct, lots of things are designed within the limits of C-130s and aircraft carriers. But those in turn are designed within limits: You can easily make a bigger transport but it will cost more (A400M). Carriers are pushing all sorts of ship-size limits. The bigger carrier and transport will also cost more to operate, where a bigger ramp only costs more when you have to shovel the snow off it. Concrete is far, far cheaper than anything that moves.

As for STOVL: a full-time operational STOVL base costs the same as a CTOL base. The Marines did not want cheaper facilities; they wanted to be free of facilities altogether.

Tanker orbits do count. But in the case of the KC-X competition both sides were required to produce the same numbers.

And BTW, the Roman connection to the SRB diameter is mostly hoggus washus. http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp

Last edited by LowObservable; 4th Nov 2014 at 11:29.
LowObservable is offline