Hi again Lonewolf 50; re your post #92 ...
Hi again.
Somewhere in these forums was mentioned a fully-equipped ADF soldier weighs 300 pounds! ... However, it would be of interest to know just what figures are actually used these days for airlift planning purposes in both fixed and rotary wing realms.
Depends on the mission. The "in the bush" figure is probably less than the "in MOUT" figure, since the body armor imperative that our own army seems to have undertaken adds weight. My light infantry friends typically use a 60 or 80 pound ruck, plus weapon, as the training load for a road march. With a man weighing 170-200 pounds, you are in the high 200's already, your heavy weapons squad well over that. The figure, 300 lbs, is probably a good one for generic planning. Also depends on how many "days of supply" of food the trooper has in his ruck. That will depend on the mission, and will vary mightily, particular in a bush mission versus a more urban mission. That in turn drives how you phase in and deliver (more Hueys, eh?) your basic water food and bullets to the fighters.
During Vietnam War ops, a fully-equipped RAAF Hotel model Iroquois manned by 4 crew and with full fuel carried 7 troops
MTOE requirements for Blackhawk that I am familiar with are for an 11 man infantry squad per, plus crew. That's with one in each seat, and all of his stuff wedged in. I have anecdotal evidence some Sikorsky pilots (who were down there at the maintenance end, not as mercs) over a decade ago about how the Columbian Army used their "bought by the US State Department Blackhawks" during bush operations.
Seats out, and quite a few more than 11 troopers per Blackhawk on the outbound missions. No 80 pounds of kit either.
Lots of enhancement options which would trim payload a bit, but H2 has the internal lift capacity for 10 troops (a notional infantry squad/section) with reconfigured simple clip-in fabric seating. A bit crowded which is probably why the UH-1Y cabin has been stretched around 530mm.
Aye. Part of the limits on Blackhawk internal load, in pounds, is the lbs per square feet (200, IIRC) for the floor. Not sure if they upgraded that for M. Can find out. The 11 seats, all with "x" amount of flex/crash protection, was a decision taken.
The Marines didin't get 13 men to fit into a UH-1Y, which is their notional infantry squad. (Won't digress into the doctrinal arguments between our Marines and Army on whay an 11 or 13 man squad ... )
The H2 cargo hook capacity is 5,000 ...l pretty useful.
Yes indeed.
Re aircraft crash-worthiness features. I do not take a bean-counter view of war-fighting, but rather having adequate resources and capabilities to get the job done. Having more of employable lower cost assets assures sustainment of operations compared with lesser numbers of very expensive kit.
Quantity has its own quality.
Part of why I was sad to see Comanche die was that you could deploy quite a few more of those per C-17 than Apache. For RRF, most missions don't require the Full Monty 16 Hellfires Apache load. What you need is more armed birds, and eyes, and sensors, in the air, fast. Comanche carried six, which is most likely enough.
There are differing qualities between UH-60M and Huey II, but obviously much commonality in roles performable. If accepting that some casualties are inevitable in military operations, Huey II at $2million is clearly more cost-effective than UH-60M at maybe $20million.
As I have read this thread, I have had to remind myself that you are operating on an Aus budget assumption. This requires a far more critical eye on the bang per dollar than a US budgetary driven choice.
But when you mention the acceptance of casualties, that gets to some profound cultural and political differences not germane to this thread. On the other hand, as your (Aus) force is far smaller, a significant body bag count may hurt your overall posture than we yanks. This might inform why you have seen a sea change in the "accepting casualties" planning assumptions in the year 2011 that may not have been as dire in 1970 or so.
The overriding ADF force deployment priority now seems for sealift, but equipped troop weight and air-portability characteristics of hardware impact significantly on airlift capabilities, both at the sharp end of war-fighting and for regional quick reaction requirements.
While it depends on what you mean by "quick" I quite agree. At the sharp end, having vertical lift in plentidude can make or break the ground commander's mission in the first 72 hours.
The pretty light M113 has essential off-road capabilities for wet tropics operations and is air-transportable, although how now affected by modifications is unknown.
Outside of my area of understanding, but of interest to me nonetheless, and of course a key driver of "what airframes and why" for the fast reaction force to ride.
Cheers.
