That's a big Wokka you've got
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a big Wokka you've got
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...otorcraft.html
The Boeing replacement for Chinook....ISD 2020.
That is one BIG Wokka. I wonder if we will join in with the programme for our long term HL procurement? The implications of operating this beasty are yet to be seen, but I would guess that they are challenging!
The Boeing replacement for Chinook....ISD 2020.
"The baseline was C-130-sized. Now the fuselage is larger than the C-130 and approaching that of the A400M."
That is one BIG Wokka. I wonder if we will join in with the programme for our long term HL procurement? The implications of operating this beasty are yet to be seen, but I would guess that they are challenging!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
That would be a big chopper
"The large cargo rotorcraft will also get bigger, from Lockheed Martin C-130-sized to equivalent in capacity to the Airbus Military A400M."
Just imagine the size of the oven ....
Just imagine the size of the oven ....
Join Date: May 2006
Location: london
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C-130 got stretched to solve the 'problem' of ac bulking out before they maxed out on payload. Could such a concept be applied to helos such as CH-47 if some loads routinely bulked out before payload was exceeded?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN, USA
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr-AEO
That is one BIG Wokka.
Originally Posted by greycoat
Could such a concept be applied to helos such as CH-47 if some loads routinely bulked out before payload was exceeded?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hants
Posts: 2,295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C-130 got stretched to solve the 'problem' of ac bulking out before they maxed out on payload. Could such a concept be applied to helos such as CH-47 if some loads routinely bulked out before payload was exceeded?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They should'a just built the XCH-62 Heavy Lift Helicopter [HLH] (in a full-volume fuselage version, of course):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/h-62.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-62-image1.jpg
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/h-62.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...-62-image1.jpg
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one made of imaginary wood the A400M fans are trying to wish into existence. 
Lets all say it 3 times, clapping our hands as we do so, and maybe it will come true:
"I wish the C-130J was selling fewer than the A400M"
... "I wish the C-130J was selling fewer than the A400M" ... "I wish the C-130J was selling fewer than the A400M" .
Nope, didn't work, sorry.
Lets all say it 3 times, clapping our hands as we do so, and maybe it will come true:
"I wish the C-130J was selling fewer than the A400M"
... "I wish the C-130J was selling fewer than the A400M" ... "I wish the C-130J was selling fewer than the A400M" .Nope, didn't work, sorry.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
No, but it's another indication the C-130 no longer meets the operational need. It can't take the current/next generational of battlefield vehicles - even an up-armoured Stryker has to stripped down and sent as 2 loads. The increase in the load/dimensions of the heavy-lift helicopter just reinforces the point.
The C-130 line at Marietta was only kept open because the Congress made the USAF buy the C130J, they would have preferred to extend the life of their current models till they knew what they needed to replace them with.
With the C-27 now being reported as being the preferred choice for future SF buys, and the USAF looking at fitting them 30mm cannons to supplement/replace the AC-130s, the long term future of the C-130 looks dubious.
Would the USAF buy A400M? Of course not, they'll just buy more C-17s, which is what they want anyway.
The C-130 line at Marietta was only kept open because the Congress made the USAF buy the C130J, they would have preferred to extend the life of their current models till they knew what they needed to replace them with.
With the C-27 now being reported as being the preferred choice for future SF buys, and the USAF looking at fitting them 30mm cannons to supplement/replace the AC-130s, the long term future of the C-130 looks dubious.
Would the USAF buy A400M? Of course not, they'll just buy more C-17s, which is what they want anyway.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Southern UK
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to compare the FCS requirements with those of FRES - both for this programme and in light of the C130J/A400M/C17 discussion above.
This has echoes of the big Mil helicopter which failed because it was so big it could only effectively operate from airfields - if you had 5 or 6 spots you could land it on you got a suitable strip for a cargo aircraft - although I expect the USMC are thinking about using it in large numbers for a sort of focussed intervention - would we be able to afford enough to do the same? Probably not if we buy all the FRES vehicles.....
This has echoes of the big Mil helicopter which failed because it was so big it could only effectively operate from airfields - if you had 5 or 6 spots you could land it on you got a suitable strip for a cargo aircraft - although I expect the USMC are thinking about using it in large numbers for a sort of focussed intervention - would we be able to afford enough to do the same? Probably not if we buy all the FRES vehicles.....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sydney, AU
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the C-27 now being reported as being the preferred choice for future SF buys, and the USAF looking at fitting them 30mm cannons to supplement/replace the AC-130s, the long term future of the C-130 looks dubious.
(The ADF are looking for a Caribous replacement)
The Army's all over JHL... high speed cruise, A400M cabin, 60-ton payload.
The snag is that the Army's idea is that the Air Force will simply scrap all its combat aircraft and retain the support of the Army as its only mission. In that case there MIGHT be enough in the AF budget to pay for the bloody thing.
How many of these monsters will be needed? 50? 100? 200? Development bill will (with the best will in the world) be $10-$15 billion, on the low side. If the cost per pound OEW in production is close to that of the Osprey, this is a three-digit flyaway.
All to carry 30-ton mutant Brinks trucks, each of them with four active troops on board. Don't laugh, I sat in one of them on Monday.
Utter, utter b
ks.
The snag is that the Army's idea is that the Air Force will simply scrap all its combat aircraft and retain the support of the Army as its only mission. In that case there MIGHT be enough in the AF budget to pay for the bloody thing.
How many of these monsters will be needed? 50? 100? 200? Development bill will (with the best will in the world) be $10-$15 billion, on the low side. If the cost per pound OEW in production is close to that of the Osprey, this is a three-digit flyaway.
All to carry 30-ton mutant Brinks trucks, each of them with four active troops on board. Don't laugh, I sat in one of them on Monday.
Utter, utter b
ks.
