>The whole debate about the Booker and other airborne armorSo perhaps I'm just retarded... but wouldn't a better solution than mini tanks that need their own logistics train, factory, trained engineers/specialist crews etc be bigger cargo planes so you can just directly transport full size tanks? The C130 is getting pretty old by now anyway, but even if you did get a whole new airlift fleet of shiny new planes it's not like you can't keep using C130s for normal cargo runs. Am I just missing something obvious here, such as those pesky laws of physics, but with modern tech metallurgy etc. shouldn't it be possible to build a new cargo plane class specifically to fill the role of airlifting very heavy shit into areas with shitty runways? Not to mention the obvious benefits of "if you can carry full size tanks you can carry a lot more regular cargo too" and being able to cram much bulkier, if not heavier, things in there like AA systems/rocket artillery (in a "roll off and shoot" configuration)/full size shipping containers/etcBasically just a new boring workhorse for the military, minimal frills and mission creep just >Big durable cargo plane with huge lift capacity and built from the ground up to be as simple to maintain, reliable, and affordable to mass produce as possibleIt just seems to me that the whole debate about specialist airlift armor is missing the point when you can fix the carrier rather than the thing being carried.
>>64193933I’ve wondered for years why there’s no giganigga delivery system with special heavy lift transports and parachute sleds.
>>64193933You mean like, building C-17s that can fit an Abrams without taking it apart? And then maybe building Bookers so you can fit two in a single C-17?
>>64194041I was thinking more something along the lines of an extra beefy, (in cargo weight and durability moreso than volume/total plane size), C-5M Super Galaxy that can land on short improvised runways using something like a Blown Wing design to allow it to decelerate to extremely low speeds and land on short runways. If you're going to design something from scratch maybe you could even go full retard and make it a flying wing design for maximum cargo volume, but I simply don't know enough about aeronautic engineering to have even the slightest idea if such a thing is even possible, let alone feasible.I'm aware that the aerodynamics of an RC plane are going to be extremely different than a super heavy giant cargo plane, hence me not even knowing if this would work at all, but this at least shows what I mean by "blown wing". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6FMjOl0TRA
>>64194112What's wrong with the C-17?
>>64194125Nothing? I guess you could argue they're a bit old, but iirc they had a recent modernization program. You can make a beefier version specifically for landing shit in dangerous areas and still have the existing fleet of them, it's not like they just stop working if you make a new design. If you think they can do the role I mention in the OP adequately, since I don't know if they can land on short dirt runways or not and if they can then my question is retarded, then I'll go ahead and drag the goalposts and instead ask>Instead of designing light tonks like Bookers why not just make more C17s?
>>64194161>Instead of designing light tonks like Bookers why not just make more C17s?I don't see how that's even a question considering that the whole purpose of the Booker was to fit two to a C-17, and a big part of why it was cancelled was a paper suggesting that the Air Force might have to derate the C-17 to below the capacity necessary to carry two of them in the next couple of decades. The Booker (38-42T depending on configuration) is too heavy to be carried in a C-130 (21T payload capacity) and that was never an aim of the program.
>>64193933The theory with air deployed armor is to give airborne troops some organic heavy fire support so that they last long enough for friendly ground troops to reach them. However, WW2 proved that airborne assaults are obsolete and suicidal. The more recent Hostomel bondoogle again underlines this point. So, it is a moot point. You cannot deliver enough tanks by air for paratroops for it to matter.
>>64194219>However, WW2 proved that airborne assaults are obsolete and suicidalIronically, I think WW2 was the high point of paratroopers. They never accomplished anything in WW1 and I can't think of anything they've accomplished since WW2 unless we're counting oper8r fastrope/HALO shit.
>>64193933It's eminently possible to build a modern C130 that can transport ~40 ton IFVs or recon armour more economically than the C5. It's just not a priority. There are far more important programs. What would you do, buy a new fleet of transporters, or roll out APS and drone defence across the army? Which do you think is more important?>>64194219>WW2 proved that airborne assaults are obsolete and suicidalMoron
>>64193933Absolutely not. Plane programs are retardedly lengthy and complex. And the bigger and heavier the plane the less tactically flexible it is, such as accessible flight lines. Or if you start putting insane engines on it the higher the maintenance.
>>64194443>Absolutely notThat's literally what happened though. The C-130 was old and small and even first gen Abrams needed to be taken apart to be transported on them, so they made the C-17, which fits a complete Abrams inside.
>>6419446111 tank. And where can it land compared to a c130?
>>64194523What's your point? OP is saying that instead of building tanks small enough to fit on C-130s like the Sheridan, we should be building planes big enough to carry M1s. Well, that's exactly what the C-17 is. OP's thought is exactly what the US military thought 4 decades ago. Now the C-17 is the workhorse of the US strategic airlift fleet.
>>64193933Usually a bigger plane = longer runway and special equipment By the time you can lift more than 2 Abrams your plane can't use any airport and will never land on a field. That's the problem faced by big planes like the a380.But anyway the whole thing with airdrop tanks is doing the recon for big tanks, I personally like the M10. The frogs are experts at this style of fighting and it works
>>64194549>But anyway the whole thing with airdrop tanks is doing the recon for big tanks, I personally like the M10.That's what a light tank does, but the M10 is not a light tank. That's the M3 Bradley's job. The M10 was intended to be used as organic direct fire support for infantry brigades.
they should just use bradleys
>>64194540Strategic airlift......OP is talking about tactical airlift.
>>64194540>>64194867You're both wrongOP is talking about strategic airliftThe reason why C17s are used is because only they can fit tanks and large IFVsThe reason why everyone in NATO had a shitfit about that is that C17s are expensive to operate so there are only a few of themThe quest for a C130-capable APC (US) or A400M-capable IFV (Germ) is because they don't want to have to use C17s which are expensive and which should be hauling other stuff, like M1s and Leo2s
>>64194580I guess it's the US way. The frog way is "if we detect first and move fast enough we don't need armour". The US doctrine seems to value much more the crew's safety.
>>64194891>The frog way is "if we detect first and move fast enough we don't need armour"only way back in the 60s with the AMX-30the leclerc still had a fairly armor requirementsits only a glass cannon in relation to the M1 and T-62, but not to the extremes of the AMX-30basically setting the baseline armor protection against RPGs instead of ATGMs like what US tanks got, but thats still ~400mm of armor equivelantand they have eventually been uparmored to resist 125mm APFSDS anyways, so the tactical doctrine between them and the US got blurred
>>64194905>only way back in the 60sThat's exactly how they operated for Serval>if we move fast enough the durkas won't hit us
>>64194262be me1967, War Zone C, Tây NinhBig Army brain: “We’re gonna bag COSVN, the Viet Cong Bigfoot with a filing cabinet.”plan.exe: hammer-and-anvil with 1st Infantry Division + 25th ID, sprinkle B-52s, and yeet the 173rd Airborne out of perfectly good airplanes for style pointsjump daybird door opens, smells like JP-4 and regretwind screaming, lieutenant screaming loudergoparachute blossoms, immediately drifting toward 10,000 acres of angry elephant grass and one very judgmental treePFC becomes wind chime, sergeant lands in a termite condo, rigger pack kicks like a muletextbook jump tho, photographers get their money shots, America clapson the ground“Find COSVN.”jungle: “lol no”maps older than the lieutenant’s mustachestumble into bunker complex full of… documents, noodles, and exactly zero Politburocapture three typewriters, one bicycle, seventeen metric tons of humidityhammer-and-anvil timeBig Red One pushes, 25th ID blocks, border to Cambodia sits there like a force field labeled “Do Not Cross :)”Arc Light strikes redecorate half the province into modern artradio: “movement to the west”COSVN: sidesteps one kilometer into Narnia (Cambodia)week 2 – 8 (time is a flat claymore)daily routine: walk, sweat, leech, contact, dig, repeatmorale event: finding canned peaches in a captured cache, squad unanimously reenlists for five more minutesofficer: “Gentlemen, decisive results!”grunt: “Sir, we decisively found mosquitoes.”endgamecollect heaps of intel, blow miles of tunnels, stack enemy weapons like a Cabela’s aisleCOSVN still mythical, like the chupacabra but with better admincommand brief: “Largest U.S. airborne op since Korea, only combat jump of the war, tremendous success.”
>>64194540We need SkyTrains!Teams of pulling engine planes and GLIDERS! Autonomous gliders full of shit like tanks and supply, then tow it up to 60k feet and deploy at distance, let AI guide the payloads to the ground.ULTRA HEAVY lift. ZERO friendly casualties. Probably.
>>64194964the Danang poontang, thoughever
>>64194523> where can it land compared to a c130?Essentially the same places.C17s are kind of absurd
Air transporting MBTs will never be logistically feasible. This is the only way to reasonably transport armor over long distances.
>>64195868>Air transporting MBTs will never be logistically feasiblemodern MBTs are routinely airliftedthe C-17 can carry one, the C-5 can carry 2while you cant move a whole brigade this way, it is a way to move a company into theatre very quickly
>>64195604NopeC130s and A400Ms have much better short and rough field capability>>64195868What >>64195916 saidThe caveat is>so why can't we move a whole battalion of tanks by airWe theoretically can, it's just that it will take too many sorties to also move their supporting equipment, supplies, fuel, etc
>>64195868What port in Europe does the US Army use for roll-on-roll-off tank transports these days? Rotterdam?
>>64193933>Am I just missing something obvious here, such as those pesky laws of physics, but with modern tech metallurgy etc. shouldn't it be possible to build a new cargo plane class specifically to fill the role of airlifting very heavy shit into areas with shitty runways?No
>>64194219>Hostomel bondoogleYou mean where they captured the airfield and repelled the counter attack made up of Ukraine's best SOF and CT SWAT units? The airfield got abandoned because it got destroyed in the aftermath and there were no forces to link up with since the convoys were stuck. It wasn't a paratrooper failure.
>>64195916No, not routinely. Mostly because of of what >>64195930said. There’s very few reasons to transport a single take over long distances.
>>64194886The reason why C17s are used is because it's the single greatest aircraft of all time and the reason why the US will never ever lose a real war against an actual country.The reason why everyone in NATO had a shitfit about that is that they're poor.>The quest for a C130-capable APC (US)Has the US invested literally any effort into developing an APC that will fit into a C-130? Bradley is too heavy, Stryker is too heavy, AMPV is too heavy. I guess it can *almost* carry two JLTVs? Except it can't, so clearly C-130 transportability wasn't a big enough deal to trim 5% of the weight off of them.>A400M-capable IFV (Germ)Maybe they should buy Bookers. They're better protected than the Lynx versions that will fit in an A400M, and even though they're intended for demolition of fortifications, they've got a gun and fire control system that will allow them to shoot first at any non-NATO tank with a high probability of kill.
>>64196060>they're poorSo is the US otherwise it would easily deploy fleets of C17s sufficient to transport and support an entire tank brigade in combatIf the sky's the limit on the budget it's perfectly possible>Stryker is too heavyO.g. Stryker did fit into C130s>clearly C-130 transportability wasn't a big enough dealVery quickly gave up on that idea in general with the Pacific Pivot(Only about ten years too late)>Maybe they should buy BookersWho, the krauts? Bookers are a luxury. They should focus on standing up a proper armoured division or two which they can't even manage yet despite their "land focus" as allegedly Europe's most powerful land army.They're getting there but still have a long way to go.(Again: only about ten years too late)
>>64196672>So is the US otherwise it would easily deploy fleets of C17sIt does. The US's strategic airlift capacity is greater than the rest of the world's combined. The Soviet Union is the only country that ever could have competed but most of the remaining Soviet heavy lifters are rotting hulks with dubious airworthiness at best.>O.g. Stryker did fit into C130sDo any of the flat hull strykers still exist? National guard reserves, I guess?>Bookers are a luxuryThey'd be more bang for the buck than Lynxes.
>>64197642>They'd be more bang for the buck than Lynxes.not the guy you're replying to but imo Germany wouldn't for economic reasons- IE their domestic economy.In my opinion them developing their own shit is honestly good. Europe having it's own MIC just makes the whole of NATO stronger and makes it so collaborations have more to offer.I fucking hate the bullshit "do what I say or I take my ball home" tactics Trump has been doing (especially since that's not how NATO fucking works, in spite of whatever monke and Hegshit have probably been telling him, and just pisses away our soft power) but Europe has needed to get their fucking MIC back in gear for a long time now, and if this is the wake up call they needed, so be it. Euros can't fucking seethe about us "pulling support" (even though we really haven't, yet) if they let things get to the point where they need us to fill their major needs all the time.
>>64198051Downside of every country getting their own shit is logistics are a pain in the ass, upside is you get to throw a lot of shit at the wall and see what sticks. Overall as long as NATO members at least make sure their independent shit can be moved with normal airlift/trains/ships/whatever more variety is nice, at least for vehicles. Personally I can't see any point in doing something like making your own special snowflake bullet caliber when that shit is pretty much down to a science now.
>>64198210True, there has to be common sense but Germany making their own new generation of IFVs / AFVs makes sense; Europe has different doctrines and requirements to us, and they're a lot closer to the fighting so they're going to have a better picture of how things are evolving with drones.Plus, consider the, idk, two or three(?) times there was a collaboration for a "standard tank for NATO;" everyone eventually found their tank, and technology and lessons were learned, but those "standard" tanks never materialized.Going off on a tangent. The main thing is that they need to make their stuff, and scale production up; iirc they are STILL going through the backlog of Leo 2 orders, idk how they expect to put KF-51 into service unless Germany finally relents with their stupid realpolitik and just lets to Poles build them.
>>64194803>they should just use bradleys^ This >>64193933The Booker is just a weird middle ground tank that on paper sounded like a good idea but reality wasn't so kind. Meanwhile Brad Lee's just WERK
>>64198580Booker is a Bradley that trades troop capacity for more armor and a bigger gun. What's not to like?
>>64198580>Take Bradley>Remove crew compartment, replace with VLS cells loaded with something small and already in production like Javelins so you can fit a shitload of them in it>(Also, design it so it's got blowout panels since you are now driving something that can compete with a T90 for turret tossing)>Have Macross Bradley follow formation of regular Bradleys, link up a system where other vehicle crews or infantry can lock on and call a fire mission from the bradley nearby, resulting in a time on target of like 15 seconds>Still has a Bushmaster if TZD is needed in a direct fire role
>>64198638Honestly, a AFV with a modular VLS system sounds like an interesting idea for a flexible ATGM and SHORAD dispenser for networked positions.
>>64198638>Remove crew compartmentI mean passenger compartment, obviously you need to have a driver etc still.
>>64198663>Not making a loyal wingman missileboat bradley
>>64198671Not practical until you also have robot crews to do fun things like track tensioning or doing bitch work with a shovel in downtime.
>>64198580bradley would need to be equipped with a 105mm gun, which would need a larger turretand by that point its basically identical to the M10 in performance
>>64198685This image isn't relevant I just think it looks cool :)
>>64198681Bradley is an IFV, have the attached infantry do the bitch work.
>>64197642>It doesNot enough to fly an entire tank brigade and support it with>more bang for the buckBut they wouldn't carry infantry which is the point of the vehicle>>64198624>What's not to like?Not having troops
>>64194219Air cavalry works though anon, we've seen it work in Vietnam and Somalia. Its not going to be able to be tip of the spear, but it is useful for second line duties and rapid reinforcements.
>>64195970Yeah its mainly Rotterdam, though I believe the poles are heavily investing in Danzig port facilities.
>>64198210Its more that us Europeans feel the necessity to start developing our own GPS satellite equivalent, and stuff like missile interceptors and ICBMs. As we cant rely on the American nuclear deterrent anymore. And all we have otherwise is French tactical nukes from planes, and US supplied Polaris missiles.
>>64199410>we cant rely on the American nuclear deterrent anymoreor American defencewhich you shouldn't have been in the first placeEurope was getting a free ride the past twenty years>>64199382>Air cavalry works though anon, we've seen it work in non-peer battlesanon...
>>64199359>Not having troopsbecause it isnt going into mechanized unitsits meant to give a longer reach weapon to footmobile infantry
>>64199419Let's not kid ourselves here anon, Euros getting a free ride was a win-win for us both.>America gets to be de-facto world superpower>Euros get to dump their budgets into social programs they love so muchIf anything the complaint I have is the smug Euros who try to act like they're superior for having their nice welfare systems and completely ignoring that the only reason they could afford that luxury was basically just ignoring the 5% defense spending thing in NATO for years because the US was happy to foot the bill in exchange for getting to wear the boss nigga hat.
>>64199500it wasn't a win-win at all, it was a net loss.the inequal quality of life hurt Americans, the lack of defence investment hurt European capabilities and willingness to fight, and the overall defensive posture of the Western alliance was that much poorerI do not like Trump at all (he's merely the least worst of a terrible set of choices) but I feel that if the Europeans had kept up their end of the defence deal he wouldn't have flown off the handle quite so hard about NATO>smug Euros who try to act like they're superior for having their nice welfare systems and completely ignoring that the only reason they could afford that luxury was basically just ignoring the also, this very much>5% defense spending thing in NATO for years2%, actuallywhich is the figure that the Euros themselves negotiated in the late 90s (US proposed 3.5%)and then promptly ignored
>>64199359Just have the troops ride on top. Being able to dismount quickly is safer for them and they will have better situational awareness to deal with threats to the vehicle like RPGs.
>>64193933I don't know if this was the right change in doctrine or not but the booker being able to be carried on a C-130 was a bigger deal that it initially sounds.>Many more C-130s>Do not require a massive paved runway like the C-17>Can deploy on improvised runways with short field takeoff>Can deploy in large enough numbers to make a difference in the first few days of combat>Might be able to do tank stuffGiven that the marine corps have abandoned tanks its unclear if they are truly necessary in the first few days of combat but I don't get paid enough to make big decisions like that. Overall though I think the idea is sound and the project was ruined by acquisitions incompetence combined with the poor timing of COVID disrupting the project.
>>64199500>>64199698the youropeans have 2.3 men under arms to contend wit the russians in so far as they under spend they are still perfectly able to contend to their one direct threat on their own if need be nor is only spending 2% or less what allows them to have their social security systems.they had them while they where spending over 2% during the cold war and they spend a lot more on them then the 5% never mind 2% commitment. they pay for it bey having high taxes set aside just for those systems.it's a boomer/and lefty cope about how the US can't afford a cohesive social security system/is wasting money on the military instead of a cohesive social security system
>>64199500The US military is mostly a social welfare program. Free housing, bullshit jobs, on the job training, requirements are a joke, healthcare and a ticket out of poverty.If anything the most marxist western country is objectivly the USA
>>64201708>they had them while they where spending over 2%lol no>they are still perfectly able tookay then Ukraine is safe and sound in the hands of the Europeans and the US withdrawing support is a nothingburger
>>64201683>the booker being able to be carried on a C-130 was a bigger deal that it initially sounds.The Booker and the MPF prototypes that preceded it were never at any point able or intended to be transported on a C-130. Decades earlier there had been work done on a program that was intended to result in a C-130-transportable AFV, among other things, but that program was canceled because it was determined that its protection level would unacceptably low for the environments in which it was intended to be deployed.
>>64199500>If anything the complaint I have is the smug Euros who try to act like they're superior for having their nice welfare systems and completely ignoring that the only reason they could afford that luxury was basically just ignoring the 5% defense spending thingI understand we have it because we use a single-payer system and half of the cost of employing somebody's just taxes related to healthcare and retirement plans.We basically straight up earn 50% less than we would under the US system. In any case, we already had that system in place during the Cold War.The 90s cuts to defense spending happened because the Neoliberals were very enamoured with the whole "End of History"-thing and tried to cut back on defense spending. Europe was just... more successful at it, as its international politics happened under the Pax Americana, which precluded it from making good of its international interests through force of arms anyway. Painting it like we we did it to fuck over the US is very out of touch and appropriate for out-of-touch brainlets like Trump and his donor.
>>64193933All they had to do was rip off TAM 2 while maintaining it's 32t weight
>>64201820What are the optics and communications equipment like on those?>32t weightPayload capacity of a C-130 is 21t, so that wouldn't help.
>>64201820They didn't do that for a reason. Even the booker's modest armor package protects it from a lot of the more common threats. Tam 2 has practicly none to speak of
>>64201841Nta but that one in particular is one of the modernized versions, so it has modern or newrly modern comms and sensors. They also make/made an IP version but so far that hasn't left the prototype phase
>>64198624the Bradley is actually in service, I would like my IFV/AFV/Assault Gun/Whatever to be real. We were robbed of pic-related.>>64201748funny how the eurofags managed to come up with the money all of a sudden and then act like the US is terrible for making them pay their share.
>>64201873>We were robbed of pic-relatedtfw his IFV doesn't weigh 80 tons:>funny how the eurofags managed to come up with the money all of a sudden and then act like the US is terrible for making them pay their sharealso that the entire world memoryholed that time when Trump told them 7 years ago to rearm
>>64201849How do nearly modern Argentinian sensors and comms compare to the same sensors and comms used in the M1A2 SEPv3 including full compatibility with any future upgrades? And how much lighter than the Booker do you think the Improved Protection version is going to be? And given that the lightest configuration of the vehicle still can't be carried by a C-130, what do you think the advantages might be?>>64201873Booker is real, they made like 70 of them before canceling it. The MGV was going to be shit and massively overpriced and there's a reason it's dead. NLOS-C had promise though. It's a pity it wouldn't have been viable without the other vehicles sharing a hull.
>>64201893I don't know, anon. Probably doesn't compare favorably. The IP version used thr same kind of armor package as the namer I believe so I'm sure it would increase the weight dramatically, probably why it never left prototype phase. I wasn't trying to make a point of it I was just stating fact. As I said here>>64201844there's a reason they didn't "just" make another tam 2
>>64201909>I don't know, anon. Probably doesn't compare favorablynothing in the world has better electronics than FBCB2
>>64201748they had their social security states from the 70ies onward while paying on average over 4.5% of GDP on defense.that's a matter of fact not feeling.and Ukraine can keep going with just their support. the question is if the US really wants to do so. it's already lost out on it's global arbiter status with recent wars being ended not by it's mediation but by much smaller regional players. giving up on aid to Ukraine meas that it won't be able to influence the final outcome of the war.the US would in effect be making it's self a lot less relevant on the global stage. not something you want to be doing while trying to form an alliance to contain the chinese in asia.
>>64201873>making them pay their sharewhat share is that?NATO was made to help protect western europe from the USSR. the are able to take on russia on their own if needed even when spening less than 2%.>muh US troopsthe US has less than 100k troops in europe, more then half of those in logistics connecting the US with the middle east, Africa and western asia.meanwhile the europeans have about 2 million men in uniform.what they don't like is any ally telling them that they may or may not live up to their treaty obligations with them depending on how the president spoke to last. that introduces a lot of uncertainty meaning they have to spend more.but no one would like that, including al the Asian countries the US is courting for it's containment of China.
>>64198762Armor division that CAN fight alongside infantry but can also operate entirely as a mechanized force>armor column that NEEDS to fight alongside infantry to handle basic maintenance
