User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:18:41 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistorySee all that extra padding? It would help out with our tanks, given that ours has no DU in it's armour. The gun looks short due to the extra padding |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:26:21 AM EDT
[#2]
I'm no tank expert, but what about the Merkava?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:36:52 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can't drop a Bradley from a C-130 via parachute.. which is what they want to be able to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
An up armored Bradley wont fill this roll?? I though that I read that Brads were taking out Iraqi tanks in GW1. This is going to be a trillion dollar black hole.  You can't drop a Bradley from a C-130 via parachute.. which is what they want to be able to do. Watch Pentagon Wars. Kenny is right about the trillion dollar black hole. They will come up with an initial design and wind up with something six times the original size. And it won't be C-130 portable. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:40:34 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait a minute! Do the South Africans still make the Rooikat? (using my phone, else I would look it up myself. ) What do you think beat the Stryker in the competition? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 2:58:50 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because with out it, the airborne has a hard time explaining why they are not duplicative of the USMC. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why in gods name are we still hung up on the C130 requirement? Because with out it, the airborne has a hard time explaining why they are not duplicative of the USMC. we have 200 C17s. Can we put our armored vehicles in those and throw paratroopers out of 130s if need be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:00:39 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I fucking hate that movie. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like  . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
That is great I fucking hate that movie. A pilot trying to understand an armored vehicle. "What do you mean your only priority ISN"T crew survival?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:01:38 AM EDT
[#7]
Based on the monster equipment and shit my brother jumps with. I don't see a problem accomplishing this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:01:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote Historyno less retarded than the stryker. and, yes, wheeled is probably the only way to get better than 50 cal protection that weighs less than 14 tons armed and fueled. 4 wheeled at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:03:38 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm no tank expert, but what about the Merkava? Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm no tank expert, but what about the Merkava? It's a great tank. It's also about 60 tons, which makes it roughly 40 tons too heavy to air drop. Quoted:
See all that extra padding? It would help out with our tanks, given that ours has no DU in it's armour. The gun looks short due to the extra padding Those wedges are hollow, not solid armor. You could probably refit a similar system to the M1 if so desired. You could also just buy the DU armor. But, for all we know, the DU may have been replaced with a similar substitute rather than just removed. For example, tungsten. But I bet we're not going to find out any time soon. As for your other complaints, the M1's gas turbine is multi-fuel, it doesn't NEED JP8 and it was designed to burn a range of fuels. If it became necessary, I bet the M1s could be refitted with L/55 main guns...Or you could just buy some DU rounds if they were needed for anti-armor work. I will point out though that there are plenty of Leopard 2 users who aren't upgrading to the L/55 main gun. Canada seems to have decided that the L/44 was better for use in places like A-stan, and they dropped plans to upgrade the 2A4M CAN to L/55s. Sweden and Denmark are happy with the L/44 on their Strv-122 and 2A5DKs as well. The Leopard 2 is a great tank, but I'd like to just point one little thing out... The 120mm armed Abrams tanks carry 42 rounds of main gun ammunition, all stored in two armored ammunition compartments with blow off panels. The Leopard 2 stores it's 15 ready rounds in an armored compartment in the turret with blow off panels. The other 27 get nice and cozy with the driver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:34:27 AM EDT
[#10]
Just re-fit some Gavins and be done with it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:39:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Parachuting into a war zone with a large force is a bad idea. The concept ran its course during WWII.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:39:06 AM EDT
[#12]
The M8 would be a good one............unless they want a modern day Stug IV assault gun, or something like the SU-85. Why was the M-8 cancelled?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:42:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Parachuting into a war zone with a large force is a bad idea. The concept ran its course during WWII. panama. grenada. See also, desert storm (while not parachuting, the same concept of strategic mobility.) You might also enjoy aspects of RLI (though this was a lack of helicopters, which the US Army is embarking upon.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:53:13 AM EDT
[#14]
Light tanks- easy kills. Just drop a couple of SMAW with those airborne.
Then they have the gun without the weight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 3:55:39 AM EDT
[#15]
Keep in mind that what organic anti-armor capability the Airborne does have is currently provided by the ancient TOW missile.
When I was an 11H many moons ago, they promised us a fire-and-forget missile like a Hellfire or Javelin....10 years later they're still firing missiles made in the 70's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:03:52 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FUCK IT just bring back the chaffee Some European country - Denmark, IIRC - updated the M24 with a 90mm gun and used it into the late-70s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:07:17 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Keep in mind that what organic anti-armor capability the Airborne does have is currently provided by the ancient TOW missile. When I was an 11H many moons ago, they promised us a fire-and-forget missile like a Hellfire or Javelin....10 years later they're still firing missiles made in the 70's. No. they have javelins and have had them for quite a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:08:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A pilot trying to understand an armored vehicle. "What do you mean your only priority ISN"T crew survival?" "There was a war between 1972 and 1985?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:13:29 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some European country - Denmark, IIRC - updated the M24 with a 90mm gun and used it into the late-70s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
FUCK IT just bring back the chaffee Some European country - Denmark, IIRC - updated the M24 with a 90mm gun and used it into the late-70s. Norway 
Denmark had M41DKs for recon vehicles,upgraded with turbodiesel,laser rangefinder etc but still with 76mm gun 
The Waffenträger idea makes the most sense but it won't happen. There is no hope of air dropping what they'd come up with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:13:38 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Tiger and MRH are unproven designs. The Leo2 has been around for fucking ages and is known to work well. Not only that, the Leo2 is currently optimised to use tungsten rounds, whereas the m1 is optimised for DU. We don't use DU, so why not get the tank with the longer barrel for tungsten? Not only that, most of our shit uses diesel, so why get a tank that needs JP8 or whatever? In the end, those purchases were purely political, but they should have got it the other way around. Euro for tanks and US for helicopters. That, and we got a hell of a deal on the M1s When the ADF fights, it fights with Americans, unless its losing to Indonesians. When it trains, it trains with Americans. Interoperability is key. The Abrams is the most combat proven free world tank, having fought against a wider variety of adversaries in more challenging tactical conditions than anyone else, to include the Merk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:16:09 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't help but think of the Striker with a 105mm cannon. LAV III but with a cannon. It's already here. I can understanding upgrading the systems and all, just don't go nutz. That's what I thought it was for in the first place |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:16:37 AM EDT
[#22]
Could an AMX13/90 could fill the bill with a DU round?
90mm HE and Canister would certainly do well against mud structures and people behind light cover. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:17:22 AM EDT
[#23]
The Army contract called for a "Light" Tank
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:17:57 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Norway http://i.imgur.com/sS8PO.png Denmark had M41DKs for recon vehicles,upgraded with turbodiesel,laser rangefinder etc but still with 76mm gun http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/m41dk1.jpg The Waffenträger idea makes the most sense but it won't happen. There is no hope of air dropping what they'd come up with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
FUCK IT just bring back the chaffee Some European country - Denmark, IIRC - updated the M24 with a 90mm gun and used it into the late-70s. Norway http://i.imgur.com/sS8PO.png Denmark had M41DKs for recon vehicles,upgraded with turbodiesel,laser rangefinder etc but still with 76mm gun http://www.armyvehicles.dk/images/m41dk1.jpg The Waffenträger idea makes the most sense but it won't happen. There is no hope of air dropping what they'd come up with. Thanks, that's the one. Looks like that would be air-droppable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:22:03 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
These people did.
That wasn't the question. The question was who would buy a new light tank, in particular a tank like what is being discussed. Damn near everyone needs an MBT. Hardly anybody needs a light tank. Besides, of all the countries you listed, only 1 buys it's own equipment and pays for it all by itself, and does not rely on the US for maintenance. Hardly an export market when you're giving them away for free Bah, you're just mad we wouldn't sell you upsidedowners any F22's. I'm mad we bought we bought neutered M1s instead of Leo2s. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who would by a 60t main battle tank? These people did.
That wasn't the question. The question was who would buy a new light tank, in particular a tank like what is being discussed. Damn near everyone needs an MBT. Hardly anybody needs a light tank. Besides, of all the countries you listed, only 1 buys it's own equipment and pays for it all by itself, and does not rely on the US for maintenance. Hardly an export market when you're giving them away for free Bah, you're just mad we wouldn't sell you upsidedowners any F22's. I'm mad we bought we bought neutered M1s instead of Leo2s. You realize of course, they were neutered on request of your government. Australia was one of only countries offered the full package Abrams. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:28:21 AM EDT
[#26]
He actually thinks we'll use airborne forces! Lol
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:33:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anything small enough to fit in a C130 won't be survivable on today's battlefield unless they hang all the RPG cages etc on it, and then it won't fit in a C130. Unless it is small and fast enough to break the kill chain through evasion or low signature/footprint. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:41:19 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless it is small and fast enough to break the kill chain through evasion or low signature/footprint. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anything small enough to fit in a C130 won't be survivable on today's battlefield unless they hang all the RPG cages etc on it, and then it won't fit in a C130. Unless it is small and fast enough to break the kill chain through evasion or low signature/footprint. Funny you say that. I was thinking bring back the M-151. Quoted:
Quoted:
M113 air droppable fucking GAVIN! WTF is a Gavin? Are you a dynamicpara fan or something? It was a joke dumbass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:48:43 AM EDT
[#29]
What's wrong with the BMP-3? Less than 20 tons and a 100mm gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:51:47 AM EDT
[#30]
T92?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 4:53:19 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. they have javelins and have had them for quite a while. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Keep in mind that what organic anti-armor capability the Airborne does have is currently provided by the ancient TOW missile. When I was an 11H many moons ago, they promised us a fire-and-forget missile like a Hellfire or Javelin....10 years later they're still firing missiles made in the 70's. No. they have javelins and have had them for quite a while. So mounted TOWs are out? I understood that while everyone was an 11B/11C now, the TOW/ITAS is still in use by the mounted anti-tank elements and the crunchies are still humping the Javelin. If I'm wrong...good. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:02:05 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So mounted TOWs are out? I understood that while everyone was an 11B/11C now, the TOW/ITAS is still in use by the mounted anti-tank elements and the crunchies are still humping the Javelin. If I'm wrong...good. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Keep in mind that what organic anti-armor capability the Airborne does have is currently provided by the ancient TOW missile. When I was an 11H many moons ago, they promised us a fire-and-forget missile like a Hellfire or Javelin....10 years later they're still firing missiles made in the 70's. No. they have javelins and have had them for quite a while. So mounted TOWs are out? I understood that while everyone was an 11B/11C now, the TOW/ITAS is still in use by the mounted anti-tank elements and the crunchies are still humping the Javelin. If I'm wrong...good. They still have TOWs mounted on HMMWVs with the scouts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:05:07 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryYES! Bring back the Lee! |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:07:46 AM EDT
[#34]
We already did this.
Just fucking order the M8 Armored Gun System already. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:11:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When the ADF fights, it fights with Americans, unless its losing to Indonesians. When it trains, it trains with Americans. Interoperability is key. The Abrams is the most combat proven free world tank, having fought against a wider variety of adversaries in more challenging tactical conditions than anyone else, to include the Merk. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The Tiger and MRH are unproven designs. The Leo2 has been around for fucking ages and is known to work well. Not only that, the Leo2 is currently optimised to use tungsten rounds, whereas the m1 is optimised for DU. We don't use DU, so why not get the tank with the longer barrel for tungsten? Not only that, most of our shit uses diesel, so why get a tank that needs JP8 or whatever? In the end, those purchases were purely political, but they should have got it the other way around. Euro for tanks and US for helicopters. That, and we got a hell of a deal on the M1s When the ADF fights, it fights with Americans, unless its losing to Indonesians. When it trains, it trains with Americans. Interoperability is key. The Abrams is the most combat proven free world tank, having fought against a wider variety of adversaries in more challenging tactical conditions than anyone else, to include the Merk. There aren't a whole lot of things which are 100% interoperable with the US. The main shared components are ammunition, and that's the same with the Leo2. If you were aiming for a completely interoperable force with the US, then the Tiger and MRH would not have been selected. Again, it was a political decision coupled with the good deal we got. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:11:46 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They will gift them to FEMA. LOL!!! exactly! Pretty much any new .mil tech that we just "have to have" count on your local Sherriff having a dozen of them in 24 months when the military realizes they made a smal mistake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:13:07 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No we have the shorty. The Abrams engine can burn diesel I believe. Can't most jets if needed? The Abrams was optimised for fighting from defilade and relocating in European conditions... other tactics might favor other tanks. All M-1 variants can burn deisel. Just have to change filters. Not a Mechanic so not sure of what filters but do know you don't have to change filters but will run into problems quickly if you don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:14:45 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You realize of course, they were neutered on request of your government. Australia was one of only countries offered the full package Abrams. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:17:19 AM EDT
[#39]
They will probably just givem the Stryker MGS's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:19:30 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .as a paratrooper who remembers the air drooped tank they were useless it would be better to get German weasels, you can put 2 on a chinook and they can be air dropped like a d5 dozer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:23:15 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why they got rid of the Sheridans is anyones guess. it had the largest bore for a scout vehicle and the army has tons of them No dropping them had to be done by flying a c130 at about 5 feet then popping a pilot chute which pulled out the tank in95- 96 we had 3 c130s crash trying the technique so we dropped the tank. also the tank's hull was aluminum and not tough enough to stop anything. so it was useless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:24:11 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anywhere you want a light tank is probably somewhere it is tough to bring a C-130 into. Advanced man portable air defense systems, advanced tactical SAMs, modernized air defense artillery, etc all pose significant threats, and any adversary that has those probably also has pretty decent anti-armor capabilities (mines, ATGMs, etc). So I kind of question the entire premise. If anything, light infantry need mobility, not protection, so that we can drop them close but just outside the heaviest air defenses and have them zip the last few klicks with some sort of transport, at least for logistics support. Also, designing for the C-130 seems like a significant self-imposed limitation. We have a substantial C-17 fleet, and the C-17 brings a lot more capability to the table. Land a C17 on a dirt strip and tell me how that works out for you. Hey, those are only 10 million a pop engines, so what? There's a reason the C17's never took over the 130's role. While capable, they're little more than a C5 that's a bit smaller and equipped with better avionics. Both suffer from the same critical failure: Being too damned big and fragile for what you think they should be used for. The newer SAM's are no match for modern countermeasures. OPSEC being what it is, you're just going to have to take my word for it when I say that MANPADs against the newer iterations of countermeasure onboard 130's are about as useful as a spitwad. Modern AAA being dangerous as fuck, is even more dangerous to a high flying C17 than a NOE flying 130. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:25:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M8 AGS comeback tour? I like it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:25:28 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They've been around for a while...105mm gun. (ETA: Stryker MGS...mobile gun system) They did have a problem with them tipping over when firing broadside if I remember right... http://www.sbct.army.mil/images/mobile-gun-system.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I can't help but think of the Striker with a 105mm cannon. LAV III but with a cannon. It's already here. I can understanding upgrading the systems and all, just don't go nutz. I've seen a couple strykers running around harmony church with a very large main gun. They did have a problem with them tipping over when firing broadside if I remember right... http://www.sbct.army.mil/images/mobile-gun-system.jpg IIRC that was with a 120 MM gun, the 105 was OK for broadside shots aslong as the chasis was level. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:25:36 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Land a C17 on a dirt strip and tell me how that works out for you. Hey, those are only 10 million a pop engines, so what? There's a reason the C17's never took over the 130's role. While capable, they're little more than a C5 that's a bit smaller and equipped with better avionics. Both suffer from the same critical failure: Being too damned big and fragile for what you think they should be used for. The newer SAM's are no match for modern countermeasures. OPSEC being what it is, you're just going to have to take my word for it when I say that MANPADs against the newer iterations of countermeasure onboard 130's are about as useful as a spitwad. Modern AAA being dangerous as fuck, is even more dangerous to a high flying C17 than a NOE flying 130. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anywhere you want a light tank is probably somewhere it is tough to bring a C-130 into. Advanced man portable air defense systems, advanced tactical SAMs, modernized air defense artillery, etc all pose significant threats, and any adversary that has those probably also has pretty decent anti-armor capabilities (mines, ATGMs, etc). So I kind of question the entire premise. If anything, light infantry need mobility, not protection, so that we can drop them close but just outside the heaviest air defenses and have them zip the last few klicks with some sort of transport, at least for logistics support. Also, designing for the C-130 seems like a significant self-imposed limitation. We have a substantial C-17 fleet, and the C-17 brings a lot more capability to the table. Land a C17 on a dirt strip and tell me how that works out for you. Hey, those are only 10 million a pop engines, so what? There's a reason the C17's never took over the 130's role. While capable, they're little more than a C5 that's a bit smaller and equipped with better avionics. Both suffer from the same critical failure: Being too damned big and fragile for what you think they should be used for. The newer SAM's are no match for modern countermeasures. OPSEC being what it is, you're just going to have to take my word for it when I say that MANPADs against the newer iterations of countermeasure onboard 130's are about as useful as a spitwad. Modern AAA being dangerous as fuck, is even more dangerous to a high flying C17 than a NOE flying 130. thats unpossible. because AC-130s can only fly at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:25:55 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Getting rid of them was silly to begin with. But i wonder what kind of hell the procurement and development for a new light tank will be like .Getting rid of the M551 Sheridan was a smart move it was always a booger. Dude as a paratrooper I loved that lumber behemouth of a gun |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:31:06 AM EDT
[#47]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:35:15 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know that. They were neutered because DU is still uranium, so all the lefites chucked a shit. Same reason why we don't use DU rounds. Either way, they have been neutered and do not use the same rounds as the US, so it makes much more sense to use something that was optimised for tungsten. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You realize of course, they were neutered on request of your government. Australia was one of only countries offered the full package Abrams. Throw on L55 tubes, optimize FCS for said tubes. Problem solved. From what I hear, your tankers love their M1's. The no DU thing is retarded, I get the crying about the ammo to an extent, but the armor package? Talk about stupid... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:36:52 AM EDT
[#49]
BAE still has operational prototypes of the XM800T upgraded with a 25mm M242. Throw on a Javelin pod and rock out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/10/2013 5:38:17 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Land a C17 on a dirt strip and tell me how that works out for you. Hey, those are only 10 million a pop engines, so what? There's a reason the C17's never took over the 130's role. While capable, they're little more than a C5 that's a bit smaller and equipped with better avionics. Both suffer from the same critical failure: Being too damned big and fragile for what you think they should be used for. The newer SAM's are no match for modern countermeasures. OPSEC being what it is, you're just going to have to take my word for it when I say that MANPADs against the newer iterations of countermeasure onboard 130's are about as useful as a spitwad. Modern AAA being dangerous as fuck, is even more dangerous to a high flying C17 than a NOE flying 130. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Anywhere you want a light tank is probably somewhere it is tough to bring a C-130 into. Advanced man portable air defense systems, advanced tactical SAMs, modernized air defense artillery, etc all pose significant threats, and any adversary that has those probably also has pretty decent anti-armor capabilities (mines, ATGMs, etc). So I kind of question the entire premise. If anything, light infantry need mobility, not protection, so that we can drop them close but just outside the heaviest air defenses and have them zip the last few klicks with some sort of transport, at least for logistics support. Also, designing for the C-130 seems like a significant self-imposed limitation. We have a substantial C-17 fleet, and the C-17 brings a lot more capability to the table. Land a C17 on a dirt strip and tell me how that works out for you. Hey, those are only 10 million a pop engines, so what? There's a reason the C17's never took over the 130's role. While capable, they're little more than a C5 that's a bit smaller and equipped with better avionics. Both suffer from the same critical failure: Being too damned big and fragile for what you think they should be used for. The newer SAM's are no match for modern countermeasures. OPSEC being what it is, you're just going to have to take my word for it when I say that MANPADs against the newer iterations of countermeasure onboard 130's are about as useful as a spitwad. Modern AAA being dangerous as fuck, is even more dangerous to a high flying C17 than a NOE flying 130. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
.jpg)
