Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

C-27 Roll on/off Gunship Package


Belesarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...

This seems like a good thing for smaller countries who can't afford a dedicated gunship but need to do counterinsurgency shit (while also having some sort of useful transport capacity).

Yep.  Italy is buying them for Spec Ops support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not just attractive for smaller countries.  A lot of special forces have their own budgets, separate from the rest of the military, from which they can procure toys that they can't get from the regular military supply chain.  A mini gunship on a budget, that quietly fits into existing transports, would likely turn a lot of heads.

 

 

Edit:

This is basically what killed the Mk. 16 SCAR.  SOCOM could get M4s for free from the main US Army supply chain, but they had to pay for SCARs out of their discretionary budget.  Was the SCAR a better rifle?  Seeing as it was designed specifically to SOCOM requirements, I would freaking hope so.  But it was cutting into the budget for things like those fancy stealthed-up UH-60s they used in Neptune Spear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Similar Content

    • By Belesarius
      http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/pilot-killed-border-idINKCN0QQ2A320150821
       
       
      Houthi's are claiming that they shot it down.
       
       
    • By LostCosmonaut
      Just about everyone has heard of the (in)famous F-35B VTOL aircraft, along with its predecessor the Harrier. The Soviets also dabbled in vertical takeoff aircraft throughout the latter half of the Cold War. However, did you know that during the 1960s, NATO seriously considered developing a supersonic VTOL strike fighter? It was thought that airbases would become unusable after the first hours of the war, so having a VTOL strike aircraft would allow NATO to continue striking at Soviet ground forces.
       
      Numerous designs were proposed. One of the most sane the P.1154.
       

      (a conceptual image of the P.1154)
       
      The connection between the P.1154 and the Harrier (via the Kestrel prototype) is easy to see. The P.1154 was itself developed from the earlier P.1150, the original contender for the NATO strike aircraft competition. Like the Harrier, the P.1154 uses a single engine to provide thrust for both vertical takeoff and horizontal flight. This is in contrast to most designs of the era, which used dedicated lift jets. Though the P.1154 was never built, it was a major technological step in the development of VTOL aircraft.
       
       

      The Mirage IIIV is clearly derived from the highly successful Mirage III airframe. However, it can be seen that lift jets have been added in the fuselage aft of the cockpit. No less than eight (!) lift jets are located in the fuselage, in addition to the single main engine. This would certainly have been a maintenance and reliability nightmare, especially in the austere environment of an ongoing (possibly nuclear) conflict. Unlike the P.1154, the Mirage IIIV actually made it to flight status, with two prototypes undergoing testing during the 1960s.
       

       
      The West German VJ101 was an attempt to convert the F-104 Starfighter into a VTOL aircraft. Like the Mirage entry, the VJ101 had lift engines (two in the central fuselage). However, it also had pairs of engines in swiveling pods on the wingtips, which could vary their angle to direct thrust downward or forward (similar to the Bell D-188A. Like the IIIV, the VJ101 made it to flight, and was tested extensively (it has been claimed that the aircraft was capable of supersonic flight without afterburner). With six engines, including four in moving nacelles, the VJ101 would also have been difficult to maintain and keep active.
       

       
      The G.95/6 was the Italian entry (read more about it here). It was the ultimate development of the G.95 VTOL design, which went through several iterations (the G.95/3 resembles a VTOL F-101). In terms of layout, it was closest to the Mirage IIIV, with main engines for forward thrust (two of them) augmented by multiple lift jets (six in this case). Like the other VTOL aircraft, it would have been difficult to maintain, produce and keep reliable. Additionally, like the French and German designs (and the Yak-38), it would have suffered all of the drawbacks associated with lift jets, namely that they are dead weight for 90% of the flight.
       
       
      The failure of the NATO Supersonic VTOL program of the 1960s shows the difficulty in making VTOL practical for a military aircraft. It would take until the 1970s for a subsonic VTOL combat aircraft to be successful (the Harrier), and until the 2010s for a supersonic VTOL aircraft to become workable.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...