• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Future Armour

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
480
Points
860
Good post FJAG. I knew about their plans to keep that plant producing vehicles even when the US Army said they didn't want anymore (I believe they ran out of places to store 'right off the production line' Abrams) - good info on the cost of starting it up again.

And that's my point.

Starting up production of the F-22, C-17, or C-5 would probably be considered too costly. (Albeit cheaper than designing & producing an entirely new model of aircraft.)

I would think that a very slow, yet steady production of C-17's would be ideal. It wouldn't require restarting a production line, and with some foresight, the production facility could possibly be transferred to a smaller facility elsewhere.


I understand the F-22 has sailed, there won't be anymore built. Most likely the same with the C-5.

But the C-17 was far from lifeless. Sales were down at the time, because everybody had just procured or expanded their strategic transport fleets. Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and a few others developed or grew their strategic transport capabilities.


The US has forces all over the world, both stationed and deployed. The US is actively engaged in a variety of operations throughout the globe. At some point in the future, the US may very well need to procure an extra squadron or two of C-17 type aircraft either due to force restructuring, aircraft losses, aircraft availability (When they start to get old, or the fleet is stretched too thin) - etc etc.

I just think someone involved in that decision making process 'should have' had enough foresight to keep the possibility of building more transport aircraft open. Especially with the focus being on peer / near peer operations in the future. (And there was plenty of talk about refocusing on peer / near peer foes at the time they built the last C-17)




I'm not saying I have the ideal solution, as there are far more knowledgeable people than I. But to not have any strategic transport aircraft available to be built seems like a planning flaw. With the USAF's new force structure (not really new...) They are already a few squadrons short of C-17's. Not being able to build more just seems like it will bite them in the butt.
 

GK .Dundas

Full Member
Reaction score
13
Points
180
I f I were God for a week and of course had access to his bank account .I would a like niche aircraft that a surprising number of countries would like to have a few of these aircraft and couple with deep pockets
( relatively speaking ) to buy more than a few.
My candidate would the YC 14 .
An aircraft that probably should have gone into production except it didn't quite have the political clout necessary to make into production . In fact the whole project was cancelled and so along with the other bidder's aircraft. An administration that changed it's mind about the direction it was going in and of course it saved a couple of bucks.
If you are going to manufacture an aircraft that supplements the C17 or as a replacement go for the Gold standard.
Oh and yes it will happily airlift an CV 90/120 quite nicely.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
180
Good post FJAG. I knew about their plans to keep that plant producing vehicles even when the US Army said they didn't want anymore (I believe they ran out of places to store 'right off the production line' Abrams) - good info on the cost of starting it up again.

And that's my point.

Starting up production of the F-22, C-17, or C-5 would probably be considered too costly. (Albeit cheaper than designing & producing an entirely new model of aircraft.)

I would think that a very slow, yet steady production of C-17's would be ideal. It wouldn't require restarting a production line, and with some foresight, the production facility could possibly be transferred to a smaller facility elsewhere.


I understand the F-22 has sailed, there won't be anymore built. Most likely the same with the C-5.

But the C-17 was far from lifeless. Sales were down at the time, because everybody had just procured or expanded their strategic transport fleets. Canada, the US, the UK, Australia, and a few others developed or grew their strategic transport capabilities.


The US has forces all over the world, both stationed and deployed. The US is actively engaged in a variety of operations throughout the globe. At some point in the future, the US may very well need to procure an extra squadron or two of C-17 type aircraft either due to force restructuring, aircraft losses, aircraft availability (When they start to get old, or the fleet is stretched too thin) - etc etc.

I just think someone involved in that decision making process 'should have' had enough foresight to keep the possibility of building more transport aircraft open. Especially with the focus being on peer / near peer operations in the future. (And there was plenty of talk about refocusing on peer / near peer foes at the time they built the last C-17)




I'm not saying I have the ideal solution, as there are far more knowledgeable people than I. But to not have any strategic transport aircraft available to be built seems like a planning flaw. With the USAF's new force structure (not really new...) They are already a few squadrons short of C-17's. Not being able to build more just seems like it will bite them in the butt.
That ship has sailed for the C-17 too. The plant is gone. It was in Long Beach CA. Boeing did make 5 extra on their own dime to sell. They sold the last one a year or two ago. Boeing is pitching a C-17B with upgrades of course ($). I just a feeling in things I read that the Air Force is waiting to go big time with a something like bended wing or low observational. No more tube and wing.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
22
Points
180
Plus a can see the US doing something. Boeing is hurting with production down. The problems with the best selling 737max, end of 747, 777 sales slowing or stopped, 787 slowing sales too. Airbus announcing a A320 A330 replacement going into development (using A200 tech, I am sure the CDN taxpayer is happy with that one) This move is very strategic because they know Boeing is in trouble and the 737 is the bread and butter of the company and Boeing would be hard pressed to match. So maybe a nice big Government transport program would just the ticket.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
377
Points
910
1627585787976.png


A Belgian John Cockerill Defense C3105 two-person 105 mm turret has been integrated onto a rear mission module of the Boxer 8x8 Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle (MRAV) at Krauss-Maffei Wegmann’s (KMW’s) facilities in Munich, the company has confirmed.

The turret is armed with a 105 mm high-pressure rifled gun fed by an automatic loader, with this version fitted with stabilised day/night sights for commander and gunner, enabling hunter/killer target engagements while stationary or moving.

When fitted with the C3105 turret, the Boxer can carry four dismounts in addition to its driver, commander, and gunner.




 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
573
Points
1,010
Interesting new ad from BAE regarding the CV90 current upgrades. Its really interesting to see their design constraints. So many things to consider when desiginig and IFV.

CV90MkIV Vid
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
573
Points
1,010
This?

CV90MkIV Vid

Or this?

I'm not gonna lie. I get motion sick in vehicles all the time. Not a great look for a navy guy granted.

I'm sure the Ajax will be sorted out. This is normal teething issues. The difference is that the CV 90 is an evolutionary design so lots of that stuff has already been sorted.
 
Top