/k/ - Weapons

>>662869

PS-not to jack my own brand new thread, but how about a mod of C-130 or similar with NON-retractable "tundra tires" (basically tires so big they can't be retracted) and maybe mods to rest of landing gear for super-extra rough field takeoff-landing ability?

IIRC there was a "sand-ski" attempted on front wheel of 727 or 737 but not pursued because why beatup an airliner on shit field for shit people.

>>662870

cant c130s take off and land on beaches? iirc there was a dutch airforce video depicting this

>>662870

IIRC Janes has a nifty book on aircraft by country with payloads and flight parameters and aircraft dimensions.

>>662877

not sure about the dutch, but here

>>662879

>IIRC Janes has a nifty book on aircraft by country with payloads and flight parameters and aircraft dimensions.

payloads are listed in Wiki, but don't tell the full story, like how heavy a single dense object can be ejected/extracted.

Further, I'm mostly interested in DIMENSIONS of at least the most common versions of C-130 and similar, and how wide and TALL a "package" can be para-dropped out the back.

What about max size of two packages, or if one is X, what is Max-X size (for trailer or jeep, etc.)

>>662890

>>662890

>mostly interested in DIMENSIONS

interior MAX-CARGO SIZE that is.

>>662877

The botched attempt to rescue the Iranian embassy staff required helicopters to land with a couple of KC-130s to refuel in the desert. This all went wrong when an RH-53 taxied into the back of one of the tankers on the ground when the pilot got disoriented by the dust it was kicking up.

>>662907

German/austrian stuff is better.

>>662907

>implying a k2 in 7.62x39 wouldnt be the actual best gun designed

Ok retard

>>662890

C-130 can take in Strykers. Il-76 cannot take in T-72.

That's their max.

Note that they never actually do it, they can in theory do those things because they barely fit in there and the weight is ok, so by taking some of the stuff off they CAN fit in but it's super dangerous to have a plane fly with an armored vehicle touching the surface of the cargo plane as turbulence might cause a slight shift which might cause a hole in the plane. So it would be a one off.

Note that a lot of older planes were made with a basic volume in mind with little care on "how" the payload was supposed to fit in them.

A modern plane like have their defined volume in "NATO standard pallets" (463L) which in fact means Quadcon II containers (as the pallets themselves are flat). 4 of those makes a 20ft TEU.

An A-400 carries 9 of those and still has it's seats accessible.

>>662869

>>662877

>2t251 Port Dog here

the C-130 has a cargo capacity of about 45k lbs with five 463L pallet locations and one on the ramp(the one on the ramp is significantly lighter than the others)

it also has the ability to land and takeoff from improvised airfields.

the C-17 has about 11 pallet positions(loaded side by side), or 5 pallet positions(one on the ramp) if the load plan isn't run side by side. It's carrying capacity is 169k lbs

it has the ability to go in reverse

don't know anything about the new airbus, other than a plane the AF might be working on to replace both aforementioned aircraft by 2030

either way it'll more than likely have roughly the same function as both(acting as a middle child to the two hypothetically speaking) with roughly 45klbs more carry weight than the c130, and all of its malleability though with all of the c17s technological advancements

>>663064

>c17

18 pallets my bad

>>663065

>5 pallets

10 pallets, again, my bad

looks like Stryker is about max that CAN fit in C-130, so should be general MAX-airlift size and weight, with about 10% less weight being more practical.

>>663087

>20 rubles have been deposited into your account

Kenyans aren't dropping shit out of an IL-76. Don't take it personally every time somebody mentions that niggers use Russian stuff without going out of their way to praise a capability Russia developed last year.

>>663120

As a patriot, if I'm being honest, it's obvious Russia spends their money better than we do.

>>663120

> pushing you guys up a hill

You have way with words, Komrade.

"They've been dropping people out of planes at high speed since WWII. Sometimes without parachutes." Yes, IIRC was almost 12% success rate in the nearly 12% of droppies were considered "combat ready" after drop, which by Soviet terms means could stand on own two legs if threatened with execution.

However, getting back to my USAF Light Attack thread, in addition to powered parachute borne infantry, one reason I suggest using a twin-engine transport based aircraft for CAS is to combine with paratroops (hopefully with parawings, not just potato-sack dumps) or even....wait for it.....wing mounted human pod/paratroops. Something you could stuff a combat soldier into and mount on hardpoint like 500lb bomb. I figure 500lbs is about what it will be with 200lb man, full battle gear, extra ammo, water and food, maybe couple bazooka and bicycle. Something that allows extra fast drop without injury and good control on way down for fast, on-demand, precision insertion of small numbers of troops by CAS.

>>663134

>noo, m-muh special snowflake hollowpoint used by some fudd hunters is good though

>>663171

Wow, you're actually retarded. Get the fuck out to cuckchan, you dumbfuck noguns brainlet.

>>663134

The M67 projectile pretty much replicates what 5.45 does anyway and its ~10 years older than 5.45.

>>663165

that looks real good, especially the contra-rotating blades. I hear that not only does contra-rotating solve hi-speed stall (not a factor here) but more importantly is easier to fly without the need to off-set main rotor toque with little rear spinner (with I hear is quite challenging, can easily "get away from you" and takes 100hr of hours to be able to do as "2nd nature".)

>>663176

>seething this much

A single esoteric meme non-military loading doesn't make the cartridge good as a whole.

>>663200

It replicates it's ability to tumble, sure, but it has no where near the barrier/armour penetration capability of 5.45, has ballistics like a rock, has much more recoil, is much heavier, is much larger and is also more expensive.

The only good intermediate cartridges currently in use are 5.45 and Mk 262. 6.5 Grendel would count if Serbia actually adopted it instead of just threatening to.

>>663408

Most commercial 7.62 loadings mangle anything they touch. The frog made my other points.

>>662902

this use of retro-RATL(anding) on C-130 looks promising.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKCl3lfAx1Q

Looks like the VTOL components of RATL system didn't fire, which caused it to drop, which busted the wing.

Anyways, IMO the real flaw was something about how a CONVOY of trucks was supposed to sneak through Tehran in wee-hours of the morning, filled with US commandos. Not gonna happen. Even under the Shah they didn't have official roads even in Tehran, "path" would change as diff people would set up shops, markets, etc. And Iranians are notoriously nosy people, who always want to know everyone business. And the whole sprawling city would be CRAWLING with heavily armed ex-Shah's Army guys with good US equip who weren't afraid to die, manning countless Revolutionary Checkpoints on guard for any counter revolutionary spies, much less CONVOY of several hundred US troops, none of who speak a word of Iranian, Arabic or anything but GI Ebonics.

Just drop it at 50 feet out the back