NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[Gallia-]

What is Mi-26 actually used for? Like ok, it's a big helicopter. So what? Why do you need a helicopter this big as opposed to something like CH-47 or even CH-54? What did Russian planners have in mind when they asked for a 20 tonne lift capacity? BMD-2? A pair of them? I'm trying to figure it out because the USA had Advanced Cargo Aircraft and AMT which were both supposed to lift FCS tankettes, so they needed similar h o i s t to Mi-26, but I'm still not sure why Mi-26 exists. I'm not sure where I should stop with Galla's air assault troops, basically.

Is there just a benefit to having really big HLHs as opposed to more of smaller HLH like Chinook or Tarhe?

Was ACA the only machine that could lift a HMMWV + M119 + crew + ammo? Can Chinook not do this? Chief Engineer C. Jaran talks about medium lift helos like Chinook requiring almost 10 lifts for an 8-ship company to move all their cargo, presumably guns and ammo, over a few hundred miles distance. Being able to hoist all this in one or two loads is a huge gain, especially internally.

So if I want to hoist a towed gun battery of HMMWVs and M119s (this is highly relevant, because this is the core basis of Galla's air assault artillery, besides mortars) then I need something as big as Halo/ACA to hoist this? That could be a compelling reason for Galla to use ACA I suppose. I don't know what the internal footprint of M119 + HMMWV + crew + ammo is.

Assumptions are the HMMWV is non-armored. An M1069 Prime Mover with ammo rack maxed out (I don't know how many rounds or propellant charges sorry) and gun crew seated external to the truck and gun, with the gun hitched for RO/RO onload/offload at an LZ. Five to six gun crewmen per gun. Maybe an 8 ship strength company.

IIRC it was to lift BMPs and/or ballistic missiles from airfields to remote locations and do it at fairly high altitudes. IMHO it's probably the need to distribute bigger missiles to remote firing locations that drove things rather than the need to.lift BMPs that seems to have been added fairly far along.
The carrying of roughly company sized blocks of light infantry seems to have been something that came later.

The US Army seems to have added infantry company blocks from the start. Or Sikorsky did.

But basically Mi-26 isn't a tactical weapon but like, an Air Force/Strategic Rocket Force support ship?

I suppose that makes sense, like the Saturn V recovery helicopter or whatever but sensible.

Are gigacopters useful for tactical units like infantry brigades and battalions conducting air assaults?

The rubric described by Chief Engineer Jaran seems inherently biased towards super heavy gigacopters, probably by design, but it's also implied to be a US Army tool. So really I'm just wondering how useful it is to lift a gun battery in a single assault lift rather than two or three.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/5qx6y1nkzaxh7i ... n.pdf?dl=0

[-Celibrae-]

IIRC it was to lift BMPs and/or ballistic missiles from airfields to remote locations and do it at fairly high altitudes. IMHO it's probably the need to distribute bigger missiles to remote firing locations that drove things rather than the need to.lift BMPs that seems to have been added fairly far along.
The carrying of roughly company sized blocks of light infantry seems to have been something that came later.

The US Army seems to have added infantry company blocks from the start. Or Sikorsky did.

But basically Mi-26 isn't a tactical weapon but like, an Air Force/Strategic Rocket Force support ship?

I suppose that makes sense, like the Saturn V recovery helicopter or whatever but sensible.

Are gigacopters useful for tactical units like infantry brigades and battalions conducting air assaults?

The rubric described by Chief Engineer Jaran seems inherently biased towards super heavy gigacopters, probably by design, but it's also implied to be a US Army tool. So really I'm just wondering how useful it is to lift a gun battery in a single assault lift rather than two or three.

It's size is probably it's biggest disadvantage. It limits where the thing can land, and when it is landed, it'll take more time to offload by nature of being an entire battery rather than one gun, making it a sitting duck for longer than you'd like.

[Gallia-]

Flying more missions is obviously more dangerous because it takes longer for the battery to become operational, uses the transports for a longer length of time (virtual attrition), and exposes the helicopters to attack for a greater period.

Internal transport is generally a good thing and Chinook can carry an M119, Prime Mover, ammo, and crew with external load, but external slings are shit.

[-Celibrae-]

Flying more missions is obviously more dangerous because it takes longer for the battery to become operational, uses the transports for a longer length of time (virtual attrition), and exposes the helicopters to attack for a greater period.

Internal transport is generally a good thing and Chinook can carry an M119, Prime Mover, ammo, and crew with external load, but external slings are shit.

Fair enough, but you still lose the whole battery if one goes kaboom. An intermediate solution may be in order.

[Gallia-]

That's not how it works.

A gun battery with five guns and six prime movers, or six guns and five prime movers, is still a reduced gun battery. Five guns and five prime movers is better than either of the former.

Air assault is much like amphibious assault in that it relies on rapidly building up combat power in a distant place. Decreasing the amount of time to build a similar amount of combat power is generally a great thing. I'm basically asking to what extent you can replace a single heavy lift helo with more medium lift aircraft, assuming they can both accomplish the mission. What I'm really questioning is internal vs. external payloads and whether having a helicopter that can h o i s t large external payloads internally is worth the time.

It's an open question.

[-Celibrae-]

That's not how it works.

Okay. I'll go away now.

External hoists limit the range and speed of Chinooks so seeking to carry things internally is a natural progression. CH-53E has been expanded to carry Humvees in the CH-53K, so the Marines think so anyway.

[Gallia-]

The assumption in the ACA document is that both aircraft (Chinook and ACA) can do the same mission. The difference is that ACA is able to lift Chinook's payloads internally, whereas Chinook requires external slings. This obviously reduces Chinook's range and makes it kind of shitty to fly because it needs to fly higher to avoid random obstacles, but aside from that, ceteris paribus, is internal payload worth the time to have a massive helicopter that's bigger than a C-130?

That's what I was asking about Mi-26: It seems to be a ship designed to carry a specific large payload internally, whereas previous ships did it externally, but this might not be the case in light of Crookfur's post.

I'm inherently biased towards internal payload because it increases speed and range. I'm looking for arguments against internal payload. I'm also looking for any reasons why Mi-26 isn't a tactical assault ship.

Landing area size is a real thing but it's not a game breaker either, Jaran discusses it in the ACA document.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/5qx6y1nkzaxh7i ... n.pdf?dl=0

Just read that first.

The only thing springing to mind is physical profile (big helicopter is big) and transportability. ACA isn't flying across the oceans and it isn't fitting in a C-5. Or fitting in anything, for that matter. Doesn't seem to have bothered Mi-26 much but I don't know what Mi-26 actually does either. For all I know it could be used as a flying crane to lift boosters for ICBMs and carry FROG-7s internally for the rocket forces, without ever seeing a single air assault mission. OTOH I doubt external carriage is a particularly suitable method of assault lift (it might be, IDK), Jaran doesn't mention it very much except to say that ACA was designed to internally carry what Chinook can externally carry. Apparently the Army considered this valuable enough to warrant serious consideration.

It's from 1990 so it's not infected by FCS. Yet.

[-Celibrae-]

For the sake of looking at this from another angle, why not use a C-130 to parachute the guns in to helicopter troops? Are there any serious detriments to this?

Apart from less cavalry spirit, of course.

[North Arkana]

For the sake of looking at this from another angle, why not use a C-130 to parachute the guns in to helicopter troops? Are there any serious detriments to this?

Apart from less cavalry spirit, of course.

Because
https://youtu.be/kjF8ju7YeLI

[-Celibrae-]

For the sake of looking at this from another angle, why not use a C-130 to parachute the guns in to helicopter troops? Are there any serious detriments to this?

Apart from less cavalry spirit, of course.

Because
https://youtu.be/kjF8ju7YeLI

Press F to pay respects.

Then again...

[Gallia-]

Planes have a bigger profile than helicopters and parachutes aren't super accurate? Galla uses C-27 and YC-14 instead of C-130 anyway. The only thing I can say is that it wouldn't be likely, but only because it's a serious competitor in the tactical assault role.

I suppose in Galla they would also be tasked with theater airlift rather than direct support of a division's air assault missions, but that's probably a matter of personal preference. For assault by a small unit (battalion battlegroup, under 200 miles) I don't really see a huge benefit in using tactical airlifters over heavy and medium lift helicopters.

The deep assault role (over 200 miles, under 400?) would be filled by a variety of tiltrotors rather than airplanes I guess.

[-Celibrae-]

Notional ACA can only get to theatre by boat. I suppose tactical airlifters could be the backup plan if no ACAs are available/have not arrived?

[Gallia-]

The paratroopers would probably just steal some trucks and drive there if they had no helicopters.

[-Celibrae-]

The paratroopers would probably just steal some trucks and drive there if they had no helicopters.

Is hotwiring civilian vehicles one of the skills they teach at Gallan airborne school?

Hood.

[Gallia-]

In the US Army they learn it on the street.

It worked in Panama and Grenada.

[The Akasha Colony]

The assumption in the ACA document is that both aircraft (Chinook and ACA) can do the same mission. The difference is that ACA is able to lift Chinook's payloads internally, whereas Chinook requires external slings. This obviously reduces Chinook's range and makes it kind of shitty to fly because it needs to fly higher to avoid random obstacles, but aside from that, ceteris paribus, is internal payload worth the time to have a massive helicopter that's bigger than a C-130?

That's what I was asking about Mi-26: It seems to be a ship designed to carry a specific large payload internally, whereas previous ships did it externally, but this might not be the case in light of Crookfur's post.

I'm inherently biased towards internal payload because it increases speed and range. I'm looking for arguments against internal payload. I'm also looking for any reasons why Mi-26 isn't a tactical assault ship.

Landing area size is a real thing but it's not a game breaker either, Jaran discusses it in the ACA document.

https://dl.dropbox.com/s/5qx6y1nkzaxh7i ... n.pdf?dl=0

Just read that first.

The only thing springing to mind is physical profile (big helicopter is big) and transportability. ACA isn't flying across the oceans and it isn't fitting in a C-5. Or fitting in anything, for that matter. Doesn't seem to have bothered Mi-26 much but I don't know what Mi-26 actually does either. For all I know it could be used as a flying crane to lift boosters for ICBMs and carry FROG-7s internally for the rocket forces, without ever seeing a single air assault mission. OTOH I doubt external carriage is a particularly suitable method of assault lift (it might be, IDK), Jaran doesn't mention it very much except to say that ACA was designed to internally carry what Chinook can externally carry. Apparently the Army considered this valuable enough to warrant serious consideration.

It's from 1990 so it's not infected by FCS. Yet.

Crookfur's right about Mi-26, at least as far as I've heard.

Mi-26 was supposed to be the last leg of the distribution chain for Soviet ballistic missiles when they were being deployed to their remote firing bases.

An-22 was supposed to be the first leg of this chain, flying the missiles to the nearest rough airfield at which point the cargo would be transferred to the V-12/V-16, which is why they share the same general payload area dimensions as the An-22 and were supposed to have internal gantry cranes. But the Soviets moved away from enormous ICBMs in fixed remote bases toward rail-mobile solutions and smaller silo-based ICBMs, so the An-22 order was reduced and the expensive V-12/V-16 was cancelled in favor of the simpler and cheaper Mi-26. Like the An-22, the Mi-26 found life as an air assault transport, even though this wasn't its original (primary) purpose. The Mi-26 retains the internal gantry crane even though this would not be necessary or useful for vehicular cargo or passenger flights.

[New Oyashima]

The S-69 is v. Kyuuto, so now I use it as a rapid AirCav transport.

[Gallia-]

The S-69 is v. Kyuuto, so now I use it as a rapid AirCav transport.

ur v. kyuuto id rapid S-69 u~ owo

also stop stealing my memes ):<

[-Celibrae-]

Going back to the MIC discussion, how do private subcontractors factor in to the whole government-owned conglomerate thing?

Also, regarding the ACA, doesn't this provide another excuse to go quad tiltrotor?

[United Muscovite Nations]

how big of a trebuchet would I need to hurl a battleship 300 meters toward enemy fortifications

serious replies only

[Gallia-]

Going back to the MIC discussion, how do private subcontractors factor in to the whole government-owned conglomerate thing?

Also, regarding the ACA, doesn't this provide another excuse to go quad tiltrotor?

No.

ACA literally discusses tiltrotors and says they have a lower specific productivity value.

QTR seems to be an Air Force invention designed to subvert twenty years of US Army funding to secure more money for the Air Force budget in the Austerity Wars.

Not even joking.

[-Celibrae-]

Going back to the MIC discussion, how do private subcontractors factor in to the whole government-owned conglomerate thing?

Also, regarding the ACA, doesn't this provide another excuse to go quad tiltrotor?

No.

ACA literally discusses tiltrotors and says they have a lower specific productivity value.

QTR seems to be an Air Force invention designed to subvert twenty years of US Army funding to secure more money for the Air Force budget in the Austerity Wars.

Not even joking.

I didn't actually know QTR was an Air Force program. It makes sense though. Every Air Force always want a piece of everyone else's pie.

As for my thinking, I was rather intending that you could also use them for 400 kilometre deep strike as well.

[Gallia-]

No.

ACA literally discusses tiltrotors and says they have a lower specific productivity value.

QTR seems to be an Air Force invention designed to subvert twenty years of US Army funding to secure more money for the Air Force budget in the Austerity Wars.

Not even joking.

I didn't actually know QTR was an Air Force program.

It wasn't. QTR was pan-DoD.

Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy.

Then it exploded, either from Army incompetence or Air Force sabotage. It's not really clear but probably both. Much like Russia, the Air Force was whooping and cheering when they saw how wildly successful their sabotage plans were at demolishing Army modernization budget for decades to come.

Because it means more F-35s for them.

It ultimately proves that multiple service branches shouldn't cooperate on defense acquisition. They have rather differing requirements and worldviews with how to approach their unique situations, and you can't really tag something as highly specialized as a heavy lift helicopter to be dual-hatted as a theater airlifter. The Army has been trying to push hard for a 20-ton tactical heavy lift tiltrotor while the Air Force wants a 20-ton VSTOL jet plane with stealth features.

It's much more productive to let each branch procure its own bespoke equipment for a mission rather than try to foist foreign branches' equipment onto another one. Unless it's Navy onto Air Force or Army onto Marines.

OTOH the Marines have a much more successful track record at procuring medium lift helicopters like the Heavy Lift Replacement. Joint Heavy Lift was a trainwreck, but so was anything that touched FCS.

[-Celibrae-]

You can't foist anything if the Air Force and Marines don't exist, amirite?

But then again the Marines are alright because they don't get enough money to sabotage anything. I suppose they're just superfluous.

[Rhodesialund]

It wasn't. QTR was pan-DoD.

Marines, Air Force, Army, and Navy.

Then it exploded, either from Army incompetence or Air Force sabotage. It's not really clear but probably both. Much like Russia, the Air Force was whooping and cheering when they saw how wildly successful their sabotage plans were at demolishing Army modernization budget for decades to come.

Because it means more F-35s for them.

It ultimately proves that multiple service branches shouldn't cooperate on defense acquisition. They have rather differing requirements and worldviews with how to approach their unique situations, and you can't really tag something as highly specialized as a heavy lift helicopter to be dual-hatted as a theater airlifter. The Army has been trying to push hard for a 20-ton tactical heavy lift tiltrotor while the Air Force wants a 20-ton VSTOL jet plane with stealth features.

It's much more productive to let each branch procure its own bespoke equipment for a mission rather than try to foist foreign branches' equipment onto another one. Unless it's Navy onto Air Force or Army onto Marines.

Isn't there someone in the DoD that tells them to knock their shit off and stop fucking about?

It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.