Originally Posted by Ghostryder
Not really.
Technology has changed since the MkV's inception.
The MkV is a great ride, but it has limits.
Thanks for your interest in Google Video.
Currently, the playback feature of Google Video isn't available in your country.
We hope to make this feature available more widely in the future, and we really appreciate your patience.
This is what it said!!! lol isn't the internet
I do!!!since first firefox release
Antonov transports are nearly half the cost of operating a Galaxy. The vessels are well beyond their intended service lives as the relatively thin aluminum hulls are nearly reaching the end of stress-fatigue capabilities.
The C-17 is the ****.
Nice bird, great capabilities, fast.
The C-5 is/was far too finicky. Was would be assured of an extended stay on our deployment if we heard we were going to be traveling back via C-5. It was garunteed to break.
For now.
But strategically, it's bad form to rely on private contract for military transport.
Sry, just ereased those images and supersecret info!
Couldn't find that image of the Antonov at North Island anyway ...
How so? Contracting sees to the supplies, logistics and food in the field as well as the fuel that keeps us going, amongst other things. It's more cost-effective, especially as the worlds military superpower.
Anyway, didn't mean to stray off-topic.
Sry, just ereased those images and supersecret info ..
How so, they supply the food in the field and the fuel that keeps us going .
Yes, but it's utilizing a redundant ability the military can already provide. Using a private contract is cheaper and readily availible so it's utilized in lui of militray transport.
The point is having the only stategic means of moving military hardwear being civilian contract is not a good idea. The military needs to have full capability to move items to tactical locations within it's own realm. There are a lot of issues to consider when using civilian transport, including OPSEC.
A civi company can go **** up when you most need it, not good if the op plan calls for that specic piece of hardwear and it can't get there because Fed Ex is having employee issues due to a strike or whatever.
Make sence now?
Of course it does. I never argued for replacing our transports with Ukranian contract air-charter. However, subcontracting as a means to augment a limited budget over the long haul is a reality.
Wasn't this from some hostage rescue exercise recently; SEAL's right?
All AF planes break. Normally in the Azores, Vincenzia (well Aviano actually), or any where else the crew may have girlfriends. Opps that's right, they don't break - they just need "crew rest."
Of course it does. I never argued for replacing our transports with Ukranian contract air-charter. However, subcontracting as a means to augment a limited budget over the long haul is a reality.
Sure, but there is still a gap that won't be filled for transporting the MkV, (military). For now, there are other means, (Ukranian transport, NG C-5, Reserve components, etc...)
But long term their are going to have to redisign the MkV, (MkVI ?) for the C-17.
Anyway, this dead horse has been beaten to mush.
Let's get back on topic.
LOL,
It's funny how a C-130 will always break down for a week or two when it flys into Thailand.
Wasn't this from some hostage rescue exercise recently; SEAL's right?
Too hard to tell.
Could be anyone.
HE219...any more pics of those two operators?
The guy in front looks, uh, seasoned?! for lack of a better term. Also not someone I'd want to scrap with in a bar!
That photo is freek'n cewl! I have not seen that one yet.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
