Defense Issues

Military and general security

  • Follow Defense Issues on WordPress.com
  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 258 other followers

  • January 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Nov   Mar »
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Categories

The Camp of The Saints – Jean Raspail – Free PDF Download

Posted by picard578 on January 1, 2019

4 Responses to “The Camp of The Saints – Jean Raspail – Free PDF Download”

  1. tdcoish said

    Suicidal altruism is very charitable. These people would drive over 100 homeless people to get to a microphone to humble brag about how much they’re doing for the poor.

    Anyway, on a different note, I’ve been thinking a lot about the OV-10 bronco, and how great an aircraft it was. In fact I’ve even largely done away with my upgraded A-1 idea, since the OV-10 appears to be so multirole. And I mean multirole in a genuine way, not the fake multirole of these crippled Air Superiority planes.

    What really set me over the edge was the maneuverability of the OV-10 combined with the ability to carry, according to Wikipedia, up to three tons of cargo. That’s six thousand pounds. Whether or not you could fit all of that inside the cargo compartment, or whether you’d need to put some of that on the nacelles and wings, that’s still a lot of weight. I recently watched a great video on the Stalingrad Airlift, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuKpHUsvZm0, and, if I may spoil this for you, the main problem for the Germans was the Red Army shooting down lots of JU-52’s. This genuinely had a war affecting outcome all on its own. So it got me to thinking about what the optimal troop transport aircraft would be.

    First of all, helicopters have some obvious advantages. Or, to be more specific, have the advantage of being able to take off and land vertically, in a very small area. This advantage will mean that any serious country will have some transport helicopters. To pick a random medium sized heli transport, the Russian MI-17 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17), notice the poor payload/weight ratio, range, top speed, and all that with two very large engines producing a ton of power. It’s also not stated, but the maneuverability will be terrible compared to a decent prop aircraft, such as the OV-10, making it far less survivable. The OV-10, for reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Rockwell_OV-10_Bronco.

    With that being said, the fact that you can basically guarantee that there is going to be a spot large enough to land your helicopter almost anywhere in the world is a huge advantage. Yes, this might be diminished by the reality of the unloading operation, but it’s still an enormous advantage. This is why troop transports are so commonly helicopters. The cargo can get out by itself, or with a rope, and you don’t even have to land, you can quite legitimately do this anywhere. On the other hand, in any area with a built up airstrip, even a very rough field will do for the OV-10, it’s almost certainly a much better idea to be using an aircraft, for the efficiency. On top of that, in the presence of enemy AA, whether that be SAMs or AAA, the survivablility of something like an OV-10 goes drastically up compared to an equivalent helicopter.

    The US developed a low altitude parachute extraction system for dropping a variety of different things, including the M551 Sheridan Light Tank. While that’s a little extreme, they’ve also proven the ability to drop basically anything you can put on a pallet. LAPES is not perfect, and it would need to be tested to be compatible with the OV-10 bronco, but if we could get that working it would further eat into the advantage of the helicopter, since we no longer need to wait around to drop off our cargo. Additionally, the OV-10 has proven itself capable of dropping off 6 parachute troops, and has done so in Vietnam. While for tactical reasons you can’t always do the vertical flying required to prep the drop, required by the OV-10, if you’re in the presence of heavy enemy AA, you probably can’t expect to fly in a helicopter anyway.

    So to wrap all this back around to Stalingrad. The Germans lost 266 JU-52’s, out of the 500 that they had there in the first place. Had they had a plane similar to the OV-10 bronco, they most probably would have taken drastically fewer losses. With those fewer losses, they could have adequately resupplied the German Army, so they wouldn’t have starved to death. Nowadays, the threat from AAA such as an Oerlikon 35mm is ever present, but the threat from SAMs can probably be largely avoided with something like an OV-10.

    If we are going to need a maneuverable plane to bring troops supplies in hotly contested areas, such as flying over hostile territory to help an encircled army, then we really might as well use that very same plane as our Light CAS and FAC aircraft. Not that I’m saying use the exact same version, we should do similar to the actual OV-10, and have some different versions. A lot of this comes down to the question of survivablility versus small arms fire. Not everything needs to be as armoured as an A-10, but if the pilot can feel safe against small arms that’s going to go a long way. Put some kevlar in the cockpit for a poor mans titanium bathtub, and we’ve got ourselves a hell of a plane. We can have single and double seat versions if we so please, and then mass produce the aircraft. While it is true that this plane will never be quite as great of a bomb/missile truck as a modernized A-1, it should get the job done if we give it enough internal fuel.

    Since the plane is being mass produced, and I really mean mass produced, as in 10,000+, we can afford to be a little bit extravagant in our R&D. Using the existing PT-6 turboprop is acceptable, but for best fuel efficiency we’re gonna want to create a new piston engine, producing around 1000 HP, to go in this bird. A diesel burning engine also has the benefit of being what our ground vehicles are using, so that should simplify logistics. We can also develop an appropriate gun for this plane, although it will probably be very similar to the GAU-19. .50 cal might not seem all that impressive, but it’s light CAS/Scout/FAC, so we don’t need to go crazy here. 50cal ammunition is so common that this might also simplify logistics, although possibly not, it depends on a lot.

    Anyway, I was thinking about it more and more and I think this idea has a ton of potential. Would very much like to receive some feedback here, strengths and weaknesses of this approach.

    Like

    • tdcoish said

      Although to be fair, the Germans also lost a fair amount of JU-52’s due to an airfield being captured temporarily. 62 I believe. They also lost some due to artillery fire upon landing. Nothing you can do about the airfield capture, and the artillery is only avoided by being small. LAPES would definitely have helped, but may not have been an option.

      Like

    • tdcoish said

      Update: Apparently the OV-10 could only carry 3200 lbs in the cargo compartment. Just found that out from here: https://www.boeing.com/history/products/ov-10-bronco.page. Still, we could look over the design of a modern version, and 3200lbs is nothing to be scoffed at, especially since it comes with a quick change. It definitely explains why the Bronco is so much more maneuverable than other planes that carried 3 tons of cargo, and explains why all those planes looked bigger to my eye.

      We could carry various things on the wings, of course, but that might negatively affect the flight performance to an unacceptable degree.

      Like

    • Picard578 said

      Low altitude parachute drop supply had been done in Vietnam – I did some research on that for my stillborne transport aircraft proposal, but lost it afterwards. A pity, I could have published it as an article all on its own. In fact, from low enough altitude you didn’t even need parachute – just wrap the cargo in something bouncy (similar to what had been done for some NASA probes). You might want to look into that.

      I wonder whether a parachute cargo delivery system could be fit within a standard supersonic or subsonic drop tank? If so, you could have delivery done by just about any fixed-wing aircraft capable of utilizing those.

      Like

Leave a Reply to Picard578 Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: