So - who's going to pay for hundreds of C-130 replacements to carry the vehicles that don't fit because they were designed without regard to airlift?
The Army knew what size to make a Stryker - ignoring it has caused problems. But you cannot replace an entire fleet of aircraft just to make an Army vehicle fit after it was mis-designed.
The Air Force and Navy are both wedded to an outmoded industrial age view of warfare in which machine fights machine and the best machine wins. We are the best in the world at that type of warfare. However, our enemies don't fight that way. Our national military strategy is beginning to take the people-centric, land oriented nature of warfare into account. Resources should follow, but there is huge resistance from those wedded to the machine model--i.e. Admirals, Air Force Generals, many in Congress, and of course the defense industry.
That is technically wrong. The Army tried as hard as it could to make the 'stryker' (which was originally a much needed scout/recon vehicle) to fit the C130. Couldn't do it. They could not design a worthwhile vehicle to fit the C130. The original stryker died specifically because of the C130 limitation put on it. The 'Stryker' we have today, the Army didn't design. It is a rehash of the Marine's LAV. The Army stuck a couple of differnt turrets on it...because they desperately needed something.
Second point. It is absurd to design the future around the limits of an obsolescent design. The C130 was designeded in 1951 to carry paratroopers and supplies. The heaviest and biggest vehicle in its design specs was the Jeep. To ask the Army in 2005 to build its armored vehicles to fit it is absurd on the face of it. You might as well have not designed the C130 because it wasn't designed to carry hay for the Army's horses. Go back to its orininal design specs, what armored vehicle WAS it designed to carry? None.
Second: Relationship is wrong. You don't design the tools to fight and win based on transporting them. You design the transportation to fit what is needed to fight and win the nations wars. The C130 can ferry supplies, but it can no longer serve the purpose of primary lift. The Army doesn't exist to give the AF something to ferry around. The AF exists to help the Army fight and win the nations wars. And that now (relatively new mission) includes getting combat forces in theater. And the C130 can't do it.
Third, you asked what should the Army design to? The C17. That is what we can do today. And before you ask 'who is going to pay for it' again why don't you STOP BUYING OBSOLETE AIRPLANES. That might free up some much needed funding. The C130 is proof positive of Mr. Peters point...the AF answers to contractors rather than the other way around.
Fourth the problem is bigger than the frontline vehicles. Even if we could somehow cram a worthwhile vehicle into the C130, what would supply it on the ground? No cargo or fueler vehicle can fit. Not one. Not a HEMMTT. Not a 5 Ton. Certainly not a semi. Not one. The problem isn't the weight. The C130 could carry them easily...IF they could fit in it. It is a fuselage designed around troops.
The C130 isn't obsolete because it is a 50 year old design. It isn't obsolete because it is a prop plane in the jet age. It is obsolete because it can't do what the mission requires. But the AF is still playing politics rather than accomplishing the mission.
The C-130 requirement has affected more than one Army system. It's affected many.
Peters is right.
I completely agree with you. I'm a C-130 electrician on deployment right now. With 30 C-130 E models grounded now for wing cracks, we are going to have to figure out a transport replacement NOW. The J model just doesn't cut it, so I guess we'll just activate all the H model units?