Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: unclewest who wrote (19877)	2/24/2002 3:15:53 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 281500

i recall the lift needed to move the 82nd Airborne Division was calculated at over 1000 C141 sorties and about 200 C17 sorties... Sounds about right, given all the equipment (despite being "airmobile").. If I can pack 300 GIs into a Jumbo Jet, that equates to about 2 C-141 sorties.... (and far more comfort.. :0) But what is generally left out in the equation is traditional commercial transport, which was heavily relied upon to get troops over to Saudi Arabia... But that argument falls short when one argues that 747s can't land on unimproved runways or grass fields, which those soldiers might be required to forward deploy to. So for deployment purposes, one has to differentiate between what is available to move a division from one airbase to another, and what would be required to move the division to a remote battlefield.... So despite questioning some of the statistics the brass fling around about how they form their base requirements, I still concur overall that we require more airlift capability. Sealift I'm not so worried about since there is more than adequate commercial sealift. But for dropping troops over an LZ in the shortest period time, you need military airlift, and lots of it. Hawk