A question about the Transall C160

"tscottme" a écrit dans le message de
...

Wesley Clarke?, now I know why you seem so out of touch.

Am I? :-) I don't think so... I'm not the one bashing the other just for the
country name his passport reads...

We're only days away from his claim that Vietnamese snipers stalked him in
the US
or the Republicans broke up his daughter's wedding.

Well, in a world where some (also presumably serious) say uranium has been
purchased to a guy who had been out of office for ten years at the presumed
date of the purchase, where some prestigious intelligence agencies xerox
some student material, etc, everything is possible you know... Seriously,
I'm not fond of the current administration but I respect the choice the
Americans have made and will respect the next chosen president, be he W.
Clark, H.Dean, G. bush or any other one. That's the important part in
Clark's statement that you probably missed : RESPECT.

Which brings up
another point. Doesn't Kosovo prove the French can't cope with a
conflict larger than a soccer riot?


Or you're playing the fool or you're badly informed...

ArVa

"Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de
...


So who said we want france as an ally?

Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
would probably be a premiere... :-)

partially because of comments like the one above.

I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
statement...

ArVa

In article ,
Guy Wastiaux wrote:

Halliburton won 'bout $2 bn in rebuilding contracts in Iraq. Now who's
making the big money ?

Considering the tens of billions made by some companies during the Oil
for Food program, that's chicken feed.

Then there's the bribes, which aren't going to Paris any more.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"ArVa" wrote:

Well, in a world where some (also presumably serious) say uranium has been
purchased to a guy who had been out of office for ten years at the presumed
date of the purchase,

Of course, not mentioning that Iraqi trade officials *had* been in
Niger, which has one and only one export that Iraq wanted - uranium.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

Easy, easy... Now take your pill... Good boy...

(Grantland) wrote:

The Jews want to do something despicable and
completely unacceptable in the ME.

The word you're looking for is "live."

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"shonen" wrote in message ...
Umm, they didn't "pull out" of NATO. They very conveniently stayed in
just
enough to whine about stuff but far enough out to never actually do any
work.

Actually, they did pull out of NATO. By March 1966, deGaulle had
withdrawn
France from NATO and its command structure because he felt that France
needed to
be independent of joint security considerations, which would not have been
possible had they remained in NATO. As an example, they would have been
unable
to bar the presence of missiles from their soil that were under foreign
(to
them) control, which was a step that de Gaulle actually took. They
remained out
of NATO until Mitterand brought them back in during the early '90s,
although I
am not sure of that date or time period.

George Z.

As I remember they pulled out at least partly due to the Cuban missile
crisis.

Then your memory needs recalibrating a bit. Check the timeline.

It became apparent to them, and everyone else, that Europe could not
depend on the US not to sell them out in a crisis. As happened.

And just when did we sell out Europe during a crisis? Berlin in 48?
Nope. Berlin in 61-62? Nope. So when did this great sell out occur?
ISTR that the US was still providing the bulk of the common defense
for Europe in 1989, when the all came down?

The US were
willing to do a secret deal with the Soviets to pull out the missiles from
Turkey in exchange for the Soviets pulling their missiles out of Cuba.

That is true (so you are what, one-for-three so far?). JFK and his
little brother did make that a secret deal, something some of us are
none too proud of. But that was hardly a case of "selling out Europe",
either; the case can be, and has been, made that those Jupiter's were
already on their way out, and this was really an inconsequential grant
to Khrushev to allow him to save some face with the Politburo. If it
*was* a sell out, what does the fact that the US pushed through the
European basing of Pershing II and GLCM's during the 80's imply?

The
US would not be willing to commit to full scale war for Europe.

Thirty plus years of history in successfully facing the Soviets in
Western Europe seems to make that statement lack credibility.

The French
felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability to deter the
Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had demonstrated a willingness
to sacrifice NATO security for their own.

No, the French were just pursuing their own vision of independence
from the alliance in general, and the US in particular. IMO, they had
a national ego problem extending back to their WWII
experience/performance (or lack thereof), and this was just another
manner of making themselves feel as if they were again a superpower.
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force
*without* resorting to the theatrics exemplified in the French
pull-out from the unified command structure.


Not that I blame the US. The whole massive retaliation thing wasn't a really
practical proposition. In may sound good in theory, but when things come to
a crunch, the US really couldn't be expected to make the supreme sacrifice
for Europe.

But the only thing that matters in the end is that it *worked*.

The Europeans knew this and were always wary of US efforts to
distance themselves, or to restrict nuclear war just to Europe. I guess if
the French nuked Moscow, the Soviets wouldn't have worried who they nuked in
retaliation. Share the pain.

Illogical if you are positing that the French would nuke Moscow
without involvement of the US and other NATO allies, IMO. What route
would you have had those Mirage IV's (and their supporting
tankers--they bought their KC-135's expressly to support the Force de
Frappe, or Crappe, or whatever...) flying to *get* to Moscow? ISTR it
was not until about 1971 that their IRBM force became operational?

Brooks


As for the Transall, my 1968 Observors says crew of 4, 81 troops or 62
casualty stretchers and 4 medical attendants. Other (vehicle) loads not
exceeding 35,270 lb. weight.Military Transports and Training Aircraft of the
World add cross section of the cabin is 9ft, 7in by 10 ft 2 1/2 in for a
length of 42 ft.

"Brian" wrote in message
news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles and
number
carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?

Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance

Brian



Some answers

Payloads - up to 93 troops or 61-68 paratroops,
Cabin length - 44ft 4 in
Cabin volume - 4940 ft3

Max payload 16000 kg
Range with max payload 1000 nm

This compares with the C130H (not H-30)

92 troops or 64 paratroops,
Cabin length 41 ft
Volume 4351 ft3

Max payload 19356 kg
Range with max payload 2046 km

(from Jane's Civil and Military Upgrades, 94-95)

So, basically, the Transall can carry most things that a Hercules can but
only about half as far.

Hope this is of some help.

Nigel Isherwood

Thanks for the data -

And in regards to many of the Antt-French comments in here,

AS AN AMERICAN by BIRTH not by CHOICE, and seeing how our country has
decided itself to be the world bully more so than the USSR ever was - I can
only hope that every terrorist out there on the net and every leader onf a
country reads this message -

ATTACK AMERICA PLEASE before they come get you - some one needs to kick the
**** outta the US and put her back in her place as a mutual resident of the
PLANET EARTH.

America - land of the free - if your rich enough!

--
Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com

"shonen" wrote in message
...
I put a wee bit off info under the first thread, after a brief diversion
to
Cuba.

Actually, after the above, crap, I don't think the Americans deserve
allies.
Bring our troops back and **** 'em. We're not going to get any thanks if
our
troops are in Iraq or Afghanistan so let the American troops die.

Opps, now I'm starting to rant! But those ignorant fools really **** me
off.

Brian wrote in message
. net...
Not intelligently, no.

--
Brian - harpoon at thegrafixguy dot com
"C Knowles" wrote in message
news
Ever get your question answered?

"Brian" wrote in message
news:Bz6db.436620$Oz4.244338@rwcrnsc54...
Anyone have any data in regards to the types of military vehicles
and
number
carried that could fit inside the plane for air transport?

Looking at the French Army vehicle mainly - thanks in advance

Brian

In article iC6eb.632826$YN5.465267@sccrnsc01,
"Brian" wrote:

AS AN AMERICAN by BIRTH not by CHOICE,

Then move.

Enjoy.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.