Bring Back the Military Glider

>>32917449
Derailing the shitpost here.

What happens if you mount engines on gliders, is it possible to convert them somewhat or is it really difficult to get all the avionic systems and other shit to be installed first into the glider body.

>>32917449
>What is a deathtrap
>What are HAHO jumps
Seriously these things are worse than the ospreys. Wrong wind conditions incliment weather, bumpy landings, no ability to accelerate and manoeuvre if they come under contact.

>>32917449
no we don't

>>32917479
Well any glider built nowadays would include all the same avionics that a normal plane needs. Need it for night flying anyways.

Just checking with you radar and anti-aircraft guys. Would a glider be any more difficult to spot than say a small airplane, these days? Or any more difficult to pick out of the air with the current ground-to-air portable missiles?

>>32917496
>no ability to accelerate and manoeuvre if they come under contact.
As opposed to overloaded troops landing in a field with parachutes?
How do you plan to drop 20+ ton armored vehicles with parachutes

Bumpy landing is better than being DEAD, or crash landing in a chopper.

>>32917496
This some seneters flew in a glider all 40 of them died the whole thig is a death trap
>>32917479
Well there are powered gliders and they are cool i suggest you check out your local library and youtube for further info in the

>>32917546
Na fuck that, if your planning on dropping that in you will have shelled and cleared that fucking area meaning gliders are pointless anyway.

>>32917667
>meaning gliders are pointless anyway.
??
How does that make sense? You can't deploy adequately armored vehicles by parachutes, it'll always spread the men around, cargo planes flying at low altitude gives away what you are doing....

You STILL want the glider. Air mobile should NOT mean infantry only

>>32917737
US military doctrine is very specific about gaining and holding air superiority first, then bringing in cargo planes/shit that is so big it would get shot down otherwise.

We focus on stealth aircraft, pinpoint accuracy cruise missiles, and BVR weaponry for a reason. Boots come on the ground afterwards. Now if you're talking a very complicated covert op going wrong, well, shit happens, a glider isn't the answer.

"No."

>>32917737
If you are doing an invasion of that scale and magnitude you will need to clear an area. Gliders with large payloads lost height far faster than ones with just infantry. If you want to deploy stealthy behind enemy lines you'd have to drag them by an actual plane into the area to begin with making "stealthy quiet gliders" a moot point. They thought they were a good idea in WW2 and they turned out to be fucking deathtraps hence the reason NOBODY USES THEM.

>>32917449
>1944
This was back when piston engine aircraft were still the bulk of forces and jet engines were still experimental/not very good.
Gliders died the day the armed forces figured out how to install an engine on them.

File: The wonders of life.jpg (87KB, 800x448px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 800x448px

>>32917546
>gliding into a hot lz
They tried armoring the bottom of them in WWII. Didn't work so well.

>>32917803
They were not death traps, they were abandoned because of institutional dislike of glider troops.
US also never procured heavier gliders nor understood that they weren't paratroopers, so they intentionally engaged in fuckups like Market Garden.

Same reason they are killing people in helicopters today.
Institutionalized dislike of doing things properly, and a gung-ho rambo infantry centric mindset.

>>32917737
>You can't deploy adequately armored vehicles by parachutes, it'll always spread the men around
>he doesn't know that the Ruskies have been airdropping crewed BMDs for years now
I'd take your shitposts a little more seriously if you actually seemed to know what you're talking about.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEHPluUY0gQ

>>32917851
Nah, pretty sure they trashed them because more dudes died in landings than actually deployed.

File: BMD_1.jpg (346KB, 1020x705px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 1020x705px

>>32917873
wew, forgot pic

>>32917851
>Gung ho Rambo infantry
You mean a comprehensive ground invasion with artillery, air support, support and resupply capability, medical units, and the full ability of a military fighting force.

Well shit we had better stop doing it the way that works lads.

>>32917829
>The Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES) is a somewhat risky maneuver that allows accurate delivery onto a field when landing is not possible, and the practice was stopped in the late 1990s.

So a: The US has no vehicles suitable for it b: They don't even do it anymore, c: It requires FAR more flat open space than a glider landing as well as being loud as hell, d: Troops can't be in the vehicle while it drops

>>32917873
BMD-1: 8 tons
BMD-2: 11 tons

THOSE things are deathtraps that only Russians used.

This is now a Gliding Battleship thread.

>>32917930
What kind of glider can hold and land anything bigger than a humvee?

>>32917947
Mech glider aero gavin that can be turned into an A-10 in the field for CAS that can also be launched from a battleship. Oh, and ants somehow fit in with that.

>>32917930
>deathtraps
And a glider is what?

File: robot-660x420.jpg (92KB, 660x420px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 660x420px

>>32917449

Why not just airdrop a small team of Robots armed with m240's and get CS:GO fags to operate them?

File: Y-17 Trauma Override Harness.png (70KB, 191x320px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 191x320px

>>32918008
I say we get disabled people and strap miniguns to their wheelchair.

>>32917563
Wow I didn't realize that powered gliders were an entire class of grey zone aircraft within a certain weight and configuration limit.

File: tumblr_mx50vjRDT91rcoy9ro1_1280[1].jpg (276KB, 1222x777px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 1222x777px

>>32917875
They were fine in WW2, bought & used in the thousands by all sides.
Their "problems", came from essentially just being mass produced prototypes, built out of wood/fabric, doing night landings without modern avionics/night vision goggles.

Even then, it was still better than parachuting.

>>32917956
In WW2 the British and Germans used them to deliver light tanks.

File: 7c1e3a1d4e516335186a40e1ab604b7f.jpg (14KB, 234x216px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 234x216px

>>32917449

>gliderfag is back

>>32918051
>In WW2 the British and Germans used them to deliver light tanks.

Too bad no one has or uses Light Tanks anymore.

>>32918051
Thats a M-22, it makes a BMD look like a Tiger.

>>32918051
I mean if the US has a fleet of Wiesels then it might be somewhat useful. But we don't so.......?

>>32917449
Helicopters don't need a runway, can be deployed extremely quickly, can play offense.

Gliders need a runway. They must be fucking towed by a large, easily detectable aircraft. Landing will probably kill you.

Gliders are gay and so is OP, who is a zero emissions hippy fag.

>>32918076
>>32918078
>>32918082
That was a glider built out of WOOD and FABRIC
Modern design & carbon composites would dramatically improve the payload

How many lives would have been saved if grunts in Afghanistan could go on patrol with glider delivered armored vehicles ?

File: BMD_2.jpg (136KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 800x533px

>>32918051
>tries to shit on BMD
>posts light tank
o I am laffin

>>32917981
Like when I was really into reading about World War 2, I swear, almost every goddamn instant a Glider was brought, it was almost immediately followed up with a "And something happened and the glider troops suffered severe causilties/got lost/ crashed horribly

>>32918133
You got a cost/benefit analysis drafted up?

File: Capture.png (86KB, 1011x315px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1011x315px

now I'm just some noguns shitter from /tg/ so I'm talking out my ass, but wouldn't something like this be plausible for somewhat quiet light armor delivery?

>>32917449
Because gliders are 100% useless if your AO doesn't have the required terrain to land one or more safely.

>>32918139
It's not about cost benefit, its about the FACT the US absolutely physically lacks the capability to do things it obviously wants to do

Such as moving armored vehicles around without a prepared runway/airport.

>>32918160
a glider can land anywhere a helicopter can land.

>>32918154
You're making a semi complicated system more complicated for zero added benefit. Drop your glider, lose the added weight of "return rockets".

>>32918169
A C-130 can land and take off any were a glider can.

>>32918133

>Armored vehicles in an area where the Arabian and Indian plates have literally fucked the land into a mountainous ruin

>>32918169
>a glider can land anywhere a helicopter can land.

A helicopter needs a clear vertical space to land, a glider needs a landing path free of anything that could obstruct safe landing.

Are you somehow believing that a fully laden glider can just plop down onto a small clear space in a forested area like a helo can?

>>32918169
Okay question, if the US has an institutionalized dislike of gliders why isn't anyone ELSE using them? Including the nations that wouldn't be under the direct influence of the US?

File: Capture.png (129KB, 1061x509px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1061x509px

>>32918180
So just a tank that flies into combat?

At that point you might as well just take a helicopter and slap as much armor on it as humanly possible.

>>32918183
They should experiment with converting(or building) a C-130 into a glider then, one of the important parts of a military glider is not being full of fuel that can spill/catch fire/burn that mother to the ground.

>>32918197
Helicopters don't land or take off vertically, they need forward momentum so that they don't all die in the event of losing power or needing to abort

>>32918244
How about not thinking like a WH40K sperglord and trying to apply it to real life?

>>32918169
You're talking about dropping an engine less C130. That is a very expensive plane. What is the cost of each glider and what is the benefit gained?

>>32918247
>They should experiment with converting(or building) a C-130 into a glider then
You're officially retarded.

>>32918247
Ignoring my question here? >>32918204
Just admit you're full of shit.

>>32918263
Helicopters are getting very expensive, and the next gen of choppers will be even more so.
Cost will depend on the size/payload certainly cheaper than a chopper in every regard, the benefit being silent/safe insertion + greater payload.

Gliders don't REPLACE cargo planes or helicopters, they provide new capabilities/fill niches.

>>32918303
They copy the US and don't have the budget to experiment.

>>32918247
>They should experiment with converting(or building) a C-130 into a glider then
HOW? The fucking thing ways over a 150 thousand pounds, the Waco in comparison is like 3900 pounds Do you think those engines are for decoration?

>>32918136
I guess if you really like your armor to catch on fire and burn a hole into the ground it was resting on.

>>32918330
Oh yes, Soviet Union, well known for their anti-experimental attitudes and copying US doctrine.

>>32918260
But I am.

A glider that's essentially just a shell for a light tank that's meant to be towed to a high altitude and released could work, you would be able to reduce a lot of the impact by designing the front and bottom to collapse inward as well as attaching backward parachutes to slow the glider down even more. If you wanted to get fancy you could even put a bunch of retrorockets on the front and bottom, though that would increase the price of this one-time use aircraft a lot, in addition to being really fucking loud (aka the opposite of the entire point of this retarded idea).

It wouldn't really be practical outside flat deserts where you know you can land (mostly) safely, but there's no reason it wouldn't work. Hell, you could even use the tank itself to power some low-power engines to get some extra mileage out of the glider.

>>32918343
more like
>I guess if you want reasonably-safe airborne mechanized infantry
notice how I didn't mention gliders in the same sentence as "reasonably-safe airborne mechanized infantry"

>>32918362
You're not thinking big enough. The glider needs armor to reach its destination. Also mount a few gau8s in ball turrets to deter fighters. Quad 50s in manned turrets, plus a 150 mm for ground support in the nose as well.

Also it should drop 140mm armed Abrahams, not light tanks

>>32918338
>Empty weight: 75,562 lb (34,274 kg)

Take another 10,000 lbs off that if you are removing the engines, optimize the wings for low speed flight, and lets see how it performs huh?

Everything glides, its a matter of glide ratio/stall speed

File: IMG_0595.jpg (504KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1280x960px

>>32918076
Weisel-chans time to shine!

>>32918405
75 thousand (maybe lighter if you 'remove the engines) is still a fucking lot to ask for a goddamn glider
Especially seeing how you want to fucking stuff goddamn IFVs into the damn thing,

>>32918353
The Soviet Union had totally different strategic requirements and wasn't constantly doing commando raids into countries it wasn't at war with.

File: garlic doggo.jpg (184KB, 768x820px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 768x820px

>>32918393
>glide a giant gun that drops off another huge gun on treads into enemy territory
>When it's time to return to base just shoot all the guns behind you to propel the glider
ur a genius anon

>>32918461
We need 16in turrets, or we'll fall behind in the glider arms race

>>32918453
Just shut up. There is a reason why everyone stopped using gliders.

>>32917449
>>32917511
>>32917546
>>32917737
>>32917851
>>32918051
>>32918133
>>32918169
>>32918330

Gliderfagging should be automatic grounds for a rangeban

>>32918488
Gliders would be viable if they had another 5inches of belt armor, nimbus, and air launch capabilities.

Bella will rise again.

>>32918482
Nah, just skip straight to a nuclear powered glider.

One day, and that day will never come, I want the stars to align and when some underage faggot makes a troll thread like this, we all somehow get on the same page and encourage him.

Imagine, if you would, had every reply to the obvious bait been a mix of surprise and excitement? We all manage to convince the OP (who is likely 15 and giggling like a schoolgirl at how 'mad' he's making all of you) that he had a brilliant idea and he should be getting his ass off 4chan and into a military academy right now to sell it. That (in this case, gliders) were some amazing feat of engineering the world forgot about and OP would bring a remarkable shift in military doctrine, if only he could tell the right people?

OP would be so confused he might believe us and go make a fool of himself in front of a recruiter. Wouldn't that be a wonderful reward?

>>32918511
>how Belka recruits engineers

>>32918133
>How many lives would have been saved if grunts in Afghanistan could go on patrol with glider delivered armored vehicles ?

I'd say somewhere between zero and negative several hundred, since there's pretty much nowhere in Afghanistan you can land a glider that you couldn't just drive to in the first place.

>In WW2 the British and Germans used them to deliver light tanks.

yeah, but:
>British Deliver Tetrarchs
>they perform very badly
>replaced with US made M22 locust
>they perform badly, and draw artillery fire towards the infantry.
>nobody ever deploys light tanks by glider ever again.

and
>Germans develop a glider large enough to drop a medium tank
>held the world record for most people killed in an aviation disaster for 12 years, when it was tied, and the record wasn't truly broken until 1962.
>taken out of service within 10 months of intruduction, and after several failed attempts to make use of them, the germans just decide "fuck it, we'll put engines on them"

>>32918505
And a convenient large landing zone to land on
Which they fuck up even THAT sometimes
And helicopters are even faster than fucking gliders. They are immensely more useful for quick insertions

File: CH-53_2008-08-Fritzlar_628_800.jpg (72KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 800x533px

>>32918437
>literally fits inside a helicopter
>two at a time

naw fuck it m8, put wings on 'em and let 'em rip

>>32918437
Is cute
CUTE!

Hide and report all gliderfag threads.

File: img_mi26_halo_39_th.jpg (30KB, 450x266px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 450x266px

>>32918583
>the west has such pitiful helicopters that they only carry Weisels

>>32918541
>since there's pretty much nowhere in Afghanistan you can land a glider that you couldn't just drive to in the first place.

Thats untrue, at the bare minimum you wouldn't have injured/killed people in helicopter shoot downs or Osprey crashes. You also don't WANT to be driving around because of IED's

>Germans develop a glider large enough to drop a medium tank
Their problem was not having a powerful enough tow plane, along with material scarcity/losing the war.

I have a question for you gliderfag.

Say you get your way. Say that gliders make a comeback and one is designed to carry light tanks into combat. On the first mission, they're tasked with landing far behind enemy lines to do bad things. The insertion goes smoothly, nobody dies. The mission goes off without a hitch.

Now what? How are you going to get your troops and tanks back?

>>32918631
Look at the youtube video in original post

>>32918653
>snatching a 20 ton tank plus ten ton glider
Good fucking luck. Something's going to break.

Also, if you can get transport planes in the area, you can do a LAPES. Or, you know, traditional helicopter insertion + air strikes for any hard targets.

>>32918620
You do realize gliders can be shoot down too right?

>Thats untrue, at the bare minimum you wouldn't have injured/killed people in helicopter shoot downs or Osprey crashes.

yes, because they'll all be dead from glider crashes.

>>32918683
conventional manpads/HMG fire wouldn't work on them

>>32918677
>Good fucking luck. Something's going to break.
Not if the winch has sufficient length to run out, and sufficient power in the tow plane. Obviously you would plan all that out ahead of time.

> you can do a LAPES
The US does not do LAPES anymore, and that requires a full sized runway equivalent of flat ground, nor will you be dropping the vehicles with their men ready to roll out asap.
Different to a cargo plane trailing a hook and snagging the tow cable.

Also, again the key point, its not a stealth insertion. Obviously gliders don't replace the cargo plane, but you don't use cargo planes for stealth insertions.

>Or, you know, traditional helicopter insertion + air strikes for any hard targets.
This is what gets people killed doing offensive actions as light infantry, causes you to lose battles, plus you kill civilians in the air strikes which causes you to lose wars.

Since the US has lost basically every war since WW2, they should think that what they are doing is dumb as fuck.
When you mass slaughter civilians you are supposedly trying to help, eventually they hate you

>>32918700
lol
Gliders are the safest aircraft that everyone learns to fly on
Helicopters crash when they lose power, normal planes don't glide well, gliders can just make an emergency landing anywhere

>>32918741
>Also, again the key point, its not a stealth insertion.
Except you want to turn a cargo plane that ways several magnitudes heavier
>>32918772
There have been multiple instances of Gliders crashing due to poor weather, pilot error, enemy fire, sheer stupid bad luck, and the act of god, you cannot say with a straight face, shit like the WACO was a safe aircraft to fly

>>32918772
>Gliders are the safest aircraft that everyone learns to fly on

A lot safer, I assume, when you aren't carrying several tons of cargo and have a nice prepared runway to land on.

If a powered aircraft finds it's chosen landing spot to be unsuitable, or it's approach to be unsafe, it can go back up and try again or try another spot.

If a glider finds it's landing area to be unsafe, or that it has been blown off course by unexpected winds, then more advanced lithobraking techniques will have to be employed.

>>32918772
>Helicopters crash when they lose power


What is auto-rotation?

>>32918809
The end result of a modern military glider is not going to look like a C-130, that was me saying they could/should experiment with it.

Yea thats right you have to check the weather before you go flying, thats always true and will always be true.

What has a better chance of surprise/less chance of being ambushed, a glider touchdown in an open field, or a helicopter insertion after hours of drones/planes flying around?

>>32918904
>Yea thats right you have to check the weather before you go flying, thats always true and will always be true.
Yeah but there's a bit of a difference with
"We cannot deploy our aircarft due to this storm"
and
"Your reinforcements have landed off target due to unexpected winds"

>>32918923
hurricane force winds don't just unexpectedly happen... and high wind speed is a good thing for gliders, means you are landing with much lower ground speed

>>32918904
Well if the planes have been doing their job properly and harassing the enemy forces enough that they can not organize a coherent defense, the helicopter insertion
To say another that again, HELICOPTERS ARE FASTER THAN GLIDERS

>>32918939
Despite all the air power in the world the US lost in Afghanistan, and lost in Iraq
Air power cannot spot stationary forces, nor ensure a landing zone is clear

Heavy air activity is a GIVE AWAY to the enemy of what you are doing

>>32918955
And yet gliders wouldn't help. At all.

It's just like mechs. Sure, there may be a couple scenarios where they would be the best option possible. But between cost, time and existing solutions being good enough, there's no point to develop them.

>>32918955
The mistakes of Afganistan and Iraq can be traced and pointed at numerous things
The lack of fucking gliders is not one of them.

>>32918955
To say nothing about THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT AIR RECON EXISTS FOR, spotting shit and they have been spotting shit for decades

>>32918980
Aren't weather conditions in mountains unpredictable as fuck? Especially when it comes to wind?

>>32918978
>But between cost, time and existing solutions being good enough

But thats the thing, they are just a plane, you don't need a decade long design/procurement program to buy a few dozen hulls, set up a glider commando brigade, and let them develop their own tactics.

>>32918978
>Sure, there may be a couple scenarios where they would be the best option possible.

Also: There have been many prominent embarassing failures like Eagle Claw where gliders would have been perfect

>>32918955
our failures have overwhelmingly been political and intelligence failures, NOT tactical.

In fact, we haven't really been losing ground at the tactical level since probably the surprise Chinese offensive during the Korean war (albeit we beat them back later).

Vietnam: the NVA signed the paris accords, war ends, america goes home, NVA invades again. Political loss, but we got them to the table.

Iraq 1: Decisive victory, Saddam can still feel his knee caps broken in his grave.

Somalia: Wouldn't have been helped by gliders, seeing as they wouldn't have anywhere to land in Mogadishu anyway.

Kosovo: Gliders irrelevant. Strategic US victory after weeks-long bombardment and token offensive.

Iraq 2: Early victory. Political failure comes from expunging all low and mid-level Baathist officers and not ensuring Shia'a-Sunni integration at the political level better. This results in Al Qaeda in Iraq, which turns to ISIS later on.

Afg: Decisive defeat of the Taliban government, Northern Alliance instilled. At no point is the US threatened at the tactical level during invasion, with the possible exception of tora bora (which was up in mountainous terrain anyway, where armored vehicles would be useless). American occupation "failure" is largely due to the perception that the Taliban will "come back", despite the ANA being made up of many ethnic tribes that generally don't like the Taliban, not to mention the Taliban is now having to deal with ISIS shit too. Afg is safer than it has been in years, but rebuilding a nation that is essentially made of dirt is a generational goal that is beyond the scope of the US military.

Gliders would NOT have "won" any of those wars.

>>32919047
Just shut up, you stupid autist, no one wants gliders.

>>32919047
EAGLE CLAW was LITERALLY a problem due to a surprise sand-storm with gale-force winds out of nowhere. this is a scenario where a Glider would have been the WORST possible option.

>>32919015
Uh huh. Right. You're going to pull a glider that can haul twenty tons and not fly like a goddamn brick off the shelf. Plus modifying aircraft since there's likely nothing in the inventory that can tow a glider for anything other than short ranges.
You're also going to have to design armor to be compatible with it, since there's none of that in the inventory either. Oh, and also adding a pilot track since it would likely be hard as fuck to drop a pilot from powered aircraft in without Bad Things happening.

But yeah. The event that happened what, thirty, forty years ago is totally justification for that program.

>>32919106
>Vietnam
Was lost on the ground. The US signed the accords knowing full well the North will just reinvade.
Because the war had been lost and they were looking for a way out.

Iraq & Afghanistan are failures of the US military, and the result of excessive indiscriminant air power
The Taliban are stronger today than in 2001, the Afghan government will fall if the US leaves, which is why we are still there.

That blackhawk down fuckup could have been done with paragliders.

>>32919117
Eagle Claw was a fuckup coming from the fact helicopters are terrible for those sorts of long distance raids. And using helicopters means you can't send enough of them to succeed in the mission.

To top it off, they used marine pilots so they couldn't do aerial refueling, and decided to fly in a low level sand storm.

>>32919119
Eagle Claw didn't happen
oh god it did. Of all the things to make me feel old Eagle Claw was not one that I thought would be it

>>32919224
*40 years ago

>>32919219
>That blackhawk down fuckup could have been done with paragliders
How exactly

>>32919284
Glider magic and cargo planes, duh.

>>32919284
Have you ever had a helicopter fly over you?

>>32918051
That glider must have ate something bad. Look at what it's puking out.

>>32919298
He was phrasing the sentence oddly, I had like three different interpretations so I just decided to ask for an elaboration

>>32917449
>Stealth Insertion of Troops

What do you think HALO jumpers are for?

File: I'm sending in more trains.gif (2MB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x360px

>>32919219
>That blackhawk down fuckup could have been done with paragliders.

lel

>>32918169
>a glider can crash anywhere a helicopter can land.
fixed

>>32919332
>a glider will crash anywhere a helicopter can land
Fixed again

>>32919362
>A glider will gracefully belly land anywhere a helicopter would get ambushed & shot down & all the men killed

>>32919425
I have given up actually having a conversation with your autistic ass and now just going to tell you to fuck off. I figured I should make this obvious least your disordered addled brain of yours somehow confuses things.

>>32919219
So how would flying gliders INTO the sandstorm long-range actually help this scenario? because Eagle Claw was all sorts of fucky even excluding the helicopters; the sandstorm fucked everything up at all levels.


And Vietnam WAS NOT lost on the ground. The Paris Accords held an entire year, with the explicit promise to the South Vietnamese that the US would support them in the event of war. Congress blocked Nixon on that. It was NEVER a war that was lost on material or troop numbers, as opposed to the Vietcong who got so BTFO after the Tet Offensive that they never recovered or were signficant.

Iraq isn't the result of airpower. Again, we disarmed a bunch of Baathists and just turned them loose without so much as a "have you thought about writing your congressman?" and just expected the new Shia'a government to be nice to all the old Sunnis. As it turns out, Arabs don't play nice with one another, especially when the new prime minister is an incompetent jackass who deliberately pushes the Sunnis out on a grudge. Again, it was political.

The Taliban are stronger, but so are the ANA. As I said, it is a generational effort to clean up terror. I fail to see how "just glide a tank to the infantry bro, tanks are great at only killing bad guise and not civvies they use as human shields" is a significant improvement over calling in a mortar/arty/hellfire strike on a Taliban compound when they often can't even see the damn things coming.


And we aren't even getting into the fuel and logistics costs of:
1- Building a glider
2- Strapping a vehicle + crew into the glider
3- getting a plane to tow the glider
4- fueling said plane
5- flying said plane to tow the glider
6- retrieving said glider.


This is an EXTREME exercise in cost compared to "here's a hellfire, have at it".

>>32919455
You fail to see how having an armored vehicle or self-propelled mortar is better than just being some light infantry + air support?

At high altitudes, helicopters have severely reduced payloads or can't even get there
It's not a question of fuel, or even logistics
It's a question of is it physically possible to do something.

Gliders should be in the US inventory, something practiced, something used when appropriate

>>32919633
According to you, helicopters are NEVER appropriate though

>>32919653
It is important to look at things from a non-biased POV and choose the best vehicle for the mission

>>32919695
You have repeated demonstrated that you don't fit that criteria, at all. You are EXTREMELY bias over your pet idea, damn whoever brings logic into your little world.

>>32919728
no bully

>>32919805
Fuck you, yes bully

>>32919633
There's no altitude where a glider can out perform a helo. Air pressure affects both beasts equally.

>>32917479
The Germans literally did this during the build up to world war II, so yeah it definitely is

File: oka 420m.jpg (177KB, 800x518px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 800x518px

>>32918510
don't forget to make sure the glider carries AT LEAST 16 of these things, and that they are given little windows to fire out of while the glider is still flying

>>32917449
Are you by any chance a fan of light rail?

>>32917449

The only reason gliders existed at all was because helicopters were still experimental technology, but in the brief time they were in use during WWII they outperformed gliders in every conceivable metric.

>>32921314
>helicopters existed in WW2
no

>>32921468

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmEMkiwCf7g

uhhhh you didn't know helicopters were first used in WW2?

File: muselini's rescue by german paras.jpg (152KB, 784x500px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 784x500px

>>32917449
>tfw no glider for covert entery

>>32918541
Mind citing that glider crash incident? I'm trying to find out about it but not having much luck.

File: 0ygi9Nwua90UDKcrcrB9.jpg (176KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 800x600px

>>32917449

Gliderfag... kill yourself. You are as annoying as battleshipfag and sparky.

>>32918493
Seconding.

>>32919219
>That blackhawk down fuckup could have been done with paragliders.

You people need to be euthanized.

>>32917545
Yes. It would be more difficult to spot. But i'd figure that all 90's+ manpads and everything with a dual mode seeker can see it in 99% of the cases. You are also AAA food ofc.

Gliderfag is a wonderful troll if only because he ever gives up.

>>32917449
Gluder fag. Pls marry BBfag. Then kys. Tq. K thx bye.

>fly black hawk over urban center full of rich diversity of Mohammad Dinduabuls
>try to kidnap King Dinduladin
>get fucking butthurt and surprised RPGs can take down black hawks
>repeat with gliders
>RPGs hit glider
>simply pass through the canvas
>detonate harmless
>this goes on for hours
>dinduabuls stop and pray to Mecca after running out of RPG rounds that can't damage the canvas gliders

jesus you fucking narrow minded idiots like to flap your cock holsters, dontcha?

how much did lockheed pay you to shill for shitty concepts like the helicopter and muh black hawks?

>>32917449
We should bring back the Iowas and make them into military gliders and restart F-22 production so they'll have escorts

>>32918873
To be fair, autorotation still feels like a brick falling from the sky.

>>32918609
>tfw the weisel has more armor

>>32921954

I would literally pay good money to see Kim Jong Sun attempt to fly over Mosul or any other current war zone in a canvas covered plane of any kind.

current gen Abrams with all the bells and whistles weighs about 92 tonnes IIRC, lol @ deploying even one aboard a glider

>>32923112
not to mention adding a crew of amerifats would easily add another 2 ton to the weight, + their clothing and gear

Why do people still bump gliderfag threads ?

>>32923226
Because Belka

>>32921788
>Me 321

>The triple Zerstorer arrangement was very dangerous in the event that one or more of the takeoff booster rockets failed. One such failure did occur in 1941, which led to the collision of the tow-planes and the deaths of all 129 occupants of the four aircraft. This accident was the deadliest in the history of aviation at the time. The death toll would not be matched until the Tachikawa air disaster of 1953 and would not be exceeded until the 1960 New York mid-air collision.[4]

t- wiki

imo it was an interesting thread. I didn't know the implications of using gliders in wars.
I now know that they are shit for any invasion, and the arguments on the con side were good.

>>32924926
All the cons are covered by appropriate planning and preparation
They are superior to helicopters or tilt rotors or parachuting.

>>32923112
It would be big, but it would totally be doable to build a glider capable of carrying it

>>32924972
Gliderfag, you need to think bigger. The glider needs an A2A loadiut similar to an f-22, should be made of stealth materials to have a low RCS, and should have an airline belt of 10in RHS. Explain how anything less could be counted on to deliver a 140mm armed Abrahams to the modern battlefield

>>32924972
Without 360 coverage from 5in turrets with VT fuzes, and quad .50s it'd get shot out of the sky. Anything else you think it needs to beat ospreys?

>>32924972
They need to have parasite gliders carrying AAMRAAMs to split off and fled fend it when needed

>>32917479
Something like this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_C-130_Hercules

>>32918511
Post the idea to Tumblr and come up with some bogus story that the designer was a black woman.
You'll have people protesting in no time demanding cis scum jet fighters be replaced with Gliders of Color.

>>32924972
Except, of course, getting them in the air pronto, I find it hard to believe it would take longer for a helo to get warmed up and in the air than getting a glider, a tow plane, hooked tother, taxi'd, and lifted off.

>>32924972
How do you avoid ground fire? They can be seen on radars and can't operate in certain conditions, such as mountains or even flat areas where the weather is less stable.

>>32918772
>Helicopters crash when they lose power
No.

>>32918772
>Normal planes don't glide well
Also no.

Me and most people I know learned to fly either in Cessnas or Piper warriors.

>>32917545
You'd see the tow plane and the glider. Unless we're going to build top-of-the-line stealth tow planes and gliders. The tow plane would be dead meat to a sam and even if in some miracle it released the glider and turned away without getting shot down, the glider would be ass raped, day or night, by anything with a radar.

You could only use this in the case where you had total air dominance and no AA capability owned by the enemy. But in that case you'd just use heli's anyway.

>>32928490
Planes are more capable of dodging or absorbing SAM fire than a helicopter, whats your point.
The tow plane can release the glider many miles out from its target, the glider doesn't have fuel/engines to catch fire
SAM's/Manpads don't have large warheads, they won't be lethal to a heavy military glider with redundant control surfaces.

>>32928594
-t. Somebody who doesn't know anything about SAMs

File: tmp_12315-i_like_trains_by_choppywings-d4dn1xz-18339583.png (117KB, 900x660px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 900x660px

>>32917449
>I like gliders
https://youtu.be/qNLrNFbcevM

>>32928426
Funny enough, a B767 has a better glide ratio than a C172.

>>32928594
this isn't your average everyday faggotry
this is ... advanced faggotry

>>32928725
I would expect so. The 767 is far more streamlined, and doesn't have a giant prop over the front.

File: 1458117078273.jpg (111KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 512x384px

>>32917449
> tfw glider fag is back and I can't find my "/k gliders lmao" pic

I don't even need to read your arguments, I doubt you've come up with any new "logic" and you were throughly ass raped last time you were here. Sage in all fields. Gliders are for hobbiests that can't make the commitment to become pilots.

>>32928905
Most people assume a large jet would fall out of the sky instantly. Ever hear of the Gimli Gliders/Air Canada Flight 143?

>>32925308
Sounds like this thing should be VTOL capable so we can insert gliders from carriers

>>32917479
>mount engines on gliders
Pretty sure that's just the B-2 bomber.

Multiple facts: Size is not cost, modern helicopters are very expensive, both to buy & operate

Fixed wing is objectively superior to rotary wing, in literally every way
A glider is effectively silent as it glides through the air, meaning that hajji spotters can't alert their friends that there is a raid incoming.

Helicopters cannot be scaled up to both have good range, and carry armored vehicles, these sorts of commando raids like in Yemen should always involve light armored vehicles

People die for the lack of armored support.

>>32918154
Why not just produce a cheap wing kit that clips onto the tank? Or is that too Mike Sparks for you?

>>32918169
A helicopter can land on a section of trail on the side of a fucking mountain with one skid. Source: I've seen it done. Good luck getting a glider in there.

File: 1280px-Sikorsky_R4B.jpg (81KB, 1280x612px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 1280x612px

>>32921468

>I don't know what the Sikorsky R4B is

>>32932685
Thats hovering, not really landing
You can land fixed wing planes on slopes too

Obviously I've never said we should scrap all our helicopters to replace them with gliders, just that we need to bring back the military glider

>>32917449
US needs:
>gliders
>a lot more of m113 GAVINs
>seaplanes not expensive big ego suppercarriers
>GRASSHOPPER coin aircraft not flawed helicopters

>>32930787
Except historically, air dropped armored support had ALWAYS sucked major balls, the British actively tried this, and it was so light, so puny that even when replaced by something marginally better, it just attracted more trouble, I honestly doubt the inclusion of a couple of light as fuck armored vehicles would have done it much better
>>32933155
Oh, really? Well then mister dipshit after all this bullshit please tell us what Helicopters are good for

>>32918185
Arabs and Indians confirmed for shitting everything up.

File: tumblr_nm6m1n4ySv1urlc5jo1_1280.jpg (207KB, 1280x1233px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1280x1233px

>>32933198
we also need mechs like metal gear