… what are the airfield requirements of a loaded An-225 compared to that of either the An-124 or C-5?

32-wheel landing gear comprised of two nose bogies and fourteen main wheel bogies (seven per side). Each bogie has two wheels. A total of twenty wheels can be steered. MTOW of 1,400,000 lbs, with a 550,000 lbs maximum payload; the aircraft weighs 385,800 lbs completely empty. Up to 440,000 lbs can be carried externally on the fuselage. It uses a 11,500 ft takeoff run at MTOW.

Compare:

An-124 has 24-wheel landing gear designed for rough field operation comprised of two nose bogies and ten main wheel bogies (five per side). Each bogie has two wheels. Like the An-225, the landing gear is adjustable to allow the transport to “kneel”, to assist cargo loading. In conjunction with the full-span leading-edge slats and large flaps, the powerful engines are equipped with thrust reversers to allow the An-124 to operate off of rough airstrips only 3,800 feet long. The takeoff run on concrete for a fully loaded An-124 is 8,300 feet, while the commercial An-124-210 can takeoff within 8,000 feet. On dirt the takeoff run of the An-124 exceeds 9,800 feet.

The 747 is equipped with four main gear units, each with four-wheel bogies, plus twin nose wheels so that the plane’s weight is spread across 18 wheels.

The Airbus 380 consists of two underwing struts each with four wheels, two central under-fuselage struts each with six wheels and a twin nose wheel. The wheels of the fully loaded exert less psi than the fully loaded 747.

The B-52 has four separate and steerable landing-gear units. This allows the pilots to align the landing gear with the center of the runway while crabbing the aircraft into the wind during crosswind landings.

Tidbit:

The Airbus 380-800 has a takeoff run of 9,500 feet and a landing run of 6,700 feet.
The 747-400 has a takeoff run of 9,900 feet and a landing run of 7,150 feet.
The Airbus 340-200 has a takeoff run of 9,800 feet and a landing run of 6,200 feet.
The Airbus 330-200 has a takeoff run of 7,300 feet and a landing run of 5,750 feet.
The 777-200 has a takeoff run of 8,000 feet and a landing run of 5,000 feet.
The Airbus 300-600 has a takeoff run of 7,600 feet and a landing run of 5,000 feet.
The 757-200 has a takeoff run of 7,700 feet and a landing run of 5,000 feet.

The C-17 has a takeoff run of 3,900 feet and a landing run of 2,370 feet.
The C-5B has a takeoff run of 4,800 feet and a landing run of 2,600 feet.
The C-5M has a takeoff run of 3,360 feet and a landing run of 2,870 feet.
The A400M has a takeoff run of 3,200 feet and a landing run of 2,500 feet.

The U.S. government is currently considering a long term contract with Antonov Airlines for the additional production and use of ten An-124s and one An-225, which could be operated considerably cheaper than the six smaller C-17s originally proposed for the same duties.

That’s why our SP artillery died so horribly over in Iraq, even when Iraq successfully got off counter-battery fire. /end sarcasm

Mobility does not mean or necessitate constant movement. The Serbs showed that even relatively large missile launchers can be mobilized successfully. Its not like you have to put them on treads or to make them SP. Towed assets have worked well in the past. Towed assets are more survivable at better than a 3:1 ratio historically speaking.

I’m thinking bigger shell sizes than what they use in Pantsir or Shilka. 76mm was the low end of AAA. Common AAA shell diameters were also the 90mm and 130mm. The larger the shell the more complex it can be which also scales the cost. I can see a usefulness for a semi-mobile 203mm system for strategic defense, but it wouldn’t be realistic for most other situations. But smaller shell diameters would be plenty mobile and useful at the same time. That is why I wonder why the lack of development in this respect.

They’ll handle it the same way they did when Iran and North Korea started trying to counterfeit their ways into export economies. Don’t think that Taiwan won’t be defended. And if China was so confident that they could pull it off, why do they have so many four lane superhighways along the coast that lead to nowhere? It’s obvious they plan to use them as runways if necessary. You do realize that China is in the position of dependent of the United States economy to maintain their internal security? If the United States stopped trading with them tomorrow the regional governments would have little choice but to fend for themselves and the central government would collapse. The bank collapse already has caused friction within their government. I’d hate to see what happens in a unregulated bank collapse. The chaos would be unpredictable.

Its definitely in a caliber range suited for it.

I hadn’t really considered the miniaturized laser seeker guidance package being developed for 2.75″ rockets. Very plausible. You understand the premise of tactical ballistic missiles, being area denial weapons. And because the majority of them fly an oscillating flight path one missile simply isn’t enough to engage a single missile. With a mix of guns – and the smart aim of computers – you can place several KE or HE projectiles in the flight path of a tactical ballistic missile. And the same system could intercept glide weapons. Plus there is no reason it cannot be used for fire support. It forces an obsolescence of several generations of standoff weapons currently used worldwide. And it’s high RoF is affordable. Netcentric warfare at it’s finest.