Do the RAF really want the A400m?

[Prowlus]

Just curious really, wouldn't going from a fast tactical jet transport
(c-17) to a slower prop transport be like swapping a stallion for a
mule to the RAF?

[Keith Willshaw]

"Prowlus" > wrote in message
om...
> Just curious really, wouldn't going from a fast tactical jet transport
> (c-17) to a slower prop transport be like swapping a stallion for a
> mule to the RAF?

They want both, the A-400 is intended to replace the
Hercules C-130K's not the C-17

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[John Penta]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:10:40 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>They want both, the A-400 is intended to replace the
>Hercules C-130K's not the C-17

Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?

[Keith Willshaw]

"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:10:40 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >They want both, the A-400 is intended to replace the
> >Hercules C-130K's not the C-17
>
> Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?

Not really , the C-17 is seen as the strategic airlift component
bringing troops and supplies into the theare with the C-130
operating in the tactical role shuttling men and materials to
the battlefield.

Keith

[Lyle]

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:24:58 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"John Penta" > wrote in message
...
>> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:10:40 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >They want both, the A-400 is intended to replace the
>> >Hercules C-130K's not the C-17
>>
>> Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
C-17 is meant to replace the C-141
>
>Not really , the C-17 is seen as the strategic airlift component
>bringing troops and supplies into the theare with the C-130
>operating in the tactical role shuttling men and materials to
>the battlefield.
>
>Keith
>

[Brett]

"Lyle" > wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 20:24:58 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"John Penta" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 15:10:40 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >They want both, the A-400 is intended to replace the
> >> >Hercules C-130K's not the C-17
> >>
> >> Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
> C-17 is meant to replace the C-141

The last C-141C will be retired to Davis-Montham AFB by the end of 2006, so
the remark should be: the designated C-141 replacement will be the C-17.

[Bob Coe]

"Brett" > wrote
> "Lyle" > wrote:
> > "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
> > C-17 is meant to replace the C-141
>
> The last C-141C will be retired to Davis-Montham AFB by the end of 2006, so
> the remark should be: the designated C-141 replacement will be the C-17.

The C-17 isn't really a C-141 replacement. The 141 was/is a strategic airlift
aircraft. The C-130 and C-17 are designed for tactical airlift, but the C-17
fulfills the strategic role well enough, that it is considered dual purpose. It can
launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle zone.

I believe, like the YC-14 and YC-15, the major goal was to be able to carry an
M-1 tank that could roll off. The rest is just fluff.

[Kevin Brooks]

"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:8CcXc.14360$ni.13641@okepread01...
> "Brett" > wrote
> > "Lyle" > wrote:
> > > "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
> > > C-17 is meant to replace the C-141
> >
> > The last C-141C will be retired to Davis-Montham AFB by the end of 2006,
so
> > the remark should be: the designated C-141 replacement will be the C-17.
>
> The C-17 isn't really a C-141 replacement. The 141 was/is a strategic
airlift
> aircraft. The C-130 and C-17 are designed for tactical airlift, but the
C-17
> fulfills the strategic role well enough, that it is considered dual
purpose. It can
> launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle
zone.

Uhmmm...no, not exactly. The C-17 is indeed a strategic airlifter first and
foremost, albeit one intended to have tactical capabilities that surpass
those of its predecessor the C-141, and has been since its outset. Unlike
previous aircraft used by the US in the strategic role, it is better suited
to handling unimproved/short runways and can therefore often move equipment
further into the A/O than its predecessors, and it was intended to replace
the C-141 in service (note that it is the C-141 units that have been sending
their birds to AMARC and reequipping with the C-17). Like the Starlifter, it
can also deliver tactical forces directly into battle (as it did with the
173rd BCT (Abn) during OIF), and it will soon manifest itself in a special
operations low level (SOLL) variant to replace that capability lost as the
existing C-141 SOLL's hit the boneyard.

>
> I believe, like the YC-14 and YC-15, the major goal was to be able to
carry an
> M-1 tank that could roll off. The rest is just fluff.

Your "fluff" is a bit off, I am afraid. The YC-14 and YC-15 were never
intended to be able to carry main battle tanks, which is why the AMST
program specs they were designed and built to meet used a maximum payload (I
don't think it was much over 40,000 pounds) well below that of the
then-standard M-60A1 (which is quite a bit lighter than the M-1; the only
way you could transport a M-1 via YC-15 would be to cut it in half first and
sent it by *two* YC-15's); in fact, the USAF studied what it *would* take
for the YC-15 to handle an MBT load, and concluded that it would have to be
stretched, have a larger wing, etc. See:
www.dau.mil/pubs/arq/94arq/batte.pdf

AMST went the way of the dodo bird, and the successor program, C-X, which
yielded the C-17, was conceived from the get-go to result in a larger
aircraft that would be able to perform strategic airlift of outsized loads
into what was then considered the tactical A/O, which would reduce the
stress on the C-130 fleet and at the same time allow air delivery of heavy
unit assets to a much greater range of APOD's than compared to the C-5.

Brooks
>
>

[Brett]

"Bob Coe" > wrote:
> "Brett" > wrote
> > "Lyle" > wrote:
> > > "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
> > > C-17 is meant to replace the C-141
> >
> > The last C-141C will be retired to Davis-Montham AFB by the end of 2006,
so
> > the remark should be: the designated C-141 replacement will be the C-17.
>
> The C-17 isn't really a C-141 replacement.

Which isn't the comment I made, my comment was "the designated C-141
replacement will be the C-17"

> The 141 was/is a strategic airlift
> aircraft. The C-130 and C-17 are designed for tactical airlift,

The C-X RFP from 1979/1980 required an aircraft that could deliver a full
range of combat equipment over intercontinental distances. The McDonnell
Douglas submission that won the "contest" eventually became the C-17 that is
currently being operated by USAF. So the C-17 is a strategic airlift
aircraft that you might try to operate on unprepared fields. The CX-HLS
proposal that led to the C-5 had that aircraft taxing in ploughed fields
over large tree stumps and landing and taking off from unprepared dirt
strips, and those capabilities were demonstrated in the early 70's by that
aircraft. It doesn't mean that many commanders were ever willing to put an
expensive piece of hardware into a situation where could easily be lost by
using it in a questionable tactical situation.

> but the C-17
> fulfills the strategic role well enough, that it is considered dual
purpose.

It fulfills that role because that was supposed to be the primary mission of
the aircraft that won the C-X proposal.

> It can
> launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle
zone.

The C-5 can still perform that mission I believe, it doesn't mean that any
mission planner would suggest it be used in many situations for either the
C-17 or C-5.

[Guy Alcala]

Brett wrote:

<snip>

> > It can
> > launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle
> zone.
>
> The C-5 can still perform that mission I believe, it doesn't mean that any
> mission planner would suggest it be used in many situations for either the
> C-17 or C-5.

While the C-5 was theoretically able to land on unimproved strips, in practice
it is never done. The same hasn't been the case with the C-17, which was so
used in Afghanistan (FOB Bravo), at a minimum. The USAF wasn't all that
enthusiastic about the idea, but the Marines needed its larger payload, so it
appears CINCCENT (if not even higher up the chain) told the USAF to stop
dragging their feet and use the a/c as it was designed to be used. USAF also
refused to land their C-130s at max. gross landing weight on unimproved strips
in either Afghanistan or Iraq (I forget which) for much the same reason (using
up remaining fatigue life), which didn't make the U.S. Army (IIRR) very happy.
Since the USMC own their own KC-130s they can keep the argument in their own
chain of command, and find it easier to order instead of having to negotiate.

Guy

[C Knowles]

Yes and no.
The C-17 IS replacing the C-141. Note that C-141 units are being converted
to C-17s. At the same time, it's tactical abilities allow it to pick up some
of the C-130's missions, while it's cargo capacity, both size & weight,
allow it to pick up some C-5 missions. In that sense it is really a new
airplane. If the C-17 were replacing the C-130 I doubt AMC would be buying
150 C-130Js and ugrading hundreds more with an AMP. The YC-14 and YC-15 were
designed to replace the C-130 but it was realized that a larger design was
needed. Not long ago there was an excellent Wings/Airpower article covering
this evolution in detail.

The C-17 can do a lot of tactical work but is still too large for many
missions, or at least larger than required. And while it can perform the
strategic airlift mission very well, it cannot touch the C-5's
range/payload. As for the M-1/rest is just fluff comment, the C-17 was
designed to haul an M-1 as just about anything else would be easy by
comparison. However, AMC hauls very few tanks but loads of other large
cargo, both palletized and rolling stock. Hardly fluff.

Curt


"Bob Coe" > wrote in message
news:8CcXc.14360$ni.13641@okepread01...
> "Brett" > wrote
> > "Lyle" > wrote:
> > > "Keith Willshaw" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yabbut ain't C17 meant (by design anyhow) to replace C130?
> > > C-17 is meant to replace the C-141
> >
> > The last C-141C will be retired to Davis-Montham AFB by the end of 2006,
so
> > the remark should be: the designated C-141 replacement will be the C-17.
>
> The C-17 isn't really a C-141 replacement. The 141 was/is a strategic
airlift
> aircraft. The C-130 and C-17 are designed for tactical airlift, but the
C-17
> fulfills the strategic role well enough, that it is considered dual
purpose. It can
> launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle
zone.
>
> I believe, like the YC-14 and YC-15, the major goal was to be able to
carry an
> M-1 tank that could roll off. The rest is just fluff.
>
>