C-5A and the C-17 ?

[Al Dykes]

Why did we decide to design and build the C-17 instead of continuing
to make and upgrade the C-5 ?




--
Al Dykes
-----------

[John A. Weeks III]

In article >, Al Dykes >
wrote:

> Why did we decide to design and build the C-17 instead of continuing
> to make and upgrade the C-5 ?

Lots of reasons. The C-5 is just too much airplane for most
reasonable airlift operations, and it is not state of the art
in efficiency. There are still some things that need the C-5,
but keep in mind that the C-17 was really meant to replace the
C-141, not the Galaxy.

-john-

--
================================================== ==================
John A. Weeks III 952-432-2708
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
================================================== ==================

[Scott Ferrin]

On 13 Sep 2003 12:05:23 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

>
>Why did we decide to design and build the C-17 instead of continuing
>to make and upgrade the C-5 ?


The C-17 was designed to be able to go into smaller fields.

[Ragnar]

"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why did we decide to design and build the C-17 instead of continuing
> to make and upgrade the C-5 ?

Because the C-5 can't land/takeoff from strips with 4,000 ft runways.

[Kevin Brooks]

(Al Dykes) wrote in message >...
> Why did we decide to design and build the C-17 instead of continuing
> to make and upgrade the C-5 ?

One big reason is versatility; the C-17 can deliver cargo into and out
of airfields that the C-5 can't access very well, if at all. This
negates a big chunk of the cargo transfer requirement, where C-5 cargo
is cross-loaded into tactical airlifters like the C-130. Add in the
ability of the C-17 to move "C-5 sized" loads into those more
remote/small/rough airfields, something that even the C-5/C-130 combo
can't make happen.

Brooks