"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