"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.