Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 3:31 pm

More orders for C-17's may be on the horizon, but the USAF doesn't think the B version will be needed anytime soon.

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- The four-star general in charge of the Air Force's cargo fleet said Wednesday that he saw no need for a new version of the hulking C-17 cargo aircraft being proposed by Boeing Co. as a way to extend the life of Southern California's last major airplane factory.

But Gen. Arthur J. Lichte said additional demands being placed on the Air Force, including the creation of a new African command and an increase in the size of the Army, could lead him to seek additional orders of the current C-17.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...008sep04,0,2752399.story?track=rss

Interesting that given the commonality between the two variants they wouldn't at least order a few B versions just to have the additional capability. I think this might also just stick a fork in the idea that the A400M might be on the horizon for the USAF. It appears they want to stick primarily with the C-130s and C-17s.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 5:27 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
I think this might also just stick a fork in the idea that the A400M might be on the horizon for the USAF. It appears they want to stick primarily with the C-130s and C-17s.

Can you imagine the carnage if the USAF were to choose the A400M over 2 very good domestic manufacturers! It will not happen and EADS knows it.

Everyone does realize that Boeing's antics on the tanker is as much about keeping a EADS production line out of the US as it is about keeping the 767 line going.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:37 pm

Maybe a stretched C-17 would be more useful for the USAF?
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:03 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
Can you imagine the carnage if the USAF were to choose the A400M over 2 very good domestic manufacturers! It will not happen and EADS knows it.

Everyone does realize that Boeing's antics on the tanker is as much about keeping a EADS production line out of the US as it is about keeping the 767 line going.

I think that there is too much of this kind of talk about all the planes needed now to try and change the way the outcome of the elections...
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:05 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 1):
It will not happen and EADS knows it.

We have read this for years on the KC30:
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=...%22++eads+tanker&btnG=Zoeken&meta=

Quoting RedFlyer (Thread starter):
I think this might also just stick a fork in the idea that the A400M might be on the horizon for the USAF. It appears they want to stick primarily with the C-130s and C-17s.

The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.

Anyone who is (again) convinced EADS / A400M makes no change is going to be surprized/ chocked (again).

 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 8:46 pm



Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Maybe a stretched C-17 would be more useful for the USAF?

I take it you didn't read the topic?
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:01 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.

Anyone who is (again) convinced EADS / A400M makes no change is going to be surprized/ chocked (again).

First of the USAF has 2 airplanes (one strategic and one tactical) that can do a 30t lift with lift capacity left over. It will never happen. Once you appreciate the political environment in the United States, you will not be making such comments.

Before you say the C-17 cannot do a combat landing on a beach, I will point out that no one is going to land an unarmed cargo aircraft in a combat zone unless that is the only way to deliver goods. (Even Khe Sanh had a runway.) Improvements in material drop equipment and procedures is making most combat cargo landings unnecessary.

This isn't the tanker competition where there needs to be an additional bidder to Boeing. If asked, both Boeing and Lockheed would respond with an aircraft that meets any specifications laid down by the DoD. Right now they have the aircraft they want - C-5, C-17 and C-130 and soon the C-27.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 9:18 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.

The C-17 can fit the bill for any potential US Army requirements that's outside of the C-130. Why should the USAF introduce an entirely new type into its fleet, along with the additional expense for training and maintenance, just to handle certain US Army requirements when other aircraft in its inventory (or versions of those models) can already handle such a requirement?

I'm not about to say the USAF will never buy an A400M (as you rightly point out, we saw what happened with that argument on the KC-X). However, the situation in this instance is a little different from the KC-X standpoint. Specifically, the lift capability for the Army already exists in current and very new and modern models. Perhaps it's not "right-sized" for the mission (e.g., excess lift capacity per airframe for the Army's needs), but then that doesn't seem to bother military planners when it comes to other strategic or tactical capabilities as is readily apparent with the selection of the KC-30.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:37 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 7):
RedFlyer

I think we have to look at the numbers.

The C-130 can lift 20 tons, An A400M ~37t and an C-17 ~78t?

http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z...ics/cargoaircraft.jpg?t=1201775580

For weight, price & direct operating costs you are looking at a similar comparisons.

Saying the C-17 can fit anything bigger then a C130 is true, but maybe also a gross simplification assuming a world of unlimited resources.

The KC30 carries about 25% more fuel the the KC767. Not 4 times as much.

I think there is a "niche" between C130 and C17. A 60t niche.. Why was the C27 ordered while the C130J can do at least everything the C27 can?

IMO a smart solution could be for Lockheed to strike a deal with EADS to license build the A400M under their name, with customized engines / systems etc in the USA. Not assembling but building from the ground up. The USAF will look for practicle options to replace C130 with something able to meet the new requirements and A400M specs will be hard to avoid.

 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:06 am



Quoting 474218 (Reply 5):
I take it you didn't read the topic?

May I ask how do you come to this (wrong) conclusion?
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:10 am

The US Army does not need an aircraft for every mission. The niche that the A400M would fill is currently being filled by 747's DC10's, 767's, and DC8's. They just happen to say Evergreen, World, Kalitta, ATI, Capitol, and Southern on the side. (Apologies to any carrier I might have missed). The only thing these carriers can't do is make drops or combat landings. For the few times these are necessary, it is probably more cost effective to use what is on hand, even if it might be a bit of overkill. I would like to see what Lockheed could come up with to replace the C5 though...
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:58 am



Quoting Lowrider (Reply 10):
I would like to see what Lockheed could come up with to replace the C5 though...

Licenced production of the An-124... duck 
 
lowrider
Posts: 2542
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2004 3:09 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:45 am



Quoting A342 (Reply 11):
Licenced production of the An-124...

well played
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:47 am

 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4620
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:21 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
IMO a smart solution could be for Lockheed to strike a deal with EADS to license build the A400M under their name, with customized engines / systems etc in the USA. Not assembling but building from the ground up. The USAF will look for practicle options to replace C130 with something able to meet the new requirements and A400M specs will be hard to avoid.

Well I'm sure there are other countries that might be interested in purchasing an A400/L400... my own for one.... the RNZAF has an ageing (albeit upgraded along the way) fleet of C-130H. The NZL Army has a fleet of LAV3 APC that whilst they can fit in a C-130H, the aircraft isn't able to fly them very far. An aircraft able to carry larger items and an extra 15t+ would be ideal within 10 years. I'm just not sure they are keen to go the EADS way on this (although they did order new helicopters from them).
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:08 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 4):
The C130 is too small for new gen fighting vehicles. The Army say they need a bigger fuselage and 30t capability.

The Stryker, which is what I assume you're referring to, can fit into a C-130 and in fact has been flown many times on a C-130. The issue with regards to size as it relates to the C-130 seems to be related to the fact that the clearances within the fuselage are smaller than typical USAF operating requirements. That does not, however, seem to be a hindrance to flying them on C-130s. The Army may want a bigger fuselage with a 30t capability, but that only points to the need to fly the LAVs in more than a 1:1 sortie ratio.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
Saying the C-17 can fit anything bigger then a C130 is true, but maybe also a gross simplification assuming a world of unlimited resources.

The KC30 carries about 25% more fuel the the KC767. Not 4 times as much.

Well, using the specs for all three airframes (130, 400M, 17), the C-130 can carry 1 Stryker LAV. The A400M can carry 2 Stryker LAVs. The C-17 can carry 6 Stryker LAVs (that's also taking into consideration internal cargo bay space). If the Army needs LAVs deployed, I have no doubt they're going to want to do it as quickly as possible and the USAF will want to do it as efficiently as possible. Seems to me, it makes more sense to fly 6 LAVs per sortie rather than just 2, or even 1 at a time.

HOWEVER, and despite the above, I don't really dispute anything you're saying, Keesje (now isn't that a novelty!). There is a gap between the C-130 and the C-17 and the A400M currently is the only offering that would fit nicely in there. But it doesn't appear that the gap is critical and needs to be urgently filled (unlike the scenario playing out on the KC-X side). In addition, and unlike the tanker competition which relies on commercial off-the-shelf products, combat lift capability is a uniquely military specification. Therefore, IMO, if the USAF ever decides to fill that lift gap, they will have the luxury of allowing different manufacturers to come up with an all-new design specific to the task at hand. And in that case, if and when that were to happen, the A400M might just be the old girl that is getting long in the tooth. Her design is already a decade old and, I might add, not even proven as of yet given all the issues with her powerplants (not to mention the fact that she hasn't even flown yet). Assuming the A400M would be a perfect fit for that lift capability gap, it might be too much of a stretch at this point to assume she would be a shoe-in.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 9:46 am

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 16):
The Stryker, which is what I assume you're referring to

Nope.

He's referring to Army FCS: Army Future Combat Systems.

The program encompasses an entire fleet of 14 different combat vehicles, all of which will completely overhaul our land component equipment inventory.

The Army originally attempted to fit the perimeters of FCS platforms into being C-130 transportable, but has recently abandoned that goal. Reason being: you have to sacrifice too much to meet the weight goals.

The XM1203 NLOS-C has already begun initial evaluations, and will continue to undergo evaluations at the Yuma Proving Grounds, throughout '09-'10. It will NOT be C-130 transportable.

So we're designing a complex integration of multiple combat vehicles - all designed to work together to act as a force multiplier - and we cannot even deploy them on a C-130. The Army asked the Air Force what the likelihood of an aircraft between the C-130 and C-17, being field, and they were told "highly unlikely."

...So the Army was faced with sacrificing armor, equipment, and ammunition to meet the weight goals, or scrapping the program, or going ahead with the program and trying to force the Air Force into fielding the aircraft they needed.

What's more reasonable - junking a major land warfare modernization project, or filling the gap a 50yr old aircraft is leaving us?

-UH60

[Edited 2008-09-05 02:52:56]
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:29 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 17):
He's referring to Army FCS: Army Future Combat Systems.

Thnx for info. I think the US Army is taking the lead with their FCS programs; flexible high tech powerfull equipment.

http://warisboring.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/fcschart.jpg

I have little doubt Lockheed, Boeing, Northop Grumann or a combination are looking into the mobility requirements to support FCS platforms.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26731
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 11:20 am



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16):
What's more reasonable - junking a major land warfare modernization project, or filling the gap a 50yr old aircraft is leaving us?

So, what about that gap? Are there going to be lots of FCS deployment scenarios where deploying 2 is "just right" whereas deploying 3-6 is overkill? Is it worth investing in a unique airplane for this specific role? Will there be money available for such an airplane?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:17 pm

[quote=Lowrider,reply=10]The US Army does not need an aircraft for every mission. The niche that the A400M would fill is currently being filled by 747's DC10's, 767's, and DC8's. They just happen to say Evergreen, World, Kalitta, ATI, Capitol, and Southern on the side. (Apologies to any carrier I might have missed).

Quote:


Medivac, in theatre tactical transport from dirt strips, inflight refuelling, airdrops, special operations. No, I guess it's a totally different mission.

[quote=Lowrider,reply=10]The US Army does not need an aircraft for every mission. The niche that the A400M would fill is currently being filled by 747's DC10's, 767's, and DC8's. They just happen to say Evergreen, World, Kalitta, ATI, Capitol, and Southern on the side. (Apologies to any carrier I might have missed). The only thing these carriers can't do is make drops or combat landings. For the few times these are necessary, it is probably more cost effective to use what is on hand, even if it might be a bit of overkill. I would like to see what Lockheed could come up with to replace the C5 though...

I think 747's and Antonov's are hired for stuff the C5 could do. I think Boeing better focusses on that mission instead of a niche tactical C-17.

A C17- "C" with new GENX engines, a fuselage stretch, improved optimized wing, heavier landing gear, more range etc. could make a very acceptable strategic transport / C5 replacement IMO.

General Lichte even indicates so in the article linked. Amazingly Boeing is offering a completely different aircraft. Maybe they should lobby less and listen better.  duck 



[Edited 2008-09-05 05:20:37]
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 12:47 pm

A-400"A" production alongside KC-45 in Ala. with a Pratt engine (and "Americanized" avionics) starting in 2018. That's my bet and I'm sticking to it.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 1:08 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 20):
A-400"A" production alongside KC-45 in Ala. with a Pratt engine (and "Americanized" avionics) starting in 2018. That's my bet and I'm sticking to it.

 checkmark  & lincense build FCS platforms in Europe.

Could become win-win..
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:28 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 20):
A-400"A" production alongside KC-45 in Ala. with a Pratt engine (and "Americanized" avionics)

I really don't know if it makes sense to develop another engine for the A400M. As we get to see, this is a high-risk project.
But why not build the TP400 in the USA, too? A consortium could be formed where PW produces the MTU parts, GE manufactures the SNECMA ones, RR builds its parts in its US facilities, and Honeywell gets the rest.  Wink
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:45 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16):
He's referring to Army FCS: Army Future Combat Systems.

FCS is still a few years off from initial unit deployment - sometime in the middle of the next decade - and won't be completely deployed for a few more decades. I can see why the USAF doesn't feel an urgency at this point. If/when FCS hits critical mass - probably at least 12 years away, if not more - I suspect the USAF will probably look at a spec-to-build airlift capability to fill the gap between the C-130 and C-17, which is what I said in my post above. The A400M may or may not meet those specs.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 16):
..So the Army was faced with sacrificing armor, equipment, and ammunition to meet the weight goals, or scrapping the program, or going ahead with the program and trying to force the Air Force into fielding the aircraft they needed.

Or the C-17 can do the job in the interim.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:03 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23):
r the C-17 can do the job in the interim.

Boeing says they will adjust the C17 for rough terrain operations. So it is not good enough now. Apart from that it would be expensive overkill for most missions.



The Army seems to want to pull FCS forward because they need it now and not from 2014. I think rationalisation of the total will take place soon..
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:23 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 24):
Boeing says they will adjust the C17 for rough terrain operations. So it is not good enough now. Apart from that it would be expensive overkill for most missions.

Why would it be expensive overkill for most missions? What will "most missions" be like?
 
texl1649
Posts: 1898
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:38 pm



Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23):
A consortium could be formed where PW produces the MTU parts, GE manufactures the SNECMA ones, RR builds its parts in its US facilities, and Honeywell gets the rest. Wink

I'll take the wink as a hint that you are joking. The TP400 is already an over-sourced nightmare, and your post gave me a headache just thinking about it. Pratt had a better engine before the euro politics got in the way (which if it had been selected the damn thing would be flying and in service by now.) I'm kinda glad the Euro's can't blame Americans on this hold up. It's all you, brothers.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14621
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 3:49 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 26):
Pratt had a better engine before the euro politics got in the way (which if it had been selected the damn thing would be flying and in service by now.)

A.net myth if you ask me. No western 11.000 hp turboshaft existed. Existing smaller engines were outdated designs.

Maybe a Pratt design would be in even bigger problems now.

They were pushed out of the civil market & the GTF took them 20 yrs  Wink
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:04 pm



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 26):
Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 23):
A consortium could be formed where PW produces the MTU parts, GE manufactures the SNECMA ones, RR builds its parts in its US facilities, and Honeywell gets the rest. Wink

I'll take the wink as a hint that you are joking.

That is not me you quoted.  Wink
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:05 pm



Quoting Keesje (Reply 8):
I think there is a "niche" between C130 and C17. A 60t niche.. Why was the C27 ordered while the C130J can do at least everything the C27 can?

A half loaded C-17 actually has decent range. I don't think that is a "problem" but rather another excellent type of mission the C-17 is good at.
 
GDB
Posts: 14396
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 6:25 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:22 pm

Not just US FCS programme either, the UK's FRES project to replace a range of vehicles has these issues too.
I suspect it's a problem a lot of nations land forces face, those who will relay a lot on air deployment for rapid reaction forces.
(Easier to fix though, for the UK, just eventually buy more than the current 25 A400M's slated for the RAF).
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:31 am



Quoting A342 (Reply 2):
Maybe a stretched C-17 would be more useful for the USAF?

I've thought that was a good idea too, but apparently the Air Force plans to use the C-5s for years and years and years and ...
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 12:40 am

I wonder what kind of export potential a C-17C would have. Might there be commercial applications as well?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27681
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 2:08 am

Well MD and Boeing both attempted to sell the C-17 in commercial form, but the operating costs were very high and the demand for that unique kind of lift was not common.

One advantage of the C-17's heavier payload and greater volume is it can carry more then just the vehicle. You can load more crew and support (munitions, fuel, spares, etc.) so you don't need additional follow-on flights.

[Edited 2008-09-06 19:08:54]
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:24 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 18):

So, what about that gap? Are there going to be lots of FCS deployment scenarios where deploying 2 is "just right" whereas deploying 3-6 is overkill? Is it worth investing in a unique airplane for this specific role? Will there be money available for such an airplane?

The vehicles are coming. Two have already begun intensive testing, and are doing well. The NLOS-C is especially promising, and will be a BTN asset, and will first see action in light divisions - the very divisions which are designed for rapid air mobile operations.

Why not begin planning for that lift requirement now, and open up a contract bid to fill the gap between the C-130 and C-17, which the A400 can compete in.

I honestly think some people are simply opposed to this idea, because the A400 is a European product. If Boeing was pitching this aircraft, some of those same people would be signing a different tune.

In either case, the Army is forcing the issue. They have abandoned the project requirement for FCS to be C-130 transportable, and is betting that it can use its increased stature and power within the DoD, to force the Air Force into purchasing a new transport aircraft.

-UH60
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 4:33 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 34):
I honestly think some people are simply opposed to this idea, because the A400 is a European product. If Boeing was pitching this aircraft, some of those same people would be signing a different tune.

 checkmark  Same with the tanker contest. But I still think the An-70 is the best of the bunch.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:29 pm

I was contacted by a couple of A.Net members via private message. There seems to be some questions regarding whether or not the Stryker is transportable via C-130. If one were to just Google on Stryker and C-130 (not even the "J" variant) there's plenty of references to Strykers being deployed on C-130's. Just one example:

Quote:
As of September 2002 the Army was flying Stryker in C-130s under a temporary waiver issued by the Air Force. The waiver was necessary because the vehicle is too wide to accommodate the 14-inch safety aisle around all sides that is required by the Air Force for the loadmaster. Additionally, only a portion of its crew may fly in the same aircraft. Yet, the Army disputes claims that Stryker -- the centerpiece of its new Brigade Combat Teams -- is not transportable via C-130. During the Millennium Challenge exercise the Infantry Carrier Vehicle variant required multiple alterations to fit into a C-130: The crew removed two smoke grenade launchers, all antennas, a left rear bracket that blocked egress over the top of the vehicle, the Remote Weapons System and the third-row wheel's bump-stop. Reassembly upon landing took as long as 17 minutes.

[emphasis added]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/iav.htm

Also, mention was made that the C-17 cannot carry 6 Strykers as I indicated in my post above. That's debatable. The Boeing website reflects "combat ready" Strykers being deployed at 3 per C-17. Obviously, there's a difference between "combat ready" dimensions and "transport" dimensions as listed by General Dynamics. "Combat ready" would also include the crews, whereas "transportable" would not. Most equipment deployed via air transport is rendered "transportable" to one degree or another. Also, with the exception of C-130s, you're not going to see C-17's flying to the FEBA all too often and off-loading equipment straight into battle (although there are advantages to being able to do so). Usually battle equipment is deployed to a rear base or staging area. However, this might be a reason why Boeing wants to sell the USAF on the C-17B because it will give it better forward deployment capabilities.

As for the A400M, 2 Strykers could be loaded on; however, as with the C-130 they would be rendered "transportable" and there would not be much room, if any, for the crews. At least that is what the numbers from Airbus' A400M specs would indicate.

So would the A400M be a better fit for Stryker or FCS than the C-130s? ABSOLUTELY. But by the same token, the C-17 would appear to still be an even better fit.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 34):
I honestly think some people are simply opposed to this idea, because the A400 is a European product. If Boeing was pitching this aircraft, some of those same people would be signing a different tune.

What I find interesting is that the very people who tout a "bigger-is-better" and a "multi-task platform is better" on the KC-X tanker threads are now pushing for "right-size" and "smaller-is-better" story over here. Very interesting, indeed.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:25 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 34):
In either case, the Army is forcing the issue. They have abandoned the project requirement for FCS to be C-130 transportable, and is betting that it can use its increased stature and power within the DoD, to force the Air Force into purchasing a new transport aircraft.

In fact, what prevents the Army from acquiring the A400M? Does it have to be operated by the USAF?
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:19 am



Quoting A342 (Reply 37):
In fact, what prevents the Army from acquiring the A400M? Does it have to be operated by the USAF?

The US Army is not able to operate large fixed wing aircraft, under the Keywest Agreement.

The Department of the Army possesses the ability to fly aircraft for intra-theater operations, but cannot go beyond that in size and capability... because that's the Department of the Air Force's domain.

When the Army wanted the JCA (the now selected C-27), the Air Force was dragging its feet and delaying the project... so the Army played good politics, for once, with Congress - and strong armed the Air Force into selecting far ahead of their desired schedule. The Army is hoping they can use that same leverage to push a midsized cargo aircraft purchase by the Air Force.

-UH60
 
sonic67
Posts: 287
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 2:43 pm

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:01 am

I don't understand why the Air Force is being so stubborn? US military need more transports and the C-17 fill the bill nicely. Why would the Air Force buy a foreign aircraft such as the A400 that is less capable? All that would do is kill the c-130J and c-17 and leave a big hole transport ability.

Quote from LA Times:
Despite Air Force resistance, Boeing could find more willing advocates within the Army, which is expected to need a larger cargo plane to transport a new family of armored vehicles that it is developing over the next decade. Boeing has been pushing the C-17B with the Army in hope that the Army can persuade the Air Force to consider the new aircraft.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:57 pm

The Air Force has their hands full right now with the tanker and the CSAR (not to mention the fighter mix issues) so the constant Army harping is an irritant (but an expected irritant). The Air Force can move anything the Army wants moved right now so the concern is not there. The C-5 upgrades will start soon which should improve reliability. Also, as the draw down in Iraq continues, more C-17's will become available.

I feel certain that if someone told the Air Force that they would not have to pay for the C-17B, they would welcome it with open arms. When some of the higher priority issues are settled, the Air Force will address the Army's issues.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: C-17B: Usaf Says It's Not Needed

Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:42 pm

Since this thread is discussing much about the Army's FCS and the A400M, I just started another thread, C-130: Lockheed to Widen for Army, on news this morning that Lockheed is looking to widen the C-130 to accommodate the Army's FCS.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlueberryWheats, ThunderDome and 8 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos