The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Air Transportation Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!
leerw    4/19/2005 10:59:31 AM
1. What have I learned from first-hand experience is: we have got enough wide body/heavy lift aircraft and don't need more! The Army/Marines need on an every day basis is trooplifters. The Marines in WestPac needed to move a battalion around and couldn't because AMC
a) didn't have the birds,
b) birds weren't in-theater (and you know who pays for repositioning them),
c) bird daily costs were way too high, and
d) the civilian charters could only accommodate about 2 dozen Marines at a time without weapons or gear!
2. The Army has the same problems elswhere, i.e moving battalion sized units around inside theathers. And that is why there is now Joint HSV acquisition project to buy 50 to 90 of them. A lot more capability for a lot less money.
3. Super big airlifters make NO sense when you are talking about inter- vice intra theater moves. Rumy's plan to bring the troops home will just make the airlift problem worse, and we will spend more money on fuel and we will need more airstrips abroad to land at, more $$$$ wasted.
4. Now think back, how many times in recent memory have airlifters been used to land tactical equipment in a combat zone? You can count them on one hand! This whole "my airplane can lift a tank" is a load of crap! It is an unnecessary capability! What the troops need is more C-130s. What their commanders want is a company of tanks or ASVs all at once driving up the road. In case you haven't noticed, the Army is having an incredibly hard time buying armored vehicles that are within airlifter payload limits. I say scrap the whole idea!
5. Fact: 95% of ALL materials have gotten to all conflicts since WWII by Sealift, not airlift. Tactical airlift is definitely needed, stategic airlift plays a limited role.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
   RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   4/19/2005 10:28:02 PM
Hey leerw, The C-17 can land with equal or greater load anywhere a c-130 can, though it was designed for rear area use. I believe the USAF should deploy c-17 and MV-22 with KC-17 and KC-130j. This would allow three transports/tankers in production at one time and would extend the C-130 and C-17 production runs! To me this is all about economics of what we need at useful cost levels and production runs that are useful!!! Sincerely, Keith
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   5/8/2005 12:07:42 AM
Sounds like a Lockheed salesman.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   5/8/2005 10:02:02 PM
If you want to shift a batallion, how about an A380? You can squeeze 800men into one of those babies. Get this. Airbus plan to do a military turbo prop version (A400M) that can land on anything in a short distance. Why shop at home when you can buy the best? The 36 ton payload should manage some fast light armour too.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:perfectgeneral    5/9/2005 4:21:19 AM
Not exactly: A soldier with personel equipment take 1½ seat and the A380 can land at very few airfields; but otherwise using civilian airliners for operational deployment of personel is right.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   5/11/2005 3:48:37 AM
A-380 cant land at a lot of airports even when its fully utilized. Nor can it be double for military cargo lift (its not built for it and the designers never went down that route). For heavy freight it suffers some problems there too but it can carry quite a bit. In those circumstances the current US civil air reserve is enough at the moment to meet current needs.
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   5/11/2005 8:32:20 AM
There are like 20 airports that can handle the A380. Pick your wars carefully or your troops will have to walk a long way. Please explain the advantage of the turboprop A400 vs. a C-17 for transporting troops and equipment long distances. And just how 'anywhere' can the A400 land vs. any other military transport ever built? Is it VTOL? STOVL? STOL? It looks an awful lot like a C-130. What let's it go where a C-130 can't that makes it 'the best'? The C-5 was supposed to be able to land anywhere. I would be surprised if they ever touched dirt.
 
Quote    Reply

Winds of Change.NET    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   5/11/2005 4:52:01 PM
A couple misconceptions here. First, the A400M is NOT derived from the A380. It is larger than a Hercules, however, which improves its ability to carry APCs because they can just "roll-on/roll-off" instead of having to be broken down and then put back together again. The U.S. is having a hard time with that, which is affecting things like the Stryker program not meeting its transportability targets. Not to mention considerations like their ability to move battalion size units around. This (plus range limitations) is whyis why C-17s are often used when a C-130 might do, worsening the problem. Actually, the A400M looks like an excellent aircraft. If I had to choose between the C-130J and A400M, I probably take the A400. Would be interesting to do a lifecycle cost-comparison with the A400M and C-17, though. leerw is right that sea deployment is still the big thing, though. I'd take a close look at WestPac's use of Austal's new catamaran and trimaran ships, which can get battalion size units to their destinations in a hurry, then roll them off at even "sparse" ports. Deployability will be a big concern over the next decade. It will mean upgrades to sealift, airlift, and tankers in order to do the job properly, and each of those will cost money. Money that has to come from somewhere, and that pressure will create difficult times ahead.
 
Quote    Reply

blacksmith    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   5/12/2005 7:34:33 PM
No misconception here. The A380 was brought up in a previous post. The A400 questions were only directed at the A400.
 
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral    RE:A400m Vs C17   6/6/2005 9:39:38 PM
a)It doesn't mind getting its wheels muddy. b)STOL c)smaller, but big enough for the job (cf C130j). d)cheaper to run (purchase, service, run, lifecycle cost). You can kit one out with combat 'crash' seating for 500, over two decks, no problem.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    RE:A400m Vs C17 PerfectGeneral.   9/7/2005 7:57:44 AM
Can you clarify which aircraft the four points refered to. I assume that it was the A400M.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:A400m Vs C17   9/7/2005 8:29:20 AM
perfect general wrote: "a)It doesn't mind getting its wheels muddy. b)STOL c)smaller, but big enough for the job (cf C130j). d)cheaper to run (purchase, service, run, lifecycle cost). " How 'bout e) only exists on paper at the moment.
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:We DON't need no more expensive C-17s!!   9/7/2005 10:31:05 AM
leerw wrote: "1. What have I learned from first-hand experience is: we have got enough wide body/heavy lift aircraft and don't need more! The Army/Marines need on an every day basis is trooplifters. The Marines in WestPac needed to move a battalion around and couldn't because AMC" What, in your experience, makes you believe we have anough heavy lifters? Sounds to me like you've identified a shortage in medium and light tactical lifters, but you haven't explained how your experience leads you to believe we we don't need more heavy lift too.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    B.Smitty    9/15/2005 10:03:26 AM
excatly. The fact that the C-17 can lift a tank should not lead to the conclusion that it is their main task. You might lift in an armoured force - that is the smallest problem, but the real trick is to keep it supplied. In fact the need for airtransport gets greater when you do not have a fixed enemy like the Soviets, because against them you could lay up stuff in depots in the neighbourhood - which you can't if you don't know a couple of years in advance who or where your enemy will be.
 
Quote    Reply

doggtag    just how much stuff do you want to move?   9/15/2005 12:18:39 PM
-"Sounds to me like you've identified a shortage in medium and light tactical lifters..." The US Army is already on this one. The September 2005 issue of National Defense (NDIA's Business & Technology magazine, www.ndia.org ,which offers free subscriptions to US service members) has an article on pp34-37 expressing the US Army's desire to replace its aging, and over-used, C-23 Sherpa fleet. The Army is keyying up to spend $4 billion on a future cargo aircraft, somewhere between the C-23 and C-130 (gets around USAF fixed wing monopoly) The Army is looking at, initially, about 33 aircraft to replace exlusively those C-23s operated by National Guard units, but the Army has stated a requirement for as many as 128 aircraft. Contract could be awarded by early 2006, with first deliveries in late 2007/early 2008. With a length of 58 feet, the C-23 Sherpa is 40 feet shorter than a C-130, and can transport as many as 30 troops, four small pallets, or 18 litter casualties, and has been racking up excessive flight hours in the Iraq theater. They are not pressurized, and fly below 20,000 feet, and are not used because of this in Afghanistan. But the C-23 is limited in payload to about 7100 pounds, and can require as much as 5000 feet to take off fully loaded, even more than a C-130. The three candidate aircraft to replace them are the C-27 Spartan, the CN-235, and the CN-295. The C-27J Spartan came from the G.222 aircraft, and is powered by 2 of the same engines as its C-130 "big brother". They also are sharing a considerable amount of internal avionics, allowing Hercules pilots to easily transition to the Spartan if the need arises. The C-27J has a flight ceiling of 30,000 feet, is pressurized, and has a ferry range of 3,200 natical miles. It can carry 68 troops, 36 stretchers, or more than 23,000 pounds of cargo. It's benefit is that it can STOL from airfields as small as 1115 feet. On the CN-235 and CN-295, the -235 has been chosen as a maritime patrol aircraft for the USCG. The smallest of the three contenders, it is 70 feet long, can carry 13,600 pounds or 51 troops, and can utilize a 2365-foot runway. The -295 is 80 feet long, can transport 71 soldiers or 20,400 pounds of cargo, and use a 2395-foot runway. The -295 has the benefit of a cargo hold very similar in size to the CH-47 Chinook, allowing rapid cargo transfer between the two with no need to change the payload's weight, height, or width. The CN-235 and -295 are EADS aircraft and partnered with Raytheon, who is willing to commit to at least 30% parts production in the US, while the C-27J is a GMAS product (Global Military Aircraft Systems, Alenia Aeronautica North America collaborating with L3 Communications Integrated Systems), backed by Lockheed Martin. The USAF already operates some C-27A models. All these aircraft have specs up on link (except the C-23 Sherpa) -"but you haven't explained how your experience leads you to believe we we don't need more heavy lift too." As far as not needing anymore C-17s... they've been going through their service life (flight hours) exponentially faster now that they are the predominant heavy airlifter of the US Iraq and Afghanistan operations. They are already projected to not last as long as originally intended (even with SLEP), and certainly it is sensible to procure more new-build aircraft (if so, hopefully to the newer C-17A+ model). But, the USAF, at the "request" of Congress and the DoD, will have to decide where the money from its budget will come from to fund those aircraft (but they'd rather have F-22s and F-35s), or they will have to contend with the money going to the US Army (and maybe USMC) to procure their own tactical transports, which will lessen logistics demands on the USAF on all but the heaviest cargoes. But if the USAF loses that additional funding now, it may be very difficult to recoup that lost chunk of funding from their budget for later projects down the road. Certainly the other branches are overly-dependant on the USAF for aerial logistics. Maybe that does need to change. But just like the USAF risking losing budget money, the other branches may have to decide which programs to sacrifice or postpone in order to fund their own air transport programs. As for transporting heavy armored vehicles by air: unless you've requested a few replacement vehicles (expedite shipment), most likely the heavy vehicles will all be transported by ship (even the highly-touted SBCTs, as the USAF simply cannot stop logistics operations elsewhere to allocate sufficient assets move an entire SBCT by air.) Something definitely needs to be done to remedy the deficiencies in the US Air Transport Command (or MAC- Maybe Airplane Come?- or whatever its called.) Perhaps the ideal solution is both more new-build C-17s for the USAF AND a fleet of US Army and USMC light/medium tactical airlifters (although certainly the USMC won't go for it if it cuts into their V-22 program.)
 
Quote    Reply

B.Smitty    RE:just how much stuff do you want to move?   9/17/2005 5:00:41 PM
doggtag wrote: "Something definitely needs to be done to remedy the deficiencies in the US Air Transport Command (or MAC- Maybe Airplane Come?- or whatever its called.) Perhaps the ideal solution is both more new-build C-17s for the USAF AND a fleet of US Army and USMC light/medium tactical airlifters (although certainly the USMC won't go for it if it cuts into their V-22 program.)" Or fund a USAF purchase of light/medium tactical airlifters. IMHO, the reasoning behind why the USAF exists still applies here. A single entity can better manage the entirity of strategic and tactical airlift than having every service go it alone. Now, I still think there's room for specialty aircraft in the other services (e.g. helos, carrier air), and for a SMALL number of airlifters, but the majority should be centrally managed and controlled.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy