The C-17 is an important PART of a well-rounded fleet. The problem comes when you try to make it the WHOLE fleet

If your first post had said that, I’d agree with you.

so, um, can you agree with me now?

(and besides, that is what i was saying in the first post, apparently not very successfully since no one got it :confused:)

You missed my point…the thing that makes the C-17 so valuable is that it CAN fly into less equipped areas IF IT HAD TO.

The USAF may not want to risk its toys, but its nice to know if the situation demanded ops from less than a place the size of Gatwick, it could.

i don’t think we disagree

it’s an important capability to have

it’s just that we already have it covered, we have it more than covered, we have it obscenely over covered

the problem is if we’re going into a small place, you simply can’t pack in all the C-17s we have

we’ll have what, 205? 220? C-17s after this last order. that will more than saturate any small airfield

not all jobs require a military airlifter, for those jobs an airliner is superior
for those jobs the USAF SHOULD have and use an airliner

They do. Every time I deployed across the Atlantic or Pacific, it was in a charter. Why buy when you can rent…especially for “seasonal’ traffic?

because buying is cheaper than renting if you have enough traffic (and the USAF does)

because renting only works for flights planned in advance (all the medevacs seem to be done by C-17 even though an airliner would be so much more efficient)

because civilian pilots and civilian planes without self-defense suites are limited as to where they go

There is not, and never has been, a military cargo airplane designed around requirements for hauling palleted cargo. All such types are converted civilian aircraft.

that is what i suggested, no?

so it may be prudent for the USAF to procure some dedicated pallet haulers like 777s or 747s in addition to KC-X

The U.S. has 100+ C-5s that spend a large amount of their time sitting around waiting maintenance and upkeep between strategic missions because they are so specific and limited in what’s economically feasible for them to be used.

categorically false

they have more than enough missions to keep them busy, it’s just that they’re so unreliable they don’t trust them with it

hence the hope of EAGL (and to a lesser extent C-5M)

Good Lord, what do you want???

a mixed fleet with the proper proportions of aircraft

The C-5 is a pure strategic asset to be hauled out for times of crisis or unusual circumstances

‘unusual circumstances’ like ‘flying across the pacific’ or ‘flying from midwest base to europe’

while the C-17 is a full time player for any and all transport needs at a more economical price.

um, no

the C-17 is expensive to buy and expensive to run

it takes more flights to do the same mission (crew expense), it’s a drain on tanker resources and it’s a flat-out gas pig

If you had put your “In defense of the C-17” section FIRST

i’ll be sure to keep your comments on section ordering in mind for next time :rolleyes:

The PROBLEM is not even the US can afford a bunch of specialized airlifters for each & every specific range/payload mission [like airlines operate specific airliners/cargo aircraft].

?
most of what i’m proposing is using airframes the USAF either ALREADY HAS or is ALREADY PLANNING TO GET

C-27J – well on it’s way
C-130 – check
C-130XL/A400M – only saw a niche role for this anyways
C-17 – check
KC-X – in competition
additional airliner freighters – probably the only somewhat significant change
EAGL – in planning stages

see, the USAF is basically already getting the right mix of aircraft

the problem is proportions

the C-17 is hogging so much money it’s choking off KC-X and putting EAGL well on the back burner (possibly permanently)

this is a mistake, the sooner KC-X and EAGL can be brought forward, the better

if EAGL gets killed so we can buy 150 more C-17s it would be a travesty

The PROBLEM is not even the US can afford a bunch of specialized airlifters for each & every specific range/payload mission [like airlines operate specific airliners/cargo aircraft]. A compromise MUST therefor be made

The US can’t afford NOT to get a mixed fleet

the C-17 is a very expensive plane

airliner freighters are much cheaper to buy and much cheaper to run and much cheaper on tanker assets (especially since they can’t be tanked unless they decide to do extensive militarization 😉 )

The EAGL may cost more than the C-17 to buy, but it will be cheaper to run in terms of $/ton-mile

and if the balloon ever goes up, the C-17 simply CAN’T move enough material far enough fast enough

that is what we truly CAN’T AFFORD

Going by that USNI reply it doesn’t sound like much more than “this is a new application and a lot is riding on it so it makes us nervous”. Is there a reason it shouldn’t?

what Gahlran and Koch are saying is that it’s FAR MORE than simply ‘haven’t thoroughly tested it’

they are saying that their sources have reported that it doesn’t work and can’t be made to work

whether that’s true or not, time will tell, but this story is NOT about normal teething troubles

Exactly; Irtusk, if you could persuade the USAF to take your point of view and buy a few 777 freighters and trade in a good few C-17 for 50 cents in the dollar, be sure to ring Canada, Australia and first of all the UK, as they will happily take them off their hands at that sort of price.:D

buy your own you moochers 😀

Did the USAF ever fit cargo doors to th KC135’s. Couldn’t they do a limited roll like this ?

it can only carry 6 pallets, the same as a non-stretched C-130

but it requires laying plywood on the floor and the cargo handling is pretty atrocious in general so it’s not much used in the role

Why do you haul pallets with them, then?

because we don’t have anything else

when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail

(well some are handled by the CRAF fleet, but the USAF doesn’t have any native ‘airliner type’ freighters except the KC-10)

I REALLY hate it when people complain about a particular system not being what it was never intended to be.

The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a C-130 (or smaller airlifter).
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a C-5 (or larger airlifter).
The C-17 is not nor was it ever intended to be a pallet hauler.

i’m not complaining that it’s not all those other systems, it simply not possible

my complaint is against those who are intent on misusing it for all those purposes

I will however agree with the basic premis that more C-17s is not the best solution to our airlift problems.

exactly!