Agree with EdLaw, the C-17 is not cheap but, I can’t think of another RAF aircraft where the top brass have consistantly used words and phrases such as ‘excellent’, ‘reliable’, ‘delighted with the performance’, ‘a genuine force multiplier’ etc, so clearly they are very pleased. It gives them a global reach with a speed that can really be quite surprising. Witness the Russian sub operation last year the RAF got a C-17 there with the rescue gear very fast indeed even though it was 4600 miles away, and it did it at maximum weight in one hop. The A-400 will no doubt be a decent aircraft, but a C-17 it will never be. I watched an RAF C-17 at Stansted the other night and was amazed what a short take off it had,(much less than a 737) the Antonovs that go there some days barely seem to want to leave the earth and thats on a 10,000 foot runway. Lord only knows what their genuine rough field performance is.
The Russian big lifters are okay but they are often out of date and underpowered and share little commonality and engineering protocols with the US and Europeans stuff, and modernised ones will never be as cheap as some of the numbers being touted around once you have put in good avionics and importantly decent engines. There must be a reason why the Aussies, the Canadians, the Luftwaffe, the Swedes, and just last week the Danes all look to be going for the C-17 rather than other options. Nope, even though its my tax payers money I will take the C-17’s thanks and just charter the Antonovs for the rare outsize stuff.
Sign In
