About time to take out the trash.

C-17 and 124 are different missions. An A 124 carries a lot more by far. However, the C-17 has filled in doing even some tactical airlift traditionally done by the C-130.
So the C-17 is a good choice. It can get in and out of more fields than a 124. And if needed be made NVG capable combined with NVG qualified crews and do some pretty hair raising approaches into airfields at night with no lighting. Smaller footprint on the ground. Ability to unload quickly and get back into the air. Etc etc. This thing may even eat into Aussie C-130 hours as for some things done now by the Aussie C-130s, a C-17 will do x amount of cargo in y amount of time at a lower cost. Of course that depends on the mission. Everything to their talents. It is also para qualified should the specfors decide to take advantage of that in the future.

Interesting C-17 ops…picking up more tactical work.
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/16097997.htm

————-
Dirt tests… as long as it is flat and can do the weight ( note: The maintainers and depot project managers know that the main gear can have issues sometimes. Doing dirt fields can mean a lot of rocks kicked up into the wheel wells, gear assembly etc. ) which means taking a good look at this as soon as possible.

http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061122-F-2383G-111.jpg
Dirt runway testing increases C-17 safety, agility
A C-17 Globemaster III takes off during Phase 1 tests at Fort Hunter Liggett, Calif. Tests are being conducted to determine the C-17’s ability to bring a large force into a wet or dry dirt airfield without making runway condition corrections. Phase 2 is scheduled to begin Dec. 4 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo/Bobbi Zapka

—————-
Ice…
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/061115-F-0270Y-002.jpg
Vehicles transport equipment and supplies off a C-17 Globemaster III from McChord Air Force Base, Wash., Nov. 16, which landed on the sea ice runway near McMurdo Station, Antarctica. (U.S. Air Force photo/1st Lt. Erika Yepsen)

—————-
More dirt
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060210-F-8164Z-117.jpg
FORT IRWIN, Calif. (AFPN) — A C-17 Globemaster III turns around at the end of a dirt runway after landing Feb. 10. The aircraft is from March Air Reserve Base, Calif. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Joe Zuccaro)

——————

Weak links of the C-17 ? Well… cost… but more on point, as of two years ago, software updates and the main gear are weak links. Don’t know what has been done since then to improve these issues.

Congress won’t have a legto stand on to complain about any future rise in cost of JSF considering the 2nd engine will add 2-3 billion in bumped up cost for the total program… They signed off on it. And the slow down in initial JSF production… they signed off on that too. These two things will raise costs over the total life of the program. Thats x amount of billion dollars in extra cost which would have been nice to have for breathing room for any future problems that may pop up with the B or C.
Then of course there is the 5 billion or so in offsets using the old FMS playbook ( best value thrown out the window ) That we will have to eat, if the Turkey deal goes through. That is off in the future and a different color of money, but it’s still the taxpayer that will eat it.

…..would the aircraft be capable of dodging the likes of an R73 or a python and make the missile lose its lock on the target?

No, I don’t believe the case is that bleak for the defensive pilot.

I’ll post information from the Kosovo conflict later on when I get home 🙂

Flex is right. Watch the AIM-9X or similar videos of other high off boresight helmet assisted missiles. Super Hornet or air show friendly super MiG-29… if it is one of the newer missiles… your dead. The newer ones are more high-contrast, high resolution visual. Even some flare systems might not be of any help.

You bring up a good point and remember “steel is cheap”! The basic design needs not to be complex nor heavily arms. As there escort can prove point defense and ASW protection. Also, the Carrier could be built to commerical standards at a reasonable price in say South Korea. (i.e. for example) :rolleyes:

And hopefully as always… less manpower to run the ship itself. And of course… a ship like this would pay for itself. Stating the obvious that it isn’t just a carrier but can be used for other things besides traditional carrier work in peace time. If it is multi-functional enough, the “cost” shouldn’t be all that bad. Any kind of natural disaster and you want something like this setup to go with helos only and relief workers.

10 Days…

Halt Inquiry Or We Cancel Eurofighters

F-22 class after it has been compromised somehow ( due to fault of our own and/or the tech being ripped off ).

You mean something like this: http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=16986&rsbci=13640&fti=124&ti=0&sc=400 ? 🙂

Thanks, thats neat. There is also of course MALD.