Ended up that way, but if you look at the history of the project, you’ll see that the USAF was seeking a C-130 replacement, the AMST. It got canned at the end of the 1970s, because it was decided that instead of an intra-theatre transport, something more strategic was needed. One of the AMST contenders, the YC-15, was used as a basis for a larger transport, the C-17, able to do the rough-field/short landing/steep approach stuff, but with a bigger load over a longer range.
USAF transport aircraft purchasing seems to have been a disaster area for about 30 years, with the exception of the C-17. There’s a clear need for something bigger than a C-130 but cheaper than a C-17 (looks as if canning AMST was a mistake), & a dearth of small transports (at last being addressed by the planned C-27J buy).
Well, it seems you are the one confused.
Here is a source for you to look at: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17-history.htm
“In the late 1970’s, the U.S. military recognized a growing demand for rapid deployment of military forces and equipment that would exceed the capabilities of the existing C-141, C-5, and C-130 fleets. In 1979, the Air Force was focused on the Advanced Medium STOL (Short Takeoff and Landing) Transport (AMST) program as the single aircraft that could perform the total airlift mission. However, the Carter administration killed the AMST on the same day they formally initiated the C-X program as a follow-on to the C-5 and the C-141.
The C-X(C-17) was an entirely new project specifically intended to replace the C-141 and supplement the C-5 fleet.
That McDonnell-Douglas used their earlier design as a starting point, does not change the intended nature of the C-X programm… high-end strategic airlift.
Your own post says this: “It got canned at the end of the 1970s, because it was decided that instead of an intra-theatre transport, something more strategic was needed.”
Exactly… there was only budget for one transport replacement program, and the Carter administration felt the C-141 strategic transport needed replacement more urgently than the C-130 intra-theatre transport!
Yes there was a clear need for a replacement for the C-130, and the USAF continued to agitate for one, but Congress refused to fund its development.
Lockheed-Martin decided to try the Boeing approach (The KC-135/C-135 was a company-funded program to design an aircraft to win orders from the USAF… after they had already lost the airborne-tanker competition to Lockheed… and it ended up being purchased instead of the Lockheed design), and develop a “C-130 replacement” on their own.
This approach worked, as we have seen. With the C-17, the need for a larger replacement for the C-130 is now lessened greatly (but not eliminated).
I believe if the C-130J had not been developed, the USAF would be trying to get Congress to purchase A-400Ms right now.
Sign In
