The C-17 is a compromised beast, neither fish nor fowl, neither tactical nor strategic, jack-of-all-trades and master of none.

It’s great value is that it can be made to do most anything, but just because you can cut down a tree with a butcher knife doesn’t mean you should.

I will consider 3 different areas and show how the C-17 isn’t right for any of them

1. Tactical

This one is pretty obvious. It’s simply too big to get into many places. It can’t land on sandy surfaces. It can land on dirt, but only as a stunt. (The AF typically restricts it to paved surfaces). It doesn’t have enough landing gear and thus tears up soft surfaces to render them unusuable. Practically, turbofans are never a good solution on dirt because of FOD.

Fortunately, the US is well covered in this area with the C-130J and soon the C-27J

There may be a niche for an A400M/C-130XL type, but generally, we are/will be ok here

2. Pallet / Light cargo / aeromedical

Most cargo is shipped via pallets, but the C-17 basically sucks as a pallet hauler

a) Number of pallets

C-130: 6-8 pallets
C-17: 18 pallets
KC-30: 26 pallets on main deck + 6 lower deck (not full height)
C-5: 36 pallets
777: 37 pallets
747: 36 pallets main deck, 3-5 lower deck

b) Range

The C-17 is a fuel pig and by consequence limited in range

i) overweight

– tremendously overbuilt for light transport roles with a massive floor structure that supports tanks. When you don’t need such strength, it’s just so much dead weight that saps range

ii) aerodynamically inefficient

– the draggy external landing gear fairings are necessary for its ‘tactical’ role, but do nothing for it’s aerodynamic performance
– the rear cargo door is also a result of it’s tactical heritage, but again hurts aerodynamics

iii) too small

the C-5 faces many of the same challenges as the C-17 (overweight, poor aerodynamics), but overcomes them with size

– the C-17 pretends to be tactical so it has a small wing that enables it to fit into more places. The C-5 makes no such pretense and can thus have a much bigger, more efficient wing

– by being size limited, the C-17 simply doesn’t have room for enough gas. They made the C-17ER so it could finally hop over the Atlantic without refuelling, but the extra fuel tanks intrude into the cabin, further reducing its cargo flexibility. The C-5 is simply big enough that it can pack in enough gas to overcome its limitations

C-17: 160,000lbs 2420nm
C-17: 40,000lbs 5610nm
An-124: 240,000lb 2500nm
747: 220,000+lb 5000nm
A330: 6400nm (unknown payload)
777-200LR: 8865nm (unknown payload)
enhanced range A330 – 7866 miles (projected)

The C-17 just isn’t cut out for the Pacific, even getting to Hawaii with max payload is a stretch. And beyond that . . . fuhgeddaboutit

Travis (San Francisco)-HIK (Hickam AFB) – 2435 mi
HIK-Seoul – 4576 mi
HIK-Guam – 3801 mi
HIK-Kadena – 4652 mi
HIK-Taipei – 5069 mi

It will be severely weight limited to make to any number of probable destinations from Hawaii

A sample itinerary to the middle east doesn’t look much better

Dover-Ramstein – 3969 mi
Ramstein-Bagram – 3221 mi

If a long-distance delivery was required, it could easily take FOUR TIMES AS MANY FLIGHTS to accomplish the same mission as C-5s (2 C-17s for every C-5 and 1 tanker for each C-17)

c) Speed

C-17 – cruise speed: 450kt
A330 – economical cruising speed: 464kt
777 – typical cruising speed: 490kt

as an example of how these factors combine to hamper aeromedical evacuations consider this story:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/02/apc17flight070211/

So they made it, but it was a near thing. A longer range plane like a 777 or possibly A330 could have made the flight without having to worry about refuelling and also would have made it faster

C-17: 7500 miles at 518mph = 14.48 hours
A330: 7500 miles at 534mph = 14.04 hours
777: 7500 miles at 564mph = 13.3 hours

and that doesn’t account for the extra time taken while refuelling

The US relies on CRAF and other civil contractors for most of its pallet capacity. It’s only ‘real’ pallet hauler is the KC-10, which is heavily tasked and generally unavailable for such duties. Thus C-17s and C-5s are misused for this role.

also:
C-17: 48 litters
KC-30: 120 litters

Currently the best hope for this is KC-X, which will provide a large number of suitable pallet transports, but this keeps getting delayed and tankers are often tasked elsewhere, so it may be prudent for the USAF to procure some dedicated pallet haulers like 777s or 747s in addition to KC-X

CRAF is good, but civilian pilots and airplanes without self-defense systems are limited as to where they can/will go

3. Strategic Transport

The heart of strategic transport is moving massive quantities long distances.

Some of the critical points to this have been covered previously:

a) capacity: the C-17 is simply too small to be considered a strategic transport, it takes too many flights to transfer stuff. It’s like trying to put out a fire with a bucket brigade when you could have a fire hose.

b) range: purely unacceptable. For any number of possible deployments, C-17s will hog all available air-refuelling assets and then some

Now I want to cover a different aspect of strategic transport:

c) outsized loads

i) loads that a C-5 can handle that a C-17 can’t, such as

– M104 mobile scissors bridge
– MK V SOC boat
– special one-off situations like a C-130 fuselage (http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2008/09/091508-Stratton_ANGB.aspx)

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-5908419_ITM

They’ve already said that they will have to design the next boat smaller so it will fit in the C-17. We are compromising our capabilities because of the C-17’s limitations. Unacceptable

ii) loads that even the C-5 can’t handle

– V-22 osprey
– GE90 engines for the 777s they’re going to buy 😉
– all sorts of stuff

iii) stuff that will fit in the C-17 but requires extensive teardown

you can fit a chinook in a C-17, but it requires over a day to put it back together, obviously not very practical or desirable

similar story with the CH-53 (and presumably the upcoming CH-53K), you can cram it in there, but it’s painful

The C-17 can only carry 1 abram at a time, a C-5 theoretically could carry 2 but has load restrictions and center-of-gravity issues and so is limited to 1 also.

Here is where EAGL gleams bright in the future. Hopefully a true strategic airlifter that puts the An-124 to shame. Something that can carry 3 abrams, something that could carry a couple chinooks without extensive teardown, something that could even carry an osprey. And could do all this at super-long ranges without refuelling

Summary:

The C-17 is a too-small, short-ranged, gas-pig

The USAF should build up it’s fleet with the right tools for the job instead of trying to shoehorn all tasks into a compromised one-size-fits-none airframe

tactical: continue C-130J and C-27J and investigate possible C-130XL/A400M

pallet/aeromedical: get KC-X already! and possibly supplement with commercial freighters like 777 or 747 (with appropriate militarization and self-defense suites)

strategic: get moving with EAGL and finally have a true successor to the C-5 that can move massive amounts of anything around the globe

In defense of the C-17:

This shouldn’t be taken as an attack on the C-17, but rather of trying to use the C-17 to meet all our airlift needs.

The C-17 is reliable and flexible, and there is much to be said for that.

Certainly there are situations where it’s unique capabilities are required. But the point is that those are niche requirements and you don’t build your entire fleet around a niche capability. We have more than enough of them to fill that niche.

You hear much moaning about how we need to build more C-17s because we’re burning them out with heavy usage.

The solution isn’t to build more C-17s, it’s to assemble the right mixture of capabilities to take the load off the C-17s

Shipments that might have involved 3 C-17s and multiple tankers could conceivable be done with a single EAGL with no refuelling support

Once we have enough aircraft to fulfill the additional duties it has taken on, the C-17 can be relegated back to its proper niche. With the large number of airframes and the hugely reduced demand for them, they should expect a long, fruitful life in USAF service

seems american equipment is increasingly being stretched to limits and thereby becoming junk

Taking into account that Russia has other warheads able to toy with the military strategic infrastructure of the U.S. forces, these huge warheads are indeed designed against population centers. That’s how strategic nuclear deterrence works.

20 mt warhead for SS-18 voiveda missiles was designed for super hard targets like Cheyenne and for massive continental EMP attacks

LOL………….that’s the source! Talk about “Communist Propaganda”

How about the Land Campaigns North Africa, Italy, and France? Further, that doesn’t even count the German Losses in Aircraft and Ships. As a matter of fact how many German Submarines were lost to Russian Naval Forces.

Gary, your on the wrong side…………is there a Communist Party in New Zeeland???;)

Personally, I have no problem with giving “Russia” credit but 85%. PLEASE

Let’s also not forget that the Western Allies were fightning the Japanese too! Which, Russia only contributed to during the last few days of the war…..

LOL………….that’s the source! Talk about “Communist Propaganda”

ahh, another lovely testament of the american ‘great BS’ education , read any book on ww2 by historian whether american or russian , states that 80%-85% of the fascist forces were destroyed in the Eastern front

Let’s also not forget that the Western Allies were fightning the Japanese too! Which, Russia only contributed to during the last few days of the war…..

ok,heres the contribution is here ,

At the Yalta Conference in Feb 1945, Joseph Stalin had agreed to end the non-aggression pact with Japan, immediately followed by a declaration of war, three months after Germany would be defeated. On 8 Aug 1945, exactly three months after the German surrender, Russia abided by her promise and invaded Japanese puppet state Manchukuo in northeastern China. The three Russian Armies (Fronts) of the Far Eastern Command was under the overall command of Marshal A. M. Vasilevsky. In the field, Marshal R. Y. Malinovsky commanded the Transbaikal Front, Marshal K. A. Meretskov the 1st Far East Front, and General M. A. Purkayev the 2nd Far East Front. Fielding over 1.5 million men in 80 division with the support of over 5,000 tanks and 4,300 aircraft, the Russian forces completely outnumbered General Otsuzo Yamada’s Kwangtung Army’s 600,000 men in 25 divisions with a 40,000-strong Manchukuo Defense Force in 8 divisions, supported by 1,215 tanks and 1,800 aircraft.
The main invasion came across the Gobi desert, a desolate region that the Japanese did not expect any army to march through. Aside from the numerical superiority, the Russian invasion came at a total surprise to the unprepared Japanese troops in western Manchuria, which was further exploited by the Russian usage of airborne units at key airfields and population center. Within two weeks, major Manchurian cities of Mukden, Changchun and Qiqihar were under Russian control.

While the main invasion came across from the west, the eastern pincer made several amphibious landings on 18 Aug in northern Korea, Sakhalin, and in the Kuril Islands. The northern Korean landing was undeniably military in nature, but the landings made in southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands were likely more political in nature, aiming for a long term occupation of Japanese territories.
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=167

pretty significant contribution , atleast in terms of land battles .

by the way , Atomic bombings was totally unnecessary

The Soviet invasion of the Japanese holdings on China forced the Japanese to sign a surrender lest they not only lose their last formed army but allow their mainland to be invaded by a country that not only had the means but also the willpower to take their island from them.

The war with Japan were over long before that and if the US offered the same terms in June than they did AFTER the dropped the nukes the Japanese would have signed it. Fact is the US administration actually compromised on their initial peace terms to ensure that the Japanese did not surrender to the USSR instead of the US. The nuclear weapons no more ended the war against Japan than the massed strategic bombing campaigns against either Japan and Germany forced them to surrender

Though most westerners believe the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the events that drove Japan to surrender, the atomic bombs were actually only part of the equation. Many historians such as Tsuyoshi Hasegawa and Dan van der Vat argue that the Russian declaration were as important, if not more so, in the Japanese decision to capitulate. During the last months of the war, it had been evident that the Japanese, not knowing the Yalta Conference agreement, were seeking Russian assistance as a neutral power to negotiate surrender terms with the western Allies. With the seemingly neutral Russians suddenly changing face and tearing up the non-aggression pact, Japan suddenly lost their last hope, which affected the Japanese psyche tremendously.
http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=167

Gary, your on the wrong side…………is there a Communist Party in New Zeeland???;)

WTF??, I don’t live in new zealand , nor I am GarryB , ask the mods to check my IP address , its indian

funny

funny all these pro america lovers , they all cover up for USA ,

the projects like LCA have been ruined because of US meddling in tech transfers and giving problems and not selling GE 404 engines for LCA ,

this has inevitably delayed the LCA for 20 years,according to DRDO scientists

we Indians don’t need american crap , there are too many political strings attached to it ,

prefer french or russian aircraft and preferably the LCA albeit with AESA(maybe Zhuk AESA or french AESA/PESA could be imported for that, till india does not have indigenous PESA/AESA) , DRDO needs money for development of new projects ,

Secretly Wishing for the Soviet Union to rise from its ashes…

I do expect that in the coming future , as well betterment of chinese relations with India , pakistan will turn into a failed state , sending insurgents into the Xinjiang Region(which pakistan is already doing and is angering China)

recently China denied loan to Pakistan , and Pakistan turned to IMF ,

Add together all the F-86 losses which could be wrongly attributed to other causes & the VVS claims are still impossible. The same applies to other types. Why can’t you understand this? It isn’t necessary to believe the US attribution of their own losses to particular causes is very accurate to realise that VVS & Chinese claims just aren’t possible. You seem to think they’re maybe a little inaccurate around the edges, but you’re wrong: they are hugely exaggerated.

Look at KORWALD. It’s an almost complete list of US aircraft losses in Korea, & it’s online, free. It includes damaged, & some aircraft appear several times, having been damaged, repaired, flown again, damaged – etc. People have spent years analysing & cross-checking that & other sources, matching claims up with losses. They’ve found some interesting things. For example, Soviet claims of kills have in quite a few cases been matched up to damaged aircraft. Some aircraft were “shot down” by the VVS a few times, & on each occasion by two or three MiGs. Each pilot may well have believed he shot down the US aircraft which he’d shot at & knew for sure had been hit – but he didn’t shoot it down: it survived.

god, the level of nonsense in your posts

Until now in the USA they attempt to touch up the total of war. Thus, in “the encyclopedias of aviation (New York, 1977 g.) is noted that in all American pilots in the time of war biased 2.300 “Communist” aircraft (USSR, China and PDRK (People’s Democratic Republic of Korea)), the loss by the USA and their allies – 114. Relationship – 20: 1. it is imposing? However, the most serious American specialists even in the Fifties, when total losses it was hide difficultly (look the book “air power – the decisive force in Korea”, Toronto – New York – London, by 1957 g.) they noted that USAF (United States Air Force) only in the combat struggles lost about 2.000 aircraft, the loss “Communist” aircraft they then evaluated more modestly – approximately into 1.000 aircraft. However, these numbers are distant from the truth.
http://in.babelfish.yahoo.com/translate_url?doit=done&tt=url&intl=1&fr=slv&lp=xx_en&trurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airwar.ru%2Fhistory%2Faces%2Facepostwar%2Fpilot%2Fsutyagin.html

The number of Soviet non-combat losses was only 10 aircraft. The number of non-combat losses, officially admitted by the US, is 945 [“The United States Air Force in Korea 1950-1953” by Robert Futrell]. This enormous number non-combat losses is a testament to the “superior” training of American pilots as well as to the attempts on the part of the US government and the military to present combat losses as “accidents.” The Chinese and Korean air forces lost 231 fighters in combat, which brings the total number of MiG losses to 576 aircraft. The Americans claimed to have shot down 2,300 “Communist aircraft.” [Aviation Encyclopedia, 1977, New-York]
http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws002/the_hunt_for_the_sabre.htm

so 2300….
then 1000….
now already 729 ( as it said )…..
You could easy find the contradactions dear Bravo.
Moreover today in the Russain archives was opened the datas of loses of the both China’s and N.Koreans Mig-15 – 231 only was shot down by the UN airforces.
So you could calculate the total loses of Mig-15 in Korea- 335+231 = 566 (!!!)
So as could you see american datas could be easy refuted by the Russian archive datas.
So where is true?
lonevolk , don’t waste your time argueing with americans , their education is propaganda based , no wonders their nation is collapsing , sooner or later USA will become third world nation , as the very famous trend forecaster Gerald Celente predicted , also according to Peter Schiff , US currency will have hyperinflation like Zimbabwean currency by 2012-2014
—
Scooter

Just because Russia was successful in one battle with Japan. Hardly, translates into it being some kind of Grand and Powerful Military Power. (cira 1941) As a matter of fact it was utterly crushed by Nazi Germany in the early years on the Eastern Front. So, were was this almightly Army then??? Sorry, the truth is Russia would have likely fallen. If, not for the massive support of the Allies in the first 2-3 years of the War. Which, was further supported by other fronts in North Africa and Italy. Plus, keeping the Japanese tied down in the Pacific. That said, Russia suffered much and contributed a great deal to Nazi Germany’s Defeat. Especially, in the latter years of the Conflict. Yet, it offensive to claim Russia Won the War or even could have on its own. As it was very much a Allied Effort.

lol, Russia was responsible for 85% of the losses of the German wehramcht ..and the Lend lease only consisted of 10% of total soviet wartime production

But what about lend-lease? Let us hear what one of the most serious publications of the American bourgeoisie has to say on this subject. Leland Stowe in an article in the October issue of the quarterly Foreign Affairs writes: “The American lend-lease and British supplies did not reach Soviet Russia in sufficient proportions to become a major factor in the crucial defensive fighting along the Don, in the northern Caucasus and at Stalingrad during the summer and early autumn of 1942. This flow became really important only about the time that the Russians had already demonstrated their bulldog grip on Stalingrad.” Mr. Stowe is compelled to admit that the Red Army’s military record represents an “exclusively Soviet achievement.” In public the capitalist press of course loudly denies this. But among themselves these gentlemen prefer the truth.
http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/wright/1943/10/sovlife.htm

acc. to Hitler’s Nemesis” by Walter S. Dunn Jr, . OVERWHELMING amount of supply, reached Soviets only after battle of Stalingrad. Even WITHOUT ANY LENDLEASE Soviet industry out produced Germans by HUGE margin. Book stated that Soviets could win the Germans WITHOUT any help from outside, and second front.
David Glantz (“When Titans Clashed,”) seems to feel that lend-lease was not the linchpin to eventual Soviet success. It wasn’t Lend-Lease that undertook the massive (and, frequently, nasty) effort to move entire plants east to keep wartime production going. Nor did it equip the Siberian divisions that turned the tide at the defense of Moscow

By early 1943 the Red Army could defeat the Wermacht without military assistance, but to do so required enormous quantities of advanced weapons and an army of at least 5 million men. The cost in lives would run in the millions. The Americans and especially the British feared heavy casualties. Public opinion in both countries would have balked at a war dragging on for years with millions of casualties. It took a concerted effort by the British and Americans to overcome about a hundred German divisions from 1943 to 1945 after the Germans had been defeated on the Eastern Front. The question of whether the Russians needed a second front in 1943 is a sequel to the thesis that launching an attack in France was not only possible in 1943 but advantageous to the West, presented in Second Front Now 1943 (published in 1981). The second front was not essential to the Soviets after early 1943. According to one Soviet historian, “After this [the Battle of Stalin- grad] nobody could any longer doubt the ability of the Soviet Army to crush Nazi Germany singlehandedly
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23595499

Russia did determine her own destiny. She had already beaten the Germans during Op Typhoon, the last push on Moscow. The first Lend-Lease shipments of any value to the Russians did not arrive until well into ’42, after the danger of Russia immediately folding had passed., and lend lease became significant only after 1944
Lend-lease helped the USSR to win the war faster, and with less casualties. Without Lend-lease they most likely still would have been on the winning side.

For your information, not that it matters one jott, I do not watch Fox news or any other of it’s type. I base my opinions on many visits to Israel state, and many more to come. And on visits to the Arab states, but not the Gaza strip. I used to sell them arms and munitions, now I only sell components for their military aeroplanes.

so you are a arms dealer ??

no wonders, you seemed to condone israeli genocide ,

after all , you are a pedaler and merchant of death ….

That must be fine drugs you are on, to take you so far from our world, and still allow you to type. You need to join up with the scum and take on Israel. Bye.

another westerner on crack , who watches too much fox news …

You need to join up with the scum and take on Israel.

Israel is an apartheid state …. fact
http://stopthewall.org/worldwideactivism/1664.shtml

man, are people fools or what on this website …. I guess americans must be watching too much fox news and western MSM propaganda kool aid

Israel has committed inummerable war crimes against humanity , such as ethnic cleansing ,mass murder of civilians etc. which is precursor to genocide , as per nuremburg trials ….

by the way hamas was created by mossad to create infighting in the PLO(under Arafat)