RAF C-17 airlifting Challenger 2 tanks

[Minorite invisible]

Someone claimed that the RAF Brize 99 Squadron C-17s have already airlifted a Challenger 2 MBT. Is it true?

[c130jbloke]

Who is someone ?

[Minorite invisible]

Some DND guy in Ottawa who claims that Canada can airlift a 62 tonne Leopard 2A6 in theirs and that the RAF has airlifted Challengers 2s in theirs.
The issue is that the C-17 ramp has a load restriction of 130,000 pounds and that Boeing had to give a waiver to allow the M-1 Abrams to be rolled across it, waiver which is just valid for the M-1.

[k1rb5]

The issue is that the C-17 ramp has a load restriction of 130,000 pounds


Err hum, 135,000lbs:O Right then. I'll get me coat.

[Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!]

I misread the title as "RAF C-17 airlifting 2 Challenger tanks"

[Razor61]

How odd,
I misread it first as being 2 Challenger's aswell!

[Grabbers]

This is a great thread. Just what I needed to help me nod off.

[MarkD]

note here: minorite is a C-17 sceptic/Antonov-Illyushin booster (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=251934). Not that there's anything wrong with that of course :ooh:

[Moose Loadie]

Not sure where Minorite gets his info either but I can guarantee that the C-17 can carry an Abrams no problem. No dispensation necessary, no idea where the 130,000lb comes from. Just check the track pads and providing there is no scuffing from the metal drive it in and chain it down.
k1rb5, i think we may know each other.

[Minorite invisible]

note here: minorite is a C-17 sceptic/Antonov-Illyushin booster. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course

Thank you for the publicity, but how is that related to my question? Are you suggesting to other people that they not reply to my legitimate question? It seems that way to me.

I did not ask IF (1) Challenger 2 tank CAN theoretically be loaded and flown inside a C-17, but HAS it been done? If no one can come back with a definite YES on this forum, I will assume its a NO.

[k1rb5]

k1rb5, i think we may know each other

Yes, my username doesn't disguise much does it? Only came on here to pay my respects to those on XV179 and here we are.....................Judging by your previous posts I'm guessing I helped tie you to a tree outside the ITC block on your birthday in 1997:ok:

[Minorite invisible]

Not sure where Minorite gets his info either but I can guarantee that the C-17 can carry an Abrams no problem.

I didn't say it couldn't carry an M-1 Abrams. I said it had to get a waiver to carry it and that the waiver in question was only valid for the M-1 Abrams.

This is where my info came from, page 136, the Chapter called "Cargo Vehicles":
Defence Science Board Task Force on Mobility, US Department of Defence (http://stinet.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA441079&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf)

[samuraimatt]

but HAS it been done? If no one can come back with a definite YES on this forum, I will assume its a NO.

Ooh we are a touchy soul. Why is it so important that you find out what RAF aircraft have been carrying?

[goates]

Ooh we are a touchy soul. Why is it so important that you find out what RAF aircraft have been carrying?

He thinks the Canadian government is wasting our money on C-17s and wants to know why they haven't been flying Leopards into Kandahar yet. Supposedly the ramp isn't strong enough. Skip to the last couple of pages if you want to read it.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?t=34085&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[BluntedAtBirth]

I didn't say it couldn't carry an M-1 Abrams. I said it had to get a waiver to carry it and that the waiver in question was only valid for the M-1 Abrams.


One man's 'waiver' is another man's approved loading scheme. Big Stuff, to use a technical term hence the capitalisation, doesn't just get shoved in the back of a C17 without a trial - sometimes conducted at very short notice, and with considerable imagination, on the far side of a secret air base in Oxfordshire.

Anyway, why fly tanks about except for short-notice power projection? Boat, train or truck are more efficient for dense, heavy loads.

[Not_a_boffin]

When was the last time you saw Swiss Tony or Fat Gordon on a boat, train, or truck?

[cornish-stormrider]

They are putting tanks in heavy transport to provide a vital component in the new Tank Paratrooper programme. I don't have a link but try googling it with Ren & Stimpy

[Minorite invisible]

He thinks the Canadian government is wasting our money on C-17s and wants to know why they haven't been flying Leopards into Kandahar yet. Supposedly the ramp isn't strong enough. Skip to the last couple of pages if you want to read it.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewt...er=asc&start=0

Everyone is more concerned about why I want to know than if a C-17 has really ever transported a Challenger 2 tank in the past. Well I think I have my answer.

[goates]

Anyway, why fly tanks about except for short-notice power projection? Boat, train or truck are more efficient for dense, heavy loads.

Because you can't get from Canada to most of the world by train, and we don't have our own boats to do it (we tried the commercial boat route and it had a few issues)... ;)

[Mr-AEO]

Ok I bite.

For 'Boat' read 'Ship'.

You know, as in WarSHIP, not WarBOAT. Ok, you got that?

Or I'll start referring to your Tyfun a/c as Kites.;)

Come to think of it, why do you have a '3 ship formation, in the air?? The mind boggles.

[Minorite invisible]

Quote:
Anyway, why fly tanks about except for short-notice power projection? Boat, train or truck are more efficient for dense, heavy loads.
Because you can't get from Canada to most of the world by train, and we don't have our own boats to do it (we tried the commercial boat route and it had a few issues)...

Until around August 2006, Canada was retiring the all of its Leopard C2 tanks. They were old, and no longer fit into modern warfare scenarios. Then overnight, not only were they no longer being retired, they were being fixed in a hurry because they were needed in Afghanistan yesterday. We flew 17 of them (plus a few other vehicles) in pairs to Afghanistan using An-124s (well actually we flew them to Kyrgyzstan in the An-124, where US Air Force C-17s did the little over-the-border leg to Kandahar, flying one at a time).

I claim, and many people are attempting to prove me wrong, that the Kyrgyzstan detour was just to showcase the C-17 to the Canadian public, since Canada was at the time attempting to justify buying 4 C-17s for 3.4 Billion Can $.

Our Minister of National Defence told Parliament that the detour through Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, and the final leg in C-17s, was done because the An-124 had no defensive suite:

From Canada's Hansard (http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2959904#Int-2098225)

He did not explain why the LAV-IIIs, the Bisons, the Coyotes, and the trucks could be flown to Kandahar in IL-76s that also had no defensive suite but why that particular shipment of 17 Leopard tanks had to arrive in protected C-17s.


This was going on between Oct and Nov 2006.

Then around Feb-Apr 2007, the 17 Leopard C2 in Afghanistan that were being retired 6 months earlier are again became too old to do the job, and had (surprise!) no Air Conditioning (in addition to having heat-producing hydraulic turrets). Our tanks crew were passing out inside of them. So Canada, who six months earlier no longer wanted tanks at all, decided to buy 100 "new" tanks, more modern Leopard 2s, that the Dutch had for sale, which had electric turrets and A/C. But these required some modifications and upgrades, which would not be completed until late 2008.

So then Canada rented 20 other Leopard A26s from the Germans, tanks that could be sent right away to Afghanistan (by air because they are in a hurry and Afghanistan is not a coastal country). The German Leopard 2A6s become ready to go in late July or early Aug 2007, around the same time Canada takes delivery of its first C-17. And all our "new" Leopard 2A6s arrived directly in Kandahar in unprotected civilian An-124s. For some mysterious reason, there is no longer a need for defensive measures to fly our new tanks into theatre. Well well well..... just like there never had been any reason to fly in the rest of the equipment or vehicles in protected aircraft. An-124s and IL-76 had done the brunt of the airlift.
Another Hansard testimony (http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/Content/HOC/committee/391/nddn/evidence/ev2528863/nddnev24-e.htm#Int-1790614)

The way Canada had been crowing about this new capability they had with their new C-17, there is no way DND would have missed this fantastic chance to show to the whole world our new C-17 delivering our new Leopards 2A6s to our waiting, needing and grateful troops and Kandahar.

Yet the Leopard 2A6s arrived in secrecy, and except for the arrival of the first one inside an An-124 on Aug 16th, which made the news, the arrival of the others is shrouded in secrecy.

Someone posted some pictures of them on the ground in Kandahar on www.army.ca and these were censored for several days (now released)

Why would DND miss this great opportunity to showcase their C-17 and its capacity to project Canadian power, might and glory to the other side of the World?

Something had to be wrong. I decided to look into it.

Where the Leopard C2s weight somewhere in the 40 to 45 tonnes area (its classified), the Leopard 2A6s weigh around 62 to 63 tonnes, about the same as a Challenger 2 or an M-1 Abrams.

I decided to reseach IF, just IF, there could be a valid reason why a Leopard 2A6 could not be flown inside a C-17 and why DND would miss this fantastic P/R opportunity . I found the document listed a few posts above which mentions a ramp limitation of 130,000 pounds on the C-17. That document does say the M-1 of 5000 pounds too heavy for the C-17 ramp, and was given a waiver, after a study had been done. It also says this waiver is only valid for the M-1 Abrams. I am not making any of this up. Its black and white on a US DOD paper published on the internet.

This may not be the reason, I am just looking.

I suggested this C-17 ramp limitation on a Canadian Forum as a possible reason why Leopard 2s maight not fit inside a C-17 and some guy who always claims to know all at DND claimed that the Leopards 2A6s could be flown inside the C-17s, since "even the British can fly their Challenger 2 tanks in theirs", tanks which are even heavier that M-1s and Leopard 2A6s.

Now that I explained all of it, it's not necessary for anyone to waste their time speculating any further on my motives, my reasons, my ideology, my religion or whatever.

My question: Has the RAF ever flown a Challenger 2 tank inside a C-17 even as an excercise?

[k1rb5]

Has the RAF ever flown a Challenger 2 tank inside a C-17 even as an excercise?

Almost gave up on that one!

I've only been on the fleet a short time but as far as I'm aware 'NO' is the answer you're looking for. There's no TDS (tie down scheme) for it.

I'm puzzled about the 'waiver' requirement. As I politely tried to point out before, the ramp lim for toes in the 'high' position (drive on position), and struts deployed, is 135,000lbs. That's a US and UK limitation. I was always lead to believe the aircraft was designed to carry a M-1 weighing in at around 170,900lbs (cargo lim strangely enough)....................aaah bo//oc%s...............I'm boring myself let alone anyone else.......................like I said........................................................ ................................NO.

[MarkD]

minorite - let me put it to you this way. As a Canadian taxpayer, I expect C-17 to have DAS. Our plane, bloody expensive, don't want it dinged or its cargo lost.

If someone else's C-17, An-124 or Beechcraft goes into Kandahar, I don't care *as a taxpayer* if it has DAS or not, so long as (1) our cargo is insured and (2) the plane is insured by the owner. Thus if the aircraft is lost, the Government of Canada might be short a tank but it hasn't just binned a huge stack of taxpayer's money.

From the point of view of the aircrew, I'd like *any* plane going into Afstan to have DAS, but if civilian contractors want to risk their necks, well...

C-17 is always there if we can't find contractors to do the work. We've only got one yet, remember, but I expect that contractor dependence will reduce once we have #2-4 in service.

As for why nobody will tell you why Ch2 has been freighted? Let's see the possible reasons - 1. OPSEC. 2. Nobody likes helping someone with a transparent agenda. 3. You don't behave nicely when someone disagrees with you.

[Minorite invisible]

2. Nobody likes helping someone with a transparent agenda.

This coming from a fellow Canadian who a few posts ago attempted to influence readers on this Forum so they would not reply to me.

[Coniagas]

Rolls my eyes, Deja Mooo means where have I heard this cow dung before.

Pity we dont have an ignore button for self opinionated pompous jackasses.

[samuraimatt]

My question: Has the RAF ever flown a Challenger 2 tank inside a C-17 even as an excercise?

But why is it so important that find you this information out?:confused:

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Geesh...

Ok, so if you've got ONE C-17, then surely you must be able to make 17 hops from Canuckdia to deliver 17 Leopards to Afghanistan right??? Noooooo.....

It will take at least six months and possibly up to a year for your C-17 crews to be proficient enough to be declared 'operational'. This will likely be a (pardon my choice of words) crash program considering the speed at which the capability was acquired, so it's unlikely the aircraft is going to be available to your air movements training & development guys (or whatever you call them in Canuckdia) to practice loading stuff on the jet and developing the relevant manuals to do so.

Over here in Oz (my fellow Commonwealthian) we now have two C-17s, but are yet to carry any of our M1s for the same reason - we've been too busy training the crews and have only just achieved IOC. Like all good things, it'll come to those who wait, but I can't see a huge requirement for it in the future.

As for having the ability to carry an MBT - it was in the original specs of the C-17 20 years ago that it be able to do so, and the ramp, hinges and tie down points are all rated for an M1. Just don't stall the tank on the ramp hinge... :eek:

[moosemaster]

Hi k1rb5, long time no see :} Did you ever find the locker key?

Just to clarify, it has been live trialled (I did it :oh:) but not flown because the frame was needed for something else. We didn't write a TDS because we didn't have time to devise one. It was merely to prove nothing would break, and there was enough space to work with. Overall weight was never an issue. The issue was an Abrams has 7 'axles', and a Challenger has only 6. It was a maths problem more than anything.

AFAIK, it has never been loaded since, as there was no need. It was done to answer a question which arose at the time.

The answer then to the overall question is: To my knowledge "NO", but it can be carried without too much trouble, and without the need for ANY dispensations at all.

I hope that helps, but not too much.:)

I think we may know each other too moose loadie :ok:It's a very small pond we swim in after all.