The C17B design is an admission of these identified areas of weakness by the ADA
Not strictly true either - the original design for the aircraft was completed in 1985 for the initial signing by the USAF.
A lot happens in aviation technology in 24 years! The C-17B upgrade, detailed
here, upgrades solely avionics with some talk of an uprated engine coming along too.
I think that one upgrade in 24 years admits quite the opposite to your statement - the design is solid and remains solid enough to be built upon for the future.
I'm no expert on the C130 but look at it's upgrade history - are you saying that every upgrade or new model is an admission of its failings? I would hope not. It's called development, dear chap.
We should however remember, as you say, that the C130J and C17 were both labelled Damian at some point, and with time have developed into highly effective platforms...as i'm sure, in time, will A400M.
The question really in debate here is one of required future capability which, i'm sure, many fine chaps at Shrivenham will lecture you on for hours.
On the Tac-Strat scale you have C130 (far left), A400M(a middle-ground compromise) and C-17A(Middle-right). For current requirements, C17 is ideal. A400M fails to offer the Strat spin-offs that it really needs when there is no Tac role for it to fulfil - ask any K or J mate how often they are actually performing true Tac ops?
One thing does remain true - we must learn from the lessons of the C17's service so far and provide suitable ACHE and periferal eqpt to make efficient use of our most valuable assets.
Uncle G
