Like This..
Sorry for the brief quote - I wasn't trying to be selective, if I was then I would not have included the link. Agreed the "us and them" arguement is best left for another thread (but having flown for both organisations in previous lives there isn't really a lot of difference despite the various puffing of chests and pointing of fingers).
Beleive me I would like this project to succeed - I just personally feel that we could have just bought more Herc's (maybe even for less $$) and had a better capability.
Yes a Herc with three pallets is not "full" but neither is it at max AUW and therefore has a perfomance margin if something goes wrong and if you lose an engine then you've only lost 25% of your power not 50%. A Spartan with three pallets is maxed out and the performance margin is less, meaning if something goes wrong then your margin for error in mishandling an emergency is less.
It's main cutomer (army) is buying new toys that are bigger and heavier - look at the g wagon compared to 110 landrover or even how a fully equiped soldier goes into battle compared to 30 years ago - and we don't need a smaller aircraft...
I got this feeling its performance is not all it's craked up to be and fear 5 years down track this project will be discussed along other "successes" we have bought recently (Seasprite anyone or Tiger, AWACS, tanker etc...) rather than in company of C-17.
anyway - off the soapbox and I'll wait 5 years and see..
