C-17. Is it really that good?

[MightyGem]

Just seen a documentary on the C-17. Seems to be the proverbial dog's gonads. Nice to see that someone seems to have the right tool for the job, even if it is only leased.

Is it really as good as the programme made out it to be?

[5ftBounce]

3 Herc loads in one go! That's got to be good for Ops. All we've got to do now is get good old Geoff to buy it instead of leasing it - then we can use it to it's full potential. It also looks gucci which is a bonus!

[FJJP]

I met one of the C17 crew at RIAT at Cottesmore this year. He told me that they were not allowed to do any of the tactical stuff that makes the C17 so good - the Americans do not want us to cane the airframe, and since it is leased, they call the shots.

Great stuff or what? Who negotiated the lease, and is he going to be held accountable for this major restriction in our capability?

:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Iceman49]

It seems to have an extremely limited range when it has a max payload or even a normal load. Additionally has it been certified for Cat 2/3 yet?

[ 13 November 2001: Message edited by: Iceman49 ]

[charliesbar]

Well, 5 Herc loads. Carrying over 100,000lbs of freight direct 4500 miles perhaps not quite so limited. Max range over 5500 miles without refueling - we run out of crew duty before we run out of gas etc etc.

It is indeed the dogs bollox and does "exactly what its says on the packet". Shame the same can't be said of the J model. Have you got your yokes to fit back on yet?

PS C17 has always been Cat II.

[RoboAlbert]

Sorry which packet have you been reading? Mine says takes stuff from a to b – and it seems to work fine thanks.

Anyway more importantly - MY HUD IS CONSIDERABLY LARGER THAN YAAWS. :D

[Ginger Beer]

Hey,

It's not harf as good/capable as it would be if there was a Flight Engineer on the flight deck........... :D :p ;)

[whowhenwhy]

Don't want to deliberately turn this into another cynical debate about the lease decision, but is it true that by the time we've finished leasing these 4(?) we could have bought 8-ish outright, with all the support gear? Just a rumour, only asking!! :D :D

Things are always worse than they seem!

[charliesbar]

I think the packet said (but it was a long time ago):
a. Could carry more payload and equal bulk than the aircraft its replacing. Whoops.
b. Would be more efficient and fly higher. Haven't seen you at FL370.
c. Would be in service by 1998. Nearly.
d. Could land on rough strips. But isn't the prop too brittle?
e. Could drop paratroops???
f. Cockpit would be fully NVG compatible. Oh really.
g. Would have a big HUD to make up for other problems. Well, they got that one right..............

[ 16 November 2001: Message edited by: charliesbar ]

[RoboAlbert]

Given that the C-17 was a tried and tested platform when it arrived, then yes I’d hope it did do what it said on the packet. The J being a new design might be expected to be late and have some problems, especially given the certification process a new ac has to go through.

However, the J has emerged as a very capable ac and despite what the rumour mill pushes out the tactical trials are going well. The boys involved are really excited about the capabilities that the ac is going to give us. You are correct in one area though the flight deck is not fully NVG compatible – but very few microwaves are these days.

The packet said tactical airlift ac – which is what we got. In some circumstances a Mk 3 could carry more than a J, its MTOW being 5 tonnes higher (albeit with the same wing box and fatigue life as a Mk 1). However, at the high weights were talking about that advantage would most likely be negated by the mass of the fuel required with its older engines. The J’s airframe is not wildly different from a K but the engines are; consequently anywhere hot, high, short or contaminated (or even and if you like) is not an issue for the J and this is where it’s real value lies – not in strategic bubble rap delivery.

The J is ideal for working a hub and spoke operation in concert with a strategic AT ac like the C-17. However, one stumbling block to harmonising the way we operate might prove to be an ill-informed t****r from one type slagging off an ac he's never even operated.

I do mean that in a constructive way of course.

[charliesbar]

I think, like your freight bay, you should lighten up.

[RoboAlbert]

Well should I – probably yes.

However, sadly the throwaway line in your initial post reflects many peoples' views on the J. I therefore make no apology for throwing rocks at people who criticise it, when they speak from a position of little or no knowledge.

I really enjoy inviting people to the flight deck to show them my end of the ac and discuss its capabilities and shortfalls, and I’m the first to admit it has some. What’s really good, is that even the most vociferous J detractors seem to come away with their opinions changed or at least moderated. All I asking is for people to keep an open mind.

Unfortunately if people insist on keeping a closed mind then it seems unlikely that we will ever be able to utilise the potential of what is a very good tactical airlifter. Very soon the ac will be able to offer us capabilities like blind drop and internal aids letdowns – I only hope that RAF at large remains receptive to new ideas and has the imagination and flair to utilise the ac’s capabilities.

Your J quip added little to the meaning of your post but does help to perpetuate the sort of destructive attitude that has hamstrung the J project from day 1.

Selecting master lighting to thunderstorm – light enough?

[Chinese Vic]

I just flew back from Oman 'down the back' in a C-17 and have a few points to make:

1. It's faster than a C-130.
2. It's warmer as well.
3. There is a galley where you can make yourself coffee and tea.
4. It gets you home from the desert in one jump rather than two.
5. We had hot meals as well, but that may have been down to the fact that there were only 8 pax plus freight.
6. It has a real toilet, not a dodgy urinal on the loading ramp.

So it can carry a lot of stuff, go a long way quickly, and also has the odd comfort for us blokes down the back....too good to be true, really!

[BEagle]

The C-17 is proving to be an excellent and reliable airlifter performing equally well in both inter-theatre and intra-theatre applications. But we are not using it in the tactical role.

The C130K is a trusty workhorse for intra-theatre use with a proven tactical pedigree; the C130J has been beset with reliability and other problems, is far more complicated than it needed to be and has yet to be used in much more than straightforward non-tactical roles. But either model of C130 is totally unsuitable for moving passengers - indeed passengers are not allowed to be moved by C130 unless there is no feasible option. However, this is frequently ignored by the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.

Then there might be the A400M. But the Italians have now pulled out, the next contract stage has been delayed yet again.... It is supposed (eventually) to fit between the C-17 and C130, but it'll probably be too late and too expensive, so we'll (hopefully) $hitcan any further direct C130 replacements (especially when the pongos wise up to the fact that mass parachute jumps are a thing of the past!) and increase the numbers and roles of the far superior C-17!

[ 21 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Roc]

As a C-141 jock, we've had similar debates as the C-17 entered USAF service, here's one that still has me laughing:

The new nickname for the C-17 is

BUDDAH

because its short, fat, sits around all day doing nothing, and EVERYBODY worships it!!
A JOKE, not intended to offend Buddists

Seriously good luck with it in the RAF. It seems to be earning its keep in Afghanistan.

[MajorMadMax]

Fine Pitch -

Before you go slogging on the creature comforts of the C-17, please take a second to realize the reason these transport aircraft were built in the first place. Not to appease the aircrew but to get things moved from point A to point B as best as possible.

Having ridden in the back of many a fine aircraft (no, I am not lucky enough to be a pilot), I can tell you there is nothing wrong with faster, warmer, and more comfortable.

God bless the C-130, it has served well beyond its intended career and continues to do so. Herks have taken me to some interesting places and kindly brought me home again. But nothing lasts forever...

Cheers!

[MajorMadMax]

...by the way, I found some interesting reports from the General Account Office on the C-17:
http://www.fas.org/man/gao/gao9526.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns96126.htm http://www.fas.org/man/gao/ns97050.htm

But more are available at the bottom of this URL on the C-17 from the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-17.htm

Cheers! M2

[JimNich]

I heard a pretty alarming rumour (and I stress it was just a rumour)that every time they practise these mass jumps from the Hercs they EXPECT to lose at least one Para.

**** me, you'd think they'd learn and just take the bus. :eek:

[EESDL]

Jim Nich
I knew that 2 Para were involved, but not one para:-)

[opso]

BEagle: I query your comment '...indeed passengers are not allowed to be moved by C130 unless there is no feasible option. However, this is frequently ignored by the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.'

Where is this rule laid down and can you provide some examples of when it has been ignored? For if this indeed the case, it needs to be (can and will be) investigated.

By the way, from my knowledge of 2 Gp/DTMA, I can confidently state that the bean counters aren't involved in putting loads to aircraft.

[BEagle]

DCI 53/97 - but it may have been replaced by now. I cannot quote directly from it here as it is Restricted.

Any move of aircrew back from any location where 'feasible alternatives' such as civil air passage are available (not necessarily 'cheap' civil air) probably contravenes this DCI. Such as flying people back from Incirlik on a trash hauler when plentiful flights are available using civil air passage from Adana?

[opso]

Whilst DCIs are supposed to only be valid for 1 year & this one would (presumably) have been replaced, it could well still be in force. I suspect that it may have been superceded by DCI JS 65/99 (which should also have been updated, but hasn't), but I will check tomorrow. :)

[BEagle]

My copy of this 1997 DCI was provided by a Gp Capt who was content for it to be quoted in a 1999 letter to RAF News on the subject. He also stated that it was still valid at the time even though DCIs should be updated as you state.

Fine intra theatre tactical airlifter that it undoubtedly is, the C130 (whether J or K model) does NOT meet current international legislative requirements for the carriage of passengers. Where, for instance, is the passenger oxygen equipment? Where are the lavatories and hand washing facilities? Does the passenger seating comply with JAR 25.785? If not, why not??

That a freight aircraft with such woefully inadequate passenger facilities is mis-employed as a strategic passenger aircraft is scandalous in this day and age.

[ 29 November 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[backpocket.com]

Time for a reality check on this thread. The C17 is a strategic military airlifter with tactical capability. It carries (excuse me 99 boys if I am wrong) some 179 000 lb of freight. This tactical capability comes at some significant expense; irrespective of our lease contract, Mr Boeing will ask somewhere in the region of $225 million per copy if you want one - and the State Department will let them sell you one. For that reason alone, each C17 is a high-value strategic asset to the UK; just as we do not fly our Sentry's at 250 ft MSD, we do not need to be flying our C17s at low level - the USAF are getting a total of 120, they can afford to. The aircraft offers us outstanding capability and we should use it for what it was bought for, not tooling around in the UKLFS with a couple of MSPs. However, when the C17 was in development, it was beset with a multitude of problems which took a lot more cash to fix than has been spent on the C130J.

On to our other new military airlifter. BEagle, the troop oxygen lives in the roof and will drop on your head if the crew or the Mission Computer tells it to. As for JAR 25 issues, I understand and agree with your comments. However, we bought the C130J as a tactical military aircraft, not as an airliner. We were under no illusions about what was fitted in the back when we paid the relatively small sum of £34.2 million per aircraft. Sometimes we need to accept that we are a military organisation and that there is a balance between system integrity/safety and military capability.

So, onto the subject of the C130J tactical capability. I won't mention the C17's small HUD, lack of digital map or radar cursor. I won't mention the fact that the C130J radar provides a better ground mapping picture than any other radar in the UK military inventory (from a GR4 nav) - oops don't know what the Apache is like. Admittedly, both aircraft can do IMC, hands-off formation flight. The aircraft does drop troops and they don't hit the side of the aircraft as reported in the Torygraph.

I happen to know some of the boys currently living in appalling conditions in Atlanta doing the C130J tactical workload trial with the Block 5.3 software. They are seeing some outstanding results and the aircraft is very rarely more than 10 sec off TOT despite 10 min rolex calls from AWACS, numerous threat calls (another new one for the C130K) and run-in changes of 90 deg passed at 6 min from the target. The aircraft is operating reliably in mountainous terrain up to 7000 ft which the antique aircraft would not cope with. The aircraft is also looking like it can provide a true IMC drop capability - in the same way as the USAF AWADS aircraft do. Allegedly the procedures are spot on and the fact that the aircraft is operated by only 3 people is not a factor.

Oh well back to your cynical trash - wish I was in Georgia with the Boys drinking Guinness.

[ 30 November 2001: Message edited by: backpocket.com ]

[backpocket.com]

Oh, and another thing, the whole cockpit goes NVIS compatible with a single switch selection. As long as we can keep the LPO for Cyalumes for the ladies then the boys will be happy.

The previous 2 replies sponsored by Guinness.

[BEagle]

backpocket.com - as I said, the C130 is a fine intra-theatre tactical aircraft; an 'airliner' it most certainly is not. So, other than for tactical military requirements such as troop dropping, we should surely not be using it as such? What gives anyone the right to deny passengers JAR 25 safety? But at least the C130J would appear to have emergency passenger oxygen - does the -K? If not, then surely passenger carrying above 750 mb must stop immediately?

[opso]

BEagle, I checked the DCI today & had the Gp policy guys see if (despite its +4 years shelf-life) it was indeed still current. Much to my surprise, it has not been superceded. However, there my good news ends, as your recollection would appear to be flawed.

As your stated (and quite correct) reason for not quoting from it was owing to its RESTRICTED classification I will assume that you have (or can get) a copy. I refer you to para 11 where in relation to the carriage of Sevice personnel it uses the word 'unrestricted'. The subsequent 'feasible alternatives' passage that you have latched on to only applies to 'administrative moves'. Having talked with the policy boys I found that this was based on a risk management decision (before that became a buzzword) to achive a military capability with existing assets within a public budget and hence the passage that lays down different rules for civvies.

Taking the same definition that appears in the DCI, I then got someone to search all 2 Gp/DTMA tasked flights since Aug 99 to see if there had been any admin moves and got 2 'hits' (a year apart and something for which I doubt you were involved in), but when I then examined the circumstances of those flights, I found that the only other possible Service solution would have been buses that could not have met the timelines laid down. The only 'feasible' military option was therefore the C-130. For reasons that I cannot go in to here, a civilian charter option would not have been feasible. Therefore, I was unable to find a single occaision in the past 2+ years where 2 Gp/DTMA have contravened the DCI.

I take it that your apology to

...the bean counters at 2Gp and/or DTMA who constantly break this regulation.

will be as public as your accusation. :)

[BEagle]

No.

The idea of moving anyone in an aeroplane which fails to meet international certification requirements is totally unacceptable in this day and age. What gives you the right to move passengers anywhere in an aircraft which doesn't meet JAR 25 requirements? You do know about JARs, don't you?

To draw distinctions between Service personnel and others is also questionable. Whether we liked it or not, we had to change the way we treated homosexuals to come into line with contemporary legislation - and it's time we treated passengers with the same respect that even the cheapest airline is required to.

These penny-pinching bean counters are hiding behind their own definition of 'administrative moves'; 'getting round the rules' was the way it was described at one FSTA briefing by some suit from DTMA when asked why the overwhelming majority of his passenger 'schedules' were flown in his so-called 'intra-theatre' tactical aeroplane rather than in a TriStar or VC10, much to the astonishment of the industry people present. But I preferred the description given by some media personality who, when offered a flight from London to Lyneham in a wretched C130K, declined to do so and described conditions as 'barbaric' in the freight hold......

Now please explain why you think that we should ever move passengers anywhere without passenger oxygen systems - enabling the aircraft to continue to a diversion in the event of either smoke and fumes in the freight bay or decompression, both of which would require flight at much lower levels if we were to avoid killing our passengers?

[bad livin']

IS the entire abbo training system now in operation, ie ALM as well? If not, does anyone have a firm date for when it will? Apols for ignorance of project!

[BEagle]

Fine pitch - you can find the construction and equipment requirements for large aeroplanes at the JAA website. There is nothing precluding the carriage of passengers so long as the aeroplane is compliant with the relevant parts of JAR 25.

To fly in formation, all that is legally required is the consent of the aeroplane commanders.

But carrying passengers in the bowels of a time-expired trash hauler which doesn't even carry the required emergency equipment or meet certification standards is totally against these requirements. If we have to provide proper seating for office typists, then why should we not provide proper seating for aircraft passengers?

The secret of passenger flying in the VC10K4 is known to but a few - it has seats pitched at the maximum value permitted which gives even more leg room than in the VC10C1K!!

[ 01 December 2001: Message edited by: BEagle ]

[Lima Juliet]

Thank God!
The RAF has finally bought an aircraft with a more stupid fin than the Tornado............

Thanks C-17!

[Chinese Vic]

Well, thanks Fine Pitch for turning a couple of fairly tongue-in-cheeck but fair comments into personal abuse, but hey, if that's your bag...
I think you'll find my comments on the C17 are well founded, and that some small comforts for those of us that spend a lot of time down the back make a real difference. (and if you read my original post again, you'll find I was complimenting the C-17, not whinging about the C-130)
I did not comment on the tactical excellence of the C-130, but have flown around at 150' in one at Nellis on more than one occasion and was hugely impressed by both the airframe and the crews' abilities to operate in that environment. However, to pick up on BEagle's point - it doesn't exactly make a lot of sense to use a tactical intra-theatre asset as long-haul/strat AT, does it?

You obviously took my comments as a direct attack on the C-130 - which they are not, no matter how you read them. I have flown many times in each aircraft type of the RAF's current AT fleet and frankly, find your attitude at odds with many of your compatriots who are usually pretty friendly with the Pax. I also don't know what your beef is with the OS Branch, but you'll find some of us have opinions about flying that might actually be valid, for all that we might not wear a brevet! In fact, there are some that do...

For your information, I am now back in the desert having spent 10hrs down the back in a C-130J which had an excellent cockpit but was pretty uncomfortable in the hold due to the vibration. But at least it was faster than a K model!

CV

[Trumpet_trousers]

In a word: YES

The size of your HUD is pretty much irrelevant. What does matter is that the 'business end' (ie aft of the flightdeck) has been fairly well optimised for user-friendliness by someone who took the trouble to sit down and think about it before they cut metal.

Conversely......nice to see that the J has a couple of ICS boxes down the back, but can someone please explain why you would want to inhibit the Tx facility?
IMHO the J is no better off, (back-end wise) than the K, and is perhaps worse. (no 88.5 width pallets, reduced vertical clearance in the wheelwell due to oxy. boxes, heavier para doors, vibration.....need I go on?)

BEagle: fully concur re: punters and seating. Ask the Canadians what it's like to be sitting in one of these PARATROOP seats when the ac crashes......

[Trumpet_trousers]

Are these wafer thin pax then? Or do you just increase the diff. to get the extra width for the seats in the 108 pallet width? Surely you don't let the poor old pax sit at an angle by fixing the seatlegs to the -4A beams? Or do you?

BTW: Nice article in the Times yesterday re: spelling on CVs - not suggesting for a moment that you need to change jobs, merely that it has some relevance regarding the impact of written work to the reader if it is riddled with spelling mistakes.....just a thought.:p (Oh hang on, you appear to have found your sp%ll ch#ck$r!)

ICS boxes......no tangible benefit over the K then?

Vertical Clearance......no tangible benefit over the K then?
(Could/would cause clearance problems for MSPs)

Vibration.......I wonder if the K fleet has to get Gp authority to fit full seats? No, thought not........no tangible benefit over the K then?

Oh, they fixed the door problem.......hooray!

(Yawn)

[Biggus]

You Lyneham boys and your "J vs K" arguements do go on and on! No doubt my fault for looking at the thread in the first place, but I thought it was about the C-17!!! I look at it this way, the J is here to stay, the K is soldiering on but will eventually depart. That sums it up for the rest of the military, as to which is better, IT DOESN'T MATTER! At least not to most of us, only to those of you at Lyneham with egos to bruise/protect.

Your arguements are just/boring repetitive, and I won't visit this thread again!! Just get on with your jobs to the best of your ability, and get us there as quickly/safely as you can please. (But given the choice I would still rather go civy, club class please!!)



Edited because I can't spell, because I am thick - not due to alcohol, "df" or otherwise!!

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Biggus,
Apologies, you are right:rolleyes: Post deleted.


all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

[bootscooter]

Just to get back to the central theme....

YES.....IT'S THE MUTZ NUTZ!!!!!!!

stand by for expansion.......

[Trumpet_trousers]

You seem to have taken my observations as some sort of personal slight - couldn't be further from the truth.

All I was trying to allude to is that whilst the 'Drivers, Airframes' have all the bells/whistles/gucci kit upstairs on your machine, nobody seems to have given very much thought to the poor old guy/gal down the back.
The C17 is arguably a lesson on what can be achieved downstairs if a little thought went into it.

[RoboAlbert]

Whilst I disagree with most of what you say Trumpet Trousers, I remain at a loss as to what your opinions of the J model have got to do with whether or not the C-17 is any good.

[Always_broken_in_wilts]

Robo,
I posted answers and it turned rapidly into a J v K thing :yuk: Probably best ignored.

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced