C17- is it efficiently employed by the RAF?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chippenham, Wilts
Age: 75
Posts: 297
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C17- is it efficiently employed by the RAF?
The following open source info was taken from Defence News on the MOD website and concerns the mighty C17:
"The new runway will replace the temporary gravel landing zone constructed by 39 Engineer Regiment in March 2007. Currently C-17 aircraft can only land at Kandahar Airfield because of the gravel runway at Camp Bastion, so Hercules C-130 aircraft are used to ferry freight between Kandahar to Camp Bastion. The Hercules C-130 aircraft will also benefit from the new runway as they will be able to carry more weight on landing – be it troops or supplies."
The bits in red seem to be at variance with how the aircraft was designed to be operated i.e. as a Tactical Transport aircraft and not, primarily, as a Strategic airlift platform. When has one of our C17's ever operated away from an MOB type runway?
Is it that AOC 2 Gp won't authorise them to operated into and out of properly surveyed TLZ's because of the danger of loosing one, or is the problem a bit more complex
Seems, to this old geezer, that we are misusing one of our most important assets with the result that we are causing extra work for the C-130 aircrews who are having to fly the "spoke" sorties day after day. I would be interested in your views.
3P
- "Take off from a 7,600-ft (2,316 m) airfield, carry a payload of 160,000 pounds (72,576 kg), fly 2,400 nautical miles (4,445 km) and land in 3,000 ft (914 m) on a small airfield by day or night.
- Carry 54 troops in addition to its equipment load or a total of 102 troops ready for combat.
- All that is needed to operate the C-17 is a flight crew comprised of two pilots and one loadmaster, supported by advanced cargo systems and an advanced digital avionics system.
- An externally blown flap system allows a steep, low-speed final approach with low-landing speeds for short-field landings.
- The C-17 can carry loads of up to 75 tonnes, fly distances up to 2,400 nautical miles (4,445 km), and land in remote, unpaved airfields in rough, land-locked regions. This makes it an invaluable asset for military, humanitarian and peacekeeping missions."
"The new runway will replace the temporary gravel landing zone constructed by 39 Engineer Regiment in March 2007. Currently C-17 aircraft can only land at Kandahar Airfield because of the gravel runway at Camp Bastion, so Hercules C-130 aircraft are used to ferry freight between Kandahar to Camp Bastion. The Hercules C-130 aircraft will also benefit from the new runway as they will be able to carry more weight on landing – be it troops or supplies."
The bits in red seem to be at variance with how the aircraft was designed to be operated i.e. as a Tactical Transport aircraft and not, primarily, as a Strategic airlift platform. When has one of our C17's ever operated away from an MOB type runway?
Is it that AOC 2 Gp won't authorise them to operated into and out of properly surveyed TLZ's because of the danger of loosing one, or is the problem a bit more complex
Seems, to this old geezer, that we are misusing one of our most important assets with the result that we are causing extra work for the C-130 aircrews who are having to fly the "spoke" sorties day after day. I would be interested in your views.
3P
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
The C17 may be able to all these things but not all of them at once.
I believe (though obviously being a mere stacker I'm probably a little out of my depth) that the C17 can't land on rough, unprepared strips with a heavy load on board, so if you are going to reduce the load it carries so that it can land on a rough, unprepared strip you may as well use a C130 that doesn't have 4 fod hoovers hanging from its wings.
I believe (though obviously being a mere stacker I'm probably a little out of my depth) that the C17 can't land on rough, unprepared strips with a heavy load on board, so if you are going to reduce the load it carries so that it can land on a rough, unprepared strip you may as well use a C130 that doesn't have 4 fod hoovers hanging from its wings.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Durkadurkastan
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The key words are 'up to 75 tonnes' and 'up to 2400 nautical miles'.
'Up to 75 tonnes' includes zero tonnes. Yes they can land at unpaved airfields, but I suspect the payload would be significantly less than if landing on an asphalt or concrete one ('scuse ignorance on runway categories) and that would be an inefficient use of the airframe.
No doubt there are other reasons why this is so...
'Up to 75 tonnes' includes zero tonnes. Yes they can land at unpaved airfields, but I suspect the payload would be significantly less than if landing on an asphalt or concrete one ('scuse ignorance on runway categories) and that would be an inefficient use of the airframe.
No doubt there are other reasons why this is so...
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
If you only have 4 (or 5, or 6) assets capable of Strategic Airlift, in terms of flying long distances in under the time it takes for the ALM to reach retirement age, surely it makes more sense to use them for that than the tactical spoke operations where distance/time is not the determining factor. This is all defined within the Concept of Operations for Strategic Airlift.
Using a C-17 as an expensive Golf Caddy does not undermine the principles contained within the ConOps, it simply reminds us once again that we are but the playthings of bent politicians and career minded Senior Officers , so no point in getting excited about it, or attributing this abuse to a lack of understanding by those who truly value the C-17.
Using a C-17 as an expensive Golf Caddy does not undermine the principles contained within the ConOps, it simply reminds us once again that we are but the playthings of bent politicians and career minded Senior Officers , so no point in getting excited about it, or attributing this abuse to a lack of understanding by those who truly value the C-17.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting reading
http://www.publications.parliament.u...36/1011719.htm
How much is ture, and whether that will change once we own them is, well, hmmm.....
11. However, under the terms of the lease the full capabilities of the C-17 will not be available and the aircraft can only be used as a strategic long-range transport, albeit with the ability to land on short runways. The C-17s will be restricted in operational use and their capability for para-drop, airdrop, rough field, low-level operations and air to air refuelling will not be used. It can reasonably be assumed that this is a restriction imposed by the lease conditions, or because the airworthiness of the aircraft in these roles cannot be evaluated by the DPA in the time available. .
How much is ture, and whether that will change once we own them is, well, hmmm.....
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: England
Posts: 488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there is all the times there is no serviceable VC10s so the C17 do pax trips because the Tristars can't operate from short runways.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Hyperspace...
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C17 doesn't require a particularly strong runway surface due to its very well designed landing gear arrangement which spreads the load much better than most other equally sized aircraft.
I believe the issue (aside from lease terms) has already been touched upon - having 4 giant FOD hoovers land on a gravel strip will hugely increase the risk of damage and therefore unserviceability and unavailability. Even Albert takes a fair old battering on gravel - regular prop changes are not unusual.
I believe the issue (aside from lease terms) has already been touched upon - having 4 giant FOD hoovers land on a gravel strip will hugely increase the risk of damage and therefore unserviceability and unavailability. Even Albert takes a fair old battering on gravel - regular prop changes are not unusual.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: out of a bag in the desert
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe it's to do with the lease on the aircraft. As we don't officially own the aircraft outright we can't put them into TLZ's or attempt Tac sorties in any way shape or form.
If it makes you feel any better the Spams put one of their C17's into Bastion many many months ago.
I can't wait till they can go direct. Taking a little pressure off the massively overstretched J fleet won't be a bad thing!
If it makes you feel any better the Spams put one of their C17's into Bastion many many months ago.
I can't wait till they can go direct. Taking a little pressure off the massively overstretched J fleet won't be a bad thing!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes there were lease restrictions but the leases on the original 4 C-17 has run out and they now have been purchased. It does not seem to have changed the manner in which the aircraft are operated. But this is in no way unique to the RAF.
All of the unpaved runways that the C-17 operators fly into were either built from scratch or upgraded by engineers specifically for C-17 operations. Regular unpaved runways, no matter how long, are never 'just flown into'. I know of only two exceptions: Camp Rhino operations early in the Afghan war (2001) where, for a few days, C-17s landed at night in a 6900+ foot unpaved runway, and much more recently, the Canadians landed their C-17 at CFS Alert, a 5,500 foot gravel runway in the Arctic.
In the case of Camp Rhino, an engineering team had to be flown in with heavy equipment after just 8 C-17 landings, to fix the deep ruts in the runway. In Alert, the aircraft landed with a reduced payload of about 45 tonnes, and the runway resisted thanks to the permafrost there, where the ground is solid as concrete most of the year. Otherwise, 99,9% of C-17 operations are from long, hard-surfaced runways.
All of the unpaved runways that the C-17 operators fly into were either built from scratch or upgraded by engineers specifically for C-17 operations. Regular unpaved runways, no matter how long, are never 'just flown into'. I know of only two exceptions: Camp Rhino operations early in the Afghan war (2001) where, for a few days, C-17s landed at night in a 6900+ foot unpaved runway, and much more recently, the Canadians landed their C-17 at CFS Alert, a 5,500 foot gravel runway in the Arctic.
In the case of Camp Rhino, an engineering team had to be flown in with heavy equipment after just 8 C-17 landings, to fix the deep ruts in the runway. In Alert, the aircraft landed with a reduced payload of about 45 tonnes, and the runway resisted thanks to the permafrost there, where the ground is solid as concrete most of the year. Otherwise, 99,9% of C-17 operations are from long, hard-surfaced runways.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 5th Jan 2011 at 21:27.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During SSII I remember the RAF's smaller version of the C17 (4 underwing hoovers) paid us a visit at the 'Strip'. Nothing major to the engines but a couple of the tyres needed replacing. They did get the camp salute on their departure flypast albeit they were a few feet higher than the herc flypast's. Has anyone got any pictures?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 67
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A waste of these assets was when the Guantanamo bay terrorists(alleged) were returned to Northolt on several of these airplanes some years ago.I seem to recall there was even a dry run.
Still,it's only taxpayer's money.
Still,it's only taxpayer's money.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Up North
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Currently C-17 aircraft can only land at Kandahar Airfield because of the gravel runway at Camp Bastion
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF's smaller version of the C17
Of course, going back to the original question, the origian RTS clearances were dictated by the terms of the lease so any change to CONOPS which requires a RTS change since they are RAF -owned would need extra clearance work and hence funding
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original RTS was based upon the terms of the lease, which, in turn were based upon the time required to assess and clear the ac for various roles.
The issue now, as i see it, is that in its (nearly) 10 years of service, the C17 has shown itself to be so valuable in the Strat role. In the absence of a suitably equipped equivalent, UK Defence Plc simply cannot support the airbridge without its extensive use that we see today.
To enhance its role portfolio now would require an excess of trg hrs, an excess of pilot hrs and an excess of sim hrs...all of which we currently don't have!
Make those hrs available and thou shalt be done.
The issue now, as i see it, is that in its (nearly) 10 years of service, the C17 has shown itself to be so valuable in the Strat role. In the absence of a suitably equipped equivalent, UK Defence Plc simply cannot support the airbridge without its extensive use that we see today.
To enhance its role portfolio now would require an excess of trg hrs, an excess of pilot hrs and an excess of sim hrs...all of which we currently don't have!
Make those hrs available and thou shalt be done.
