RAF C-17 airlifting Challenger 2 tanks
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Right then. I'll get me coat.
Rebel PPRuNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Toronto, Canada (formerly EICK)
Age: 51
Posts: 2,834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
note here: minorite is a C-17 sceptic/Antonov-Illyushin booster. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
k1rb5, i think we may know each other.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
note here: minorite is a C-17 sceptic/Antonov-Illyushin booster. Not that there's anything wrong with that of course
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.
Last edited by Minorite invisible; 17th Sep 2007 at 22:05.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Glowcesestershiiiire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
k1rb5, i think we may know each other
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure where Minorite gets his info either but I can guarantee that the C-17 can carry an Abrams no problem.
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
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: .....................................
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
but HAS it been done? If no one can come back with a definite YES on this forum, I will assume its a NO.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CYYC
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ooh we are a touchy soul. Why is it so important that you find out what RAF aircraft have been carrying?
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewt...er=asc&start=0
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: my own, private hell
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Anyway, why fly tanks about except for short-notice power projection? Boat, train or truck are more efficient for dense, heavy loads.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Exiled in England
Age: 48
Posts: 1,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewt...er=asc&start=0
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: CYYC
Posts: 410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway, why fly tanks about except for short-notice power projection? Boat, train or truck are more efficient for dense, heavy loads.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Somerset
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.