RAF C-17 Purchases & Upgrades
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VinRouge
Can you expand on this comment please.
"To be fair, C-17 cant do unprepared strip work of the sort A400M can."
Are you saying the A400M can land on unpreprared dirt whereas the C-17 can't ?
Thanks
Can you expand on this comment please.
"To be fair, C-17 cant do unprepared strip work of the sort A400M can."
Are you saying the A400M can land on unpreprared dirt whereas the C-17 can't ?
Thanks
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is absoletely incorrect.
Down here there are photos of both aussie and US C17's operating from dirt fields.
When we are comparing the C130 normal stretch models, please bear in mind that the C130 was designed to haul what the US Army had in its inventory in 1953. So we are not comparing apples with apples.
As the RAAF and RAF have millions of hours experience on the C130 and there is only hundreds of hours on the A400, none of which have been in service use. A 400 has a long way to go to get to that standard and I really hope that it can do the job but comparing a C130 with a A400 is a bit like comparing a C47 and a C130.
I suspect that the RAF/RAAF combination of flying hours would be around the 5M
mark and then when you consider all the other operators in the world it would greatly exceed the few hours that the A400 has flown.
Regards
Col
Down here there are photos of both aussie and US C17's operating from dirt fields.
When we are comparing the C130 normal stretch models, please bear in mind that the C130 was designed to haul what the US Army had in its inventory in 1953. So we are not comparing apples with apples.
As the RAAF and RAF have millions of hours experience on the C130 and there is only hundreds of hours on the A400, none of which have been in service use. A 400 has a long way to go to get to that standard and I really hope that it can do the job but comparing a C130 with a A400 is a bit like comparing a C47 and a C130.
I suspect that the RAF/RAAF combination of flying hours would be around the 5M
mark and then when you consider all the other operators in the world it would greatly exceed the few hours that the A400 has flown.
Regards
Col
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not landing on dirt that's the issue, it's landing on soft/soggy ground, and doing so again and again without tearing it up too much or ruining your engines. I've yet to see a pic of a C-17 landing on anything but hard packed dirt, which makes sense if you look at its published tactical landing characteristics: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/AF/AFETL/etl_97_9.pdf (especially page 35)
Based on that PDF, a C-17 can do only ~15 passes on a CBR-6 strip at 350,000lbs, which is equivalent to a roughly 44,000lb/20t payload, leaving 23,000lbs of fuel remaining for a ~500nm return transit. Let's round this to 10 mission cycles (since the take-off pass will be at a lighter weight) - still, the C-17 can only bring in 200t before the runway needs to be repaired.
By comparison, recent public statements claim the A400M can do ~40 cycles or 1,000t into a CBR-6 strip, with a 500nm return transit. That's FIVE TIMES a C-17, though it does seem to be less than originally planned due to weight increases (used to be 60 cycles/120 passes).
Then there's another problem with the C-17: FOD ingestion, which is much worse for a turbofan than a turboprop, and would make tactical ops frightfully expensive.
Based on that PDF, a C-17 can do only ~15 passes on a CBR-6 strip at 350,000lbs, which is equivalent to a roughly 44,000lb/20t payload, leaving 23,000lbs of fuel remaining for a ~500nm return transit. Let's round this to 10 mission cycles (since the take-off pass will be at a lighter weight) - still, the C-17 can only bring in 200t before the runway needs to be repaired.
By comparison, recent public statements claim the A400M can do ~40 cycles or 1,000t into a CBR-6 strip, with a 500nm return transit. That's FIVE TIMES a C-17, though it does seem to be less than originally planned due to weight increases (used to be 60 cycles/120 passes).
Then there's another problem with the C-17: FOD ingestion, which is much worse for a turbofan than a turboprop, and would make tactical ops frightfully expensive.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Scotland
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A and C , I am just reading what is published in the press. If im not mistaken Airbus threatened to can the project a few weeks ago unless more funding was made available. Im all for brining new aircraft into service but on this occasion when the government are looking to cut all funding then the C17 is the only sensible option as its tried and trusted.
So with me saying that we shall see the A400M in service in 2020
So with me saying that we shall see the A400M in service in 2020
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the individuals throwing stones at Airbus over the A400M need to look closely at the introduction of C-17 and how close congress came to cancelling the project.
Funny old thing, it was
Overweight
Overbudget
Late
From the above document:
You cant develop a new concept from scratch without risk and those issues will pall out as the above, as they did with practically every single significant new aircraft project in history.
Besides, with Ireland trashing the Euro, it looks like we will be able to afford quite a few more for the same price sometime soon!
Funny old thing, it was
Overweight
Overbudget
Late
From the above document:
The C-17 can operate on paved or semi-prepared airfields and
matting. Paved airfields consist of conventional rigid and flexible pavements and are
generally used for routine operations. A “semi-prepared” airfield refers to an unpaved airfield. The amount of engineering effort required to develop a semi-prepared airfield depends on the planned operation, the service life needed to support these operations, and the existing soil and weather conditions.
matting. Paved airfields consist of conventional rigid and flexible pavements and are
generally used for routine operations. A “semi-prepared” airfield refers to an unpaved airfield. The amount of engineering effort required to develop a semi-prepared airfield depends on the planned operation, the service life needed to support these operations, and the existing soil and weather conditions.
You cant develop a new concept from scratch without risk and those issues will pall out as the above, as they did with practically every single significant new aircraft project in history.
Besides, with Ireland trashing the Euro, it looks like we will be able to afford quite a few more for the same price sometime soon!
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
look closely at the introduction of C-17 and how close congress came to cancelling the project.
You're quite right. But surely the point that's being missed, and where our C17 procurement differs, is that we leased (then bought) C17 well after that initial teething phase. That's what you gain when you're not pandering to the politicians and appeasing an ailing native defence industry.
