WIX Archives
I strenuously disagree- but I'm biased!
Posted by bdk on Wed Jan 30, 2002 02:32:41 PM
In reply top Re: Tornados flown to Falklands inside C-17s posted by Brad on Wed Jan 30, 2002 10:46:09 AM
Well, if my butt was in the seat, I would want performance!
I think that you'll find that the service life of the C-17 will be far greater than that of the C-5B, C-141, or C-130. The C-17 was designed for 30,000 hours and was qualified to a minimum of three lifetimes (90,000 equivalent hours) using a full scale airframe durability test article (a complete C-17 airframe dedicated to this purpose, then cut apart for evaluation). These later requirements were not even thought of in the days that the C-130 was designed. The C-17 is also designed for low level high speed operation where gust conditions dominate the fatigue spectrum. Airframe durability is far superior to any other transport built.
The C-17 was designed to replace the majority of C-5B missions and ALL C-141 missions, as well as many (but not all) C-130 missions. Yes, a bigger airplane has a bigger footprint, but the C-17 is the king of throughput. In the Gulf War, a C-5 that transported cargo to the Gulf would have to have the cargo reloaded into multiple C-130's to get it to the front lines. The C-17 is able to take nearly as much cargo as a C-5 directly to the front lines. This is what is going on day after day in the war in Afghanistan, as you well know.
True, the C-17 is more "airliner like" and "high tech" than a C-130, but then again the JSF is more "high tech" than the Harrier. The C-17 is much larger and far more capable than the C-130. The C-17 also uses commercial off the shelf (COTS) engines which can be overhauled by American, United, or Delta. Try that with the platform unique engines on a C-5 or C-141. The C-17 is a far better value to the USAF with respect to reliability, maintainability, and availability, and is far more supportable at a lower cost than any transport that came before it. This is not conjecture, the numbers are out there to prove it!
: The C-17 has the Herk beat as f
: ar as performance, but I don't think it has the service li
: fe. I also don't think it has the toughness. It's basica
: lly an airliner with a cargo door. Both can land in the s
: ame distance,but the herk can land on narrower runways. A
: s far as comfort goes, I think the only place the C-17 bea
: ts the C-130 is the fact that it has a latrine like an air
: liner and two fairly comfortable crew bunks