EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1003 posts, RR: 1 Posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3614 times:
Boeing is supposed to be discussing the future C-17B at the Farnborough Air Show this year. Hasn't the Air Force already said it's not interested in the airplane and didn't Boeing make a pitch to the US Army to get them interested enough to try to put pressure on the Air Force to buy the plane?
Can Boeing really expect to sell an airplane the Air Force has already said it doesn't need?
I understand the improvements, as described in a proposal about two years old now, include higher power engines, a middle main landing gear and some flight control changes to allow the airplane to operated with heavier loads.
N328KF From United States, joined May 2004, 5279 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 3577 times:
In a Wall Street Journal article from July 19, 2006, BIDS stated that the C-17B would be able to operate from sandy beaches. Quite an improvement in operating capability.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
EBJ1248650 From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1003 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3483 times:
Quoting Alien (Reply 3): The C-5A fleet is not going to be modernized. At some point they will have to be replaced. Perhaps a run of 60 - 70 C-17Bs would fit the bill.
No doubt the C-17B would be an improvement over the C-17A, but I'm not sure it would be enough of an improvement to replace the C-5 Galaxy. My gut feeling is that you're going to need an airplane as big as the C-5 to replace it.
Some time ago, I don't recall the date or year, there was talk of a stretched C-17 and consideration given to the possiblity it might be a suitable C-5 replacement. I haven't seen anything said about that since and suspect that idea was put to rest.
Too, the Air Force doesn't seem to be in any hurry to replace the C-5, though it seems interested, it appears, in supplementing what C-17s it has. Whether the USAF will shell out coins for an improved C-17 remains to be seen.
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 4985 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 3482 times:
I hope they will build the plane. The C5 are getting old and the upgrade is really expensive.
It is maybe a good addition for European Air Forces on top of the A400. Right now everybody is relying on An 124s and they are also not the newest anymore.
With Antonov about to launch a second generation An 124 the very large freighter market really becomes interesting as more countries have a need for such aircraft.
I hope NATO will buy some C17Bs.
“Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans” John Lennon
Jackonicko From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 245 posts, RR: 4 Reply 6, posted (3 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
C-130s can't carry FCS vehicles.
In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17. The proposed B-model represents an optimised expeditionary C-17. Buying it should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the USAF's procurement folk have often demonstrated that they aren't guided by good sense or logic.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5396 posts, RR: 35 Reply 7, posted (3 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3278 times:
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Thread starter): Can Boeing really expect to sell an airplane the Air Force has already said it doesn't need?
Why not, remember, the USAF did not want to buy the last 120 A-10As built. They said they didn't want or need them.
Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6): Buying it should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the USAF's procurement folk have often demonstrated that they aren't guided by good sense or logic.
Nomadd22 From United States, joined Feb 2008, 286 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 2996 times:
The AF didn't want V-22s either. Apparently, they shy away from anything that might make them look like they exist to support the Army. That probably has more to do with the recent purge that the nuke foulups.
I don't know about sandy beaches, but a C-17 that could land on the kind of desert and lakebed surfaces the C-130 can would be very valueable for ground support. It's kind of hard to get a division or heavy tanks somewhere fast if you need an improved strip, and the nearest is 400 miles away.
NorCal From United States, joined Mar 2005, 1256 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted (3 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2937 times:
Quoting Keesje (Reply 10): Maybe Boeing could line up a lobby firm, a media agency amd some congress members to tell the USAF what it really should need..
It worked for McCain and EADS....
"Rapid decompression leads to involuntary exiting of the Aircraft"
In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17. The proposed B-model represents an optimised expeditionary C-17. Buying it should be a no-brainer, but unfortunately the USAF's procurement folk have often demonstrated that they aren't guided by good sense or logic.
The same limitation has corrupted further, the whole already convoluted, paperwork mountain FRES for the British Army too.
(FRES - 'Future Rapid Effects System', for god's sake, who comes up with these titles?)
Then again FRES is a huge armoured turd waiting to be....well....excreted.
Why not do to the CVR(T) series of vehicles FRES is due to replace, as has happened with the FV432 to 'Boxer' update,new engines, transmissions, comms etc, these vehicles have always been C-130 transportable.
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5396 posts, RR: 35 Reply 13, posted (3 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2774 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 9): Quoting Jackonicko (Reply 6):
In today's expeditionary world, the USAF needs an expeditionary airlifter, and that means the C-17.
It is why the USAF has also gone to Airbus to talk to them over the A400M, it could carry them, and land in places where the C17 could not.
Actually, both the C-5 and C-17 were designed, and demonstrated to land/take-off on "unprepared surfaces". The USAF stays away from using this capability because of concern of FOD to the turbofan engines. A C-5 did demonstrate landing in some 10" (280mm) of wet snow at the former Griffiss AFB, NY (RME) in the mid 1980s. It landed in the loose unpacked snow next to the runway, then taxied onto the plowed runway through the plowed snow wind-row. The C-17 demonstrated a capability to land and take off on desert sand at Edwards AFB, CA (EDW) during its flight testing in the 1990s. OTOH, the C-130 does this almost daily, the A-400M, having a similar configueration should have no problems, like the C-130. I am sure the A-400M will also successfully demonstrate this capability (EADS has advertised this as a selling point). Whether any customer actually uses it is a different decision.
Quoting GDB (Reply 12): Then again FRES is a huge armoured turd waiting to be....well....excreted.
Zeke From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 3636 posts, RR: 49 Reply 14, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2723 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13): OTOH, the C-130 does this almost daily, the A-400M, having a similar configueration should have no problems, like the C-130.
CN-235/239 C-295 all that that sort of capability.
The C-17 & C-5 can be more limited at times by the availability of K loaders, than by the surface.
Cathay Pacific celebrates expansion of services to India
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2679 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 14): The C-17 & C-5 can be more limited at times by the availability of K loaders, than by the surface.
Having operated & managed k-loaders for the better part of my air force career I believe I'm in a position to tell you this: If there's no prepared surface k-loaders are 95% useless. All terrain forklifts and combat offloads will be the order of the day. NGSLs and tac loaders are a little better in the dirt than a k-loader but if I can only have one piece of equipment (which is sometimes the case) it will be a AT forklift.
Further, I'll note that the Russians have an excellent capability to offload in the dirt and they have no k-loaders (or their equivalent). They just use the onboard crane to lift cargo on to the back of truck.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
KC135TopBoom From United States, joined Jan 2005, 5396 posts, RR: 35 Reply 16, posted (3 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2462 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 14): Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):
OTOH, the C-130 does this almost daily, the A-400M, having a similar configueration should have no problems, like the C-130.
CN-235/239 C-295 all that that sort of capability.
The C-17 & C-5 can be more limited at times by the availability of K loaders, than by the surface.
That is correct, for the most part. Please see below.
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 15): Having operated & managed k-loaders for the better part of my air force career I believe I'm in a position to tell you this: If there's no prepared surface k-loaders are 95% useless. All terrain forklifts and combat offloads will be the order of the day. NGSLs and tac loaders are a little better in the dirt than a k-loader but if I can only have one piece of equipment (which is sometimes the case) it will be a AT forklift.
Don't forget about RO-RO (Roll on-Roll off) cargo, or drive on, drive off for vehicles. I've scene this don't from C-130s. Other than that, ZANL188 is correct, combat offloads ( Army or marines offloading by hand). Of course there is also LAPES.
LAPES is an impressive manuver with the C-130. With the bigger A-400M, it could be even more impressive. Of course, those tests, if EADS is tasked to do them, are way down the road from now. I would guess the French of British will try it soon after they get their airplanes. Both do LAPES now with C-130s or C-160s.
What you are saying is correct, but for strategic loads like helicopters etc it is very difficult to unload without something like a K-loader, even the alternative methods you listed.
I remember that the RAF flew submarine rescue gear into Russia, they were unable to unload the C17 as no K loader was available, and the fork lifts at the base could not handle the load, or fit in the space under the tail. They had to wait until the USAF flew in another C17 that had carried a K loader to unload their aircraft before they could start saving some people in a downed Russian sub.
One of the selling points of the A400M is the floor they have designed to assist loading/unloading, it is unlike anything else out there.
At the moment there is over 3000 medium sized transport aircraft out there (C130, C160, AN-12. IL-76/78), a lot of them are coming up for replacement, I see a rosy future for the A400M even if it only gets 20-25% of the market.
ZANL188 From United States, joined Oct 2006, 1224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2338 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 16): Don't forget about RO-RO (Roll on-Roll off) cargo, or drive on, drive off for vehicles.
Quoting Zeke (Reply 17): What you are saying is correct, but for strategic loads like helicopters etc it is very difficult to unload without something like a K-loader, even the alternative methods you listed.
You don't need k-loaders for rolling stock (RO-RO is a sealift term, not airlift) like vehicles or helos. If it's on wheels it'll get driven or winched off.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Jun 2005, 1003 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2008, 333 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 4985 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2008, 245 posts, 
From Hong Kong SAR, PRC, joined Dec 2006, 3636 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 8012 posts, 