The Australians though seem quite pleased with the C-17's ability in the rough.
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Australian AF C-17 rough field landing.
Many A-400 proponents tout its rough field landing capability as the reason for being when it comes to choosing it over the C-17 despite the difference in cost being only 8-10 million dollars.
The Australians though seem quite pleased with the C-17's ability in the rough.
A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster on approach to Multinational Base Tarin Kowt.
A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster lands on the dusty
airstrip of Multinational Base Tarin Kowt.
A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster lands on the dusty
airstrip of Multinational Base Tarin Kowt.
A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster takes off from the
Multinational Base Tarin Kowt with its heavy load of cargo.
A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster banks for home with its
payload of cargo from Tarin Kowt, Afghanistan.
A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 Globemaster takes off from the
Multinational Base Tarin Kowt with its heavy load of cargo.
The Australians though seem quite pleased with the C-17's ability in the rough.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
The other differences are why you choose C-17 over A400m however.
ReplyDeleteRange, payload and off the shelf, all go to C-17.
A400m offers very little, IMHO. Just like C-130J-30, it is too small to carry modern armoured vehicles, offers too little range and is too expensive for the capability delivered.
Why the Australian White Paper of 09, recommended 2x more C-130J-30's is beyond me. A much younger airframe would result leading to differing support operations and over-lapping service lengths in comparison with the existing fleet (now 15 years old), unless some sort of trade was worked out in future. All in all a strange idea, that even RAAF has admitted to some concerns about.
Much more appropriate and logical to acquire a 5th C-17 or additional battlefield airlifters than the 10x planned for (10x? What squadron in the world runs 10x platforms?), if and when that project ever gets up and running again...
well said. i didn't even consider the other issues with the C-130J in comparison to the C-17 (ditto with the A-400). i think we might be seeing the settling in on a Western airlifter with the C-17.
ReplyDeleteYou can compare a C-17 and a C-130, but to what purpose?. It's like comparing a dump truck and a pick-up truck. They fill different roles (inter- and intra-theater airlift) and the comparison really isn't relevant IMHO. Sure, many countries use the C-130 for inter-theater airlift, but it's inefficient in that role, and comparatively expensive. Especially against a high-flying turbofan propelled jet. What that boils down to is that there isn't enough heavy lift (is there ever "enough" logistic support?) and the C-130 is pressed into service.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the Aussie force mix, if they need a 5th C-17, they need a C-17. More Herks ain't gonna do it. Sadly, it wouldn't be the first time a government made an illogical defense purchase.
And really? An A-400 is only 8-10 million less than a C-17? I did not realize that. The C-17 is a proven capable performer. I don't think anybody who owns them has any serious complaints. Consider the money spent on the A-400 sunk costs, and move on already.