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.

3 comments :

  1. The other differences are why you choose C-17 over A400m however.

    Range, 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...

    ReplyDelete
  2. 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.

    ReplyDelete
  3. You 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.

    As 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.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.