kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu (Mark A. Kinney) (03/18/91)
From: Mark A. Kinney <wku_unix!kinney@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> This is regarding Henry Spencer's post about the C-17: In my AFJROTC class last year I was an "Air Force Now!" film with a clip about the C-17. Among other things, it's supposed to be able to carry tanks, a and employ LAPES (Low Altitude Parachute Ejection System - for the uninformed, the strap a drag chute to the cargo and shove it out the back). I don't know it if the C-5 has a back cargo door, but if they don't (I don't remember) then I'd think the pilots would be extremely unhappy if you opened up the nose and s started shoving stuff out. (Grammer note: the "was" in the first sentence should say "saw") This is regarding Scott Silvey's reply to my "Aircraft Answers" post. I read an editorial in the Courier-Journal (Louisville, Ky) a few months ago saying that someone important (I don't remember who) was considering replacing the F-14 with the FA-18. They came up with the same points you did. Also, the official word has been that strategic recon will now be carried out with satellites. While I like the Keyholes, they just aren't always in the same place at the same time, and when they wear out you need to send up new ones. After you buy a recon plane, you only have fuel and maintainence costs to worry about, and they'll go pretty much wherever you need them. An article in and "Air Combat" magazine (can't remember the date, but the cover story...) had an article about the SR-71 decommisioning. It didn't even *speculate* a ground based replacement like the Aurora project is supposed to be. (Another grammer note: replace "same" with "right"-my brain is on spring break already :) ) Mark Kinney kinney@wku.edu
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (03/20/91)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
>I don't know it if the C-5 has a back cargo door, but if they don't (I
don't >remember) then I'd think the pilots would be extremely unhappy if
you >opened up the nose and started shoving stuff out.
The C-5A/B has a rear cargo door but the aircraft is not equipped for
any type of parachute drop, including LAPES. The C-17 will give MAC an
unequaled capability to bring C-5A/B sized and weighted loads into C-130
capable airfields or unprepared strips. This is very, very important if
we are planning to move any sizeable military force with great haste. A
C-5 needs a runway; a C-17 will only need a flat pasture or piece of
desert.
Allan Bourdius
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [MIDN 3/C (Marine Option)/Brother, Phi Kappa Theta Fraternity]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu or Box 4719, 5125 Margaret Morrison St., Pgh., PA 15213
"Give, expecting nothing thereof." "Phi Kappa Theta, just the best."alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) (03/22/91)
From: voder!nsc!berlioz.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) In article <1991Mar20.032310.29056@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: > >The C-5A/B has a rear cargo door but the aircraft is not equipped for >any type of parachute drop, including LAPES. The C-17 will give MAC an It's nit-pickin time again. Back in 1972 when I was in the 82D ABN DIV, we made some training jumps from the C-5. It was, indeed equipped for parachute drops. Now, it may not be currently equipped for heavy drops, but personnel drops are no problem. Actually, it was a real blast to jump from: we flew around for a while, geared up, and used the side doors AND the rear door simultaneously. Quite effective in getting a battalion on the ground in a hurry! -- Alan Hepburn "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain National Semiconductor a little temporary safety deserve neither Santa Clara, Ca liberty nor safety." alan@berlioz.nsc.com Benjamin Franklin
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/23/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> >... The C-17 will give MAC an >unequaled capability to bring C-5A/B sized and weighted loads into C-130 >capable airfields or unprepared strips. This is very, very important if >we are planning to move any sizeable military force with great haste. Agreed that it is very important, but what makes you think it will ever be available? The C-5 was supposed to provide exactly that capability. The C-17 marketing brochures of today read exactly like the C-5 ones of thirty years ago. Why make the same mistake twice? >A C-5 needs a runway... Strategic airlifters available only in small numbers always operate from runways. They are too valuable to risk in combat-zone operations. The C-5 has almost exactly the same theoretical dirt-strip capability as the C-17; it has never been allowed to use it. -- "[Some people] positively *wish* to | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology believe ill of the modern world."-R.Peto| henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (03/26/91)
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) In article <1991Mar23.061719.5018@amd.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >Strategic airlifters available only in small numbers always operate from >runways. They are too valuable to risk in combat-zone operations. The >C-5 has almost exactly the same theoretical dirt-strip capability as the >C-17; it has never been allowed to use it. And aircraft carriers would never operate inside of the Persian/Arabian Gulf because it was "too risky." The C-17 is *not* the C-5. For one thing, it's more expensive, but more maintainable and requires a crew of 3 (Pilot, Co-pilot, Loadmaster). If this is such a Big Deal, Lockheed and McD' can have a dirt-strip flyoff out at Nellis AFB with various tactical loads, all the while trying to evade tactical threats from the ground, such as shoulder-launched SAMs. Best plane wins. Fair enough? -- SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors.
cliffw%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET (Cliff White) (03/30/91)
From: Cliff White <crg1!cliffw%sequent.uucp@RELAY.CS.NET> >From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >Strategic airlifters available only in small numbers always operate from >runways. They are too valuable to risk in combat-zone operations. The >C-5 has almost exactly the same theoretical dirt-strip capability as the >C-17; it has never been allowed to use it. I've heard the following story: (read it in a book, can't recall title) -the 747 was an outground of Boeings (sp?) C-5 entry -the 747 lost in the competition, primarily because they could not meet the short field/dirt field spec. -then the 747 beat the C-5 into production...by about 2 years... -after the fun was over, Lockheed admitted the C-5 couldn't meet the origional landing field spec either.. -so the USAF changed the spec.. I wish i could remember the book title...great story about procurement (think it was 'the C-5A Scandal'...) anybody have more details? -- cliffw