stan@gatech.edu (Stan Brown) (03/20/91)
From: emory!Dixie.Com!stan@gatech.edu (Stan Brown)
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
)The orthodox excuse is that the C-5 is incapable of flying heavy loads
)direct to the front lines, while the C-17 can do this. Surprise surprise,
)if you look at the original C-5 specs, it was supposed to be able to fly
)heavy loads to the front lines! There were problems with debris damaging
)engines when operating on soft surfaces, and the USAF was reluctant to
)clear the C-5 for such operations in the end; nothing has been said about
)why the C-17 won't have the same problems. The clincher is that like the
)C-5, the C-17 will be bought in sufficiently small numbers that the USAF
)almost certainly would never authorize risking them in front-line flights.
)As shown by both recent and earlier experiences, heavy airlifters are very
)valuable. If there aren't many of them, they will be kept well back from
)the combat zone and front-line capability will be irrelevant.
So what you do is tranship the cargo toa the *proper* plane to
deliver it to the front lines. The C-130, which is still alive
and well (and in production so it's replaceable) after how
many years ?
--
Stan Brown P. c. Design 404-363-2303 Ataant Ga.
(emory|gatech|uunet) rsiatl!sdba!stan "vi forever"