C 17 & A 400 ?

Discussion in 'Aviation' started by jonwilly, Sep 22, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Gents as the name of this forum is AVIATION and not
    'Teeny Weeny Airways only, so wedge it yous Scroats'

    I see ar Men in Ganistan are short of everything but Guts and Determination.
    They are now going to receive an addtional Harrier. Thank you Gorden.
    I would like to ask the membership don't you think we'd have been better off if our men where being supplied by RAF C 17s instead of old has been Hercs with sometime in the years to cum A 400s doing the job. Wireing permitting.
    PS I do know the crabs have 4 C 17s and one on order.
  2. jonwilly - where do you get your information from? As someone who is intimately involved in the supply chain into the Stan, I would refute your claims. I am not directly responsible for it, but I am a contributor to the effort and communicate regularly with the team that is, so not being defensive or parochial. PM me if you want more detail.
  3. Morning
    No artical in perticular. I read a lot of bits and pieces on the net and over the time I have cum to the opionion that the RAF made the wrong decision in going for the Herc in its latest form.
    Please correct me if I am wrong but I have ben given to understand that the latest Herc the "J" although it can fly high is not allowed to do so as it is too slow to mix with passanger jets.
    There was a great deal of chat about Hercs being bought because the pilots at tyhe top where old ex Herc jockeys and they would still like to "fly' them on trips, which would be easier then if the C 17 had ben bought.
    The C 17 comes across to me as a massive fuselarge, with a very sensibly mounted high wing and four masive turbojets which can and do propell it along at a much higher turn of speed. I also understand that the C17 has outstanding manouverability on the ground far exceeding anything that a Herc can do.
    Just my thoughts
  4. Surely the C17 (of which we need hundreds more) is a wee bit to large and noticable to be taken out for a 'spin' by some semi retired RAF shiney arrse?
  5. Nay I meant more like "Haveing a Pole" a Jolly with the real pilot in charge.
    Mind you, we could all tell tales.
  6. yes, more C17's are needed. we sould not be buying the A400M in a few years time. it is a design that has not even flown yet, ffs. then again, its design may never 'get off the ground' so to speak anyway.

    the C17 is a very versatile, very capable airlifter that can move sh#t loads over vast distances rather fast.
    trouble is, it costs an absolute fortune per airframe. an example is you couls buy 4 antonov AN124 Condors for the cost of 1 C17, but you have to replace the russian engines after every 10,000 flight hours & we would have to fit western avionics.

    Hows this for a plan, we buy 20 or 30 C17's instead of the A400M & see if the septics have any C5 Galexies going cheap, that have just been retired due to replacement with C17's. massive boust to our airlift capacity sorted. :)
  7. I chose the C 17 as it is a Modern design with potential for the future.
    The C 17 is a proven product and the Herc was old in my day, now long gone.
    Brit Areospace has got out of EADS and yet we seem committed to an unproven design in the A 400 which does not sem to Me as an improvement on what is already alvailable and in service with RAF.
    I was not aware that Galaxies where available my first thoughts are they are BIG and not so ground handleable.
  8. The C-5 fleet is too old and too expensive. Its operating costs were sky high and they are tired airframes, which would need new engines and probably a new cockpit to bring it into the 21st century. Its a Strategic and not a tactical airlifter and doesn't have short field capability.

    The C-17 is a top bit of kit - but Boeing are about to close the production line! They are involved in a game of cat and mouse with the US DoD to keep it open, but the outcome is uncertain. Australia is due to take delivery of 4 aircraft soon, and Canada is in the process of purchasing some.

    The A400M will be good when it finally arrives but the main problem will be Airbus and the Europeans. Eurofighter isn't a good precedent! Civvie pilots will be able to have it on their license, which will make it more user-friendly - reservists for example, would be able to fly it. But for now, its a case of wait and see. Airbus Military is threatening to have the first aircraft flying by the end of the year....
  9. Just because the Herc is an old design doesn't mean its past it, just that they got it right to begin with. Not sure about the maneouverability of C17 on the ground but have been on flight deck of an Albert during a tactical landing and have been almost blown over when reversing one into a tight DAC area. Different aircraft, different jobs. A400 looks to be able to bridge the gap between strategic and tactical supply(if we ever see one this century), but the problem, if any, will be what to replace any losses to enemy action or maintenance, as we use the bo!"ocks out of what we have, to ensure no disruption to the supply chain. The way the real enemy (new liarbour) seem to be going would be to outsource it to the private sector. I can see it now, McDonalds compo brought to you by Ryan air or Easyjet.
  10. My understanding of the C-130J and associated debate is that while it can cruise quite happily at altitude it is rarely allowed to by ATC. This is down to parsimony over the avionics fit - ie it doesn't have standard civvy airliner standard kitand hence cannot operate alongside them. (RVSM in particular rings a bell but anyone correct me if I've got the wrong acronym)

    Hence it has to fly lower and the potential performance advantages of the -J model are never realised.
  11. Last time I discussed this with a Herc mate Iwas told the ATC problem was speed - civ air cruises at a much higher Mach number than even the J model, so the J cannot be slotted into the North Atlantic organised track system at its best performance flight level, for example.
  12. I'm a C130J driver that lurks on this site every now and then, keeping tabs on the Army :D

    You ask if the troops on the ground would be better off being supplied by C17 instead of "has been" Hercs. The C17 is a very capable aircraft by unfortunately we just don't have enough of them, to justify one or two being on permanent ops in theatre. Additionally, being so far up our own arses, as we always are, we have decided not to utilise all the rough surface and airdrop clearances that came with the aircraft. It is difficult to justify using this extremely capable airlifter on small, intra-theatre pax and freight moves when we have so few of them.

    Having just returned from yet another det in Afg I know there are cases where the presence of an in-theatre C17 would be great. It would be great if the C17 could do the entire Tristar move from KAB to Bastion in a oner. It would also be great if a C17 could do the week's bang move into Bastion in one trip too! Unfortunately, as I said, this ain't going to happen until the MoD wins the lottery of something. The state of the AT fleet is poor enough at the moment; if even only one C17 was taken out the UK - ME schedule i think the troops would have even more to complain about. Additionally I don't think it would really change the price of fish in reality - one C17 arrives or three hercs in quick succession? Not much in it really. Additionally, whilst the C17 is quite manoeuvrable on the ground however it is 2 or 3 times the size of a herc hence there are just some places out there that it will not get into.

    As for the Herc being past it, I would, obviously, dispute that. Notwithstanding all the bullcrap posted on Pprune about the J, it is working very well in both theatres. Our airdrop accuracy is pretty damn good and our lifting power in the hot and high conditions of Afg can't be matched by any other Hercs.

    As for the J not being able to fly enough to realise great fuel savings, this is partially true. The speed we cruise at causes some ATC grief so they won't let us climb into the higher levels. This is specifically the French. No surprises there. Furthermore, we are fully fitted for RVSM airspace requirements however no one in Mod is prepared to pay for the certification paperwork hence we don't go up there. We sometimes use the "State aircraft" dispensation to get round this.

    A400M? You're avin a giraffe! I'll believe that fictitious plane when I see it.
  13. Thanks for the Pro view Bert.
    I suppose the A 400 is then on par with two new carriers for the navy.
    I just heard Brown say on the Beeb World service TV that for ONLY 10 Bilion quid he could solve Africas problem with Female education.
    Only 10 billion not even a brazillion, wonder what he could do for HIS troops up the sharpe end with half of that.
  14. I sat in a J cockpit flying from some unmentionable ex soviet state to Kabul in 2003 (long story! Just prior to us taking off was a US Herc (K model) and it was a good 10-15 mins ahead of us.
    As we were flying the pilot pointed out to me, in the distance, the US Herc. And i then preceded to watch us gain and then overtake it with relative ease. Either we were going balls out or the US Herc was going quite slow, but it was impressive in the J.
  15. I only mentioned the C-5 as being British I am always looking for the cheaper purchase option (if there were any going cheap that is) & I know how much the C-17 costs. its a great aircraft, yeah, but truth is we cant afford the 30 or so we need in reality.