![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Brett wrote:
snip It can launch from a major airfield, and land on unimproved runways in the battle zone. The C-5 can still perform that mission I believe, it doesn't mean that any mission planner would suggest it be used in many situations for either the C-17 or C-5. While the C-5 was theoretically able to land on unimproved strips, in practice it is never done. The same hasn't been the case with the C-17, which was so used in Afghanistan (FOB Bravo), at a minimum. The USAF wasn't all that enthusiastic about the idea, but the Marines needed its larger payload, so it appears CINCCENT (if not even higher up the chain) told the USAF to stop dragging their feet and use the a/c as it was designed to be used. USAF also refused to land their C-130s at max. gross landing weight on unimproved strips in either Afghanistan or Iraq (I forget which) for much the same reason (using up remaining fatigue life), which didn't make the U.S. Army (IIRR) very happy. Since the USMC own their own KC-130s they can keep the argument in their own chain of command, and find it easier to order instead of having to negotiate. Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|