James Hart wrote:
Chad Irby wrote:

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:


On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 06:07:58 GMT, "Jim Atkins"
wrote:


I'd pay money to see an AC-5 in action, but I'm not holding my
breath. Come to think of it, they could probably put the guns from
the Iowa on that thing.

Making an AC-5 might be a good example of the precept that just
because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

But I'd like to see it in action, too.

Of course, you could mount pretty much *anything* in one of those.
GAU-8s, Sidewinder launchers for self-defense, a small AWACS-type
system, maybe an old XF-85 Goblin fighter or two to toss out the
back...


Why not just build a AC-71, would get there quick enough but might have a
bit of a wide loiter area.


Several problems with the C-17, the most immediate being that we
don't have as many as we need to fill the transport role, so there
won't be any available for quite some time. Secondly, do we gain
enough capablity over the C-130 to warrant replacing them, at huge
cost in procurement, development, and training?

Mike