Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cwjcc!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Best and Worst weapons
Message-ID: <8270@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 14 Jul 89 02:43:39 GMT
References: <8091@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>> C-17 STOL transport aircraft
>...the assertion was made that the rough-field capability of
>the aircraft would never be used because nobody wuld risk crashing one.
>
>I should think that getting troops and equipment in closer to the FEBA
>would be desirable...losing a war could more expensive than perhaps
>losing some transports.

One would think so, yes.  But this particular criticism is based on fact.
The *C-5A* was supposed to have a rough-field capability for precisely that
reason:  to get heavy equipment to the FEBA quickly.  However, in practice,
(a) there are some technical problems (which the C-17 may or may not avoid),
and (b) the USAF has never been willing to risk it.  Unless the C-17 is
bought in truly large numbers, many more than the C-5 -- which is pretty
unlikely in the current financial climate -- the way to bet is that no C-17
will ever be allowed anywhere near an FEBA.  It is difficult to imagine a
short-term emergency that is serious enough to justify risking a significant
long-term loss in already-inadequate heavy-airlift capability.

Given this, you might well ask what the C-17 will do that the C-5 won't,
especially when you consider the costs of C-17 development versus the cost
of cranking out a few more C-5s.  Very good question.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu