Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: C-17, F-14 vs FA-18
Message-ID: <1991Mar26.031612.2590@amd.com>
Date: 26 Mar 91 03:16:12 GMT
References: <1991Mar18.132459.14027@cbnews.att.com> <1991Mar20.032310.29056@cbnews.att.com>,<1991Mar23.061719.5018@amd.com>
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 26
Approved: military@amd.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)

In article <1991Mar23.061719.5018@amd.com>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Strategic airlifters available only in small numbers always operate from
>runways.  They are too valuable to risk in combat-zone operations.  The
>C-5 has almost exactly the same theoretical dirt-strip capability as the
>C-17; it has never been allowed to use it.

And aircraft carriers would never operate inside of the Persian/Arabian Gulf
because it was "too risky." 

The C-17 is *not* the C-5. For one thing, it's more expensive, but more
maintainable and requires a crew of 3 (Pilot, Co-pilot, Loadmaster). 

If this is such a Big Deal, Lockheed and McD' can have a dirt-strip flyoff out
at Nellis AFB with various tactical loads, all the while trying to evade
tactical threats from the ground, such as shoulder-launched SAMs. Best plane
wins. Fair enough?

--
SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU
     
Reform may be dying in the Soviet Union, but we have the right to 
	introduce it to the DECUS Board of Directors.