AIRCRAFT BRITAIN SHOULD HAVE HAD

[Dizzyfugu]

That seems like a simple idea, but I'd never thought of it before!  Very neat concept and very nicely executed.

Cheers,

Logan

Second that. Nice one - esp. with the low twin tail conversion.

[rickshaw]

I really can't see C-17s being risked too far forward, Kit.  While designed as a "tactical transport" its sheer cost means that most of the time they'll only be used to bring stuff into an initial air head and it will still be transferred to a C-130s or smaller aircraft for movement forward to the sharp end of the battlefield.  Which means an An 124 could still more than likely do the job. 

This was the theory many years ago about the USAF buying 747s to make up the transport shortfall. This was when everyone was all worried about the Soviet rapid deployment units. Even in the passenger layout they would have been useful hauling thousands of Army troops around.

While we may not see too many C-17's going into tactical dirt strips and hot LZ's, it does appear to be used in places that a An124 would not go, especially hot/high and short runways. Agree most loads are regular trash runs going to regual air bases that any aircraft that has the capacity would work for, but the C-17 has more flexibilty for sure.  In an ideal world a mix of tactical and strategic and commercial lift is best. Affordability is another issue. 

For most air forces, affordability is a major issue.  Purchasing an aircraft that on an individual basis is worth a billion dollars rapidly eats up the defence budget!  I agree, the C-17 offers versatility but that occurs at a price.   The idea that such a valuable asset would be risked forward at the sharp end is something most money conscious air forces cannot contemplate.  Such risk adversity isn't always a bad thing IMHO.

As you note, the C-17 is being used (or perhaps a better term would be misused?) in roles that would have, I'd suggest once been fulfilled by the C-141 or even the C-5 - hauling essential logistics items but which aren't going to need the speciality of the C-17, where "hot/high and short runways," pertain.   So, perhaps An 124s are better suited to them?  Or 747s or even A380s?  That would free up a smaller number of C-17s for when/where their specialities are needed.   Horses for courses and all that, rather than assuming one size fits all?

[PR19_Kit]

It'l be interesting to see how the RAF uses its mix of C-17s, A400Ms and C-130Js in the future (if the A400Ms EVER get delivered that is....) I'll be keeping an eye on Brize Norton to see if the frequency of the appearance of An-124 fins decreases or not. 

[kerick]

The problem with a variety of aircraft types is the maintenance requirements and parts logistics. You have to train mechanics and keep more parts for several types instead of one or two. It multiplies the cost quickly.

[Captain Canada]

That's why Canada was so smart in choosing the EH-101 for SAR and the S-92 for maritime. 100% commonality between the 2 ! Except the S-92 lacks a third engine. And doesn't work......

[DarrenP]

As soon as the A400m enters service the C130J will start to be retired. The have been flogged to death in Afghanistan and Iraq. Interesting the MoD were having discussions with Lockheed re herc Maritime patrol could be some get converted to MP aircraft or Lockheed are looking at buying them back refurbishing them and selling them on.

[DarrenP]

That's why Canada was so smart in choosing the EH-101 for SAR and the S-92 for maritime. 100% commonality between the 2 ! Except the S-92 lacks a third engine. And doesn't work......

Yes it was a shame the Canadian govt cancelled the Merlin Seaking replacement and now are stuck with SK being dangerously past its sell by date and replacement being still a long way off.

[royabulgaf]

How did the 747 with the cargo nose work out?  Did anyone buy them besides Iran?  I think the problem is a lot of mission creep in the design stage.  You know, the "it would be nice if it could do this" sort of thing.  But I know what you mean.  I am sure you have all seen brochure paintings of the jumbos unloading tanks seemingly in sight of the battlefield.  Also, in sight of some guy with a mortar and a yearning for "Glorious People's medal of heroic stuff" medal.

[rickshaw]

That unknown mortarman could score a billion dollars for the Motherland if it's a C-17...

One should always remember the primary purpose of sales brochures is to sell something to you, so the pictures usually aren't that realistic.

Perhaps the best suggestion I've seen for using 747s as military transports is to give them opening, swing noses and have the first few aircraft into an air head (well away from the FEBA) carry equipment to build a ramp (usually using military bridging components) which they then set up for the following aircraft carrying vehicles/equipment.  If you're clever, it could be carried partially assembled and all that is required is for you to pull/push it out of the aircraft onto some piers.  I'd also assume they have to carry air tugs to push the planes back from the ramp, once they've unloaded.

The problem with a variety of aircraft types is the maintenance requirements and parts logistics. You have to train mechanics and keep more parts for several types instead of one or two. It multiplies the cost quickly

All such organisations and equipment are a case of compromise.   Yes, it increases maintenance costs (although, if you're clever you make sure all aircraft use the same engines at the very least) but that is a "whole of life" matter rather than the "up front" costs and it's "up front" costs that politicians concentrate on.  You show them a bill which is "x" dollars/pounds cheaper using several types of aircraft compared to "y" when using one, guess which one they'll choose?   That way they can push the ongoing costs down the road, even into the term of the next government which may well be their opponents'.

[jcf]

How did the 747 with the cargo nose work out?  Did anyone buy them besides Iran?  I think the problem is a lot of mission creep in the design stage.  You know, the "it would be nice if it could do this" sort of thing.  But I know what you mean.  I am sure you have all seen brochure paintings of the jumbos unloading tanks seemingly in sight of the battlefield.  Also, in sight of some guy with a mortar and a yearning for "Glorious People's medal of heroic stuff" medal.

All 747 pure freighter models (not Combis or passenger conversions) have the visor nose, and hundreds have been built
since the first 747-200F over 40 years ago and up to the current 747-8F model. It's been a standard model since the
747-200F and the engineering of a freighter variant goes back to the earliest days of the 747 program.
BTW the Iranian aircraft were converted 747-100 series and had the big side door (freighter and Combi) and not the nose
visor of the freighter.

Portable unloading gear was designed and built, by Boeing, decades ago.
http://www.ausairpower.net/loaders.html
(Hilariously the only place I could find good pics of the On-Board Loader, and the pics
are full of irony.  )

[kerick]

That unknown mortarman could score a billion dollars for the Motherland if it's a C-17...

One should always remember the primary purpose of sales brochures is to sell something to you, so the pictures usually aren't that realistic.

Perhaps the best suggestion I've seen for using 747s as military transports is to give them opening, swing noses and have the first few aircraft into an air head (well away from the FEBA) carry equipment to build a ramp (usually using military bridging components) which they then set up for the following aircraft carrying vehicles/equipment.  If you're clever, it could be carried partially assembled and all that is required is for you to pull/push it out of the aircraft onto some piers.  I'd also assume they have to carry air tugs to push the planes back from the ramp, once they've unloaded.

The problem with a variety of aircraft types is the maintenance requirements and parts logistics. You have to train mechanics and keep more parts for several types instead of one or two. It multiplies the cost quickly

All such organisations and equipment are a case of compromise.   Yes, it increases maintenance costs (although, if you're clever you make sure all aircraft use the same engines at the very least) but that is a "whole of life" matter rather than the "up front" costs and it's "up front" costs that politicians concentrate on.  You show them a bill which is "x" dollars/pounds cheaper using several types of aircraft compared to "y" when using one, guess which one they'll choose?   That way they can push the ongoing costs down the road, even into the term of the next government which may well be their opponents'.

Its only the last few years that people have seriously considered lifetime costs in a program. And even then it seems the numbers can get jerked around quite a bit. Just look at the C-27 fiasco for an example. Plus you have to consider how much pork a program can deliver to a politicians district!

BTW, that's why they call them "mortar magnets".

[crudebuteffective]

Here one i finished recently, no intro needed really







apologies for the bad quality rushed the photos I'll try and get some new ones up soon

and thanks to freightdog for the obvious additions.

[PR19_Kit]

I like the hi-viz B2 Toaster in the background. Which squadron was that with? 

[McColm]

I've always thought that the Goshawk should be in service with the Royal Navy/Fleet Air Arm.

[DarrenP]

NH90 to replace Puma
AW139 to replace Lynx AH9/Bell 212
EC145 to replace Gazelle

Would like to have seen P3 orion or the P7 in RAF or better still Fleet Air Arm service

Airbus A310-MRTT brought in much earlier to replace VC10 say in 1990's