Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce
Now the C-130 is also a good aircraft, 23 tons at almost 300 knots for 2500 miles. Not only short strip capable but they have this neat trick of yanking a cargo pallet (up to 38000 lbs) out the back door with a ‘chute while flying 10’ off the ground and not having to land at all.
|
Capabilities of the C-130 was the objective of C-17s. The higher price? Notice who (unfortunately) designed and built the C-17 - which is why the plane so desperately needed took so long to get deployed.
Best way to distribute aid is not to land at distribution airports. Fly the material direct from the source to where it is needed, parachute it out the back, do same at the so many locations, then get back to base faster for more supplies. Its the same concept that made Walmart so successful. Eliminate the management problem. IOW we don't need C-130s waiting while other craft unload, reload on C-130, then slowly fly to where cargo is needed. They needed it last week - ASAP while the president sat on his ass. The Tsunami relief was a perfect job for C-17s. But instead we sent near zero response. Some C-130s and some survelliance planes.
BTW, where does that map show the non-operational squadron due to defective C-130J? Forgot where that Congressional pork was deployed - at the expense of a more necessary C-17. Where are they? Or why did that map forget to discuss the C-130J?
A little trivia. The same C-130 that took off in Washington on 11 September (bound for MN), was ordered to follow AA flight 77, and saw it strike the Pentagon - is the same C-130 flight that found AA flight 93 burning in PA.