C-17 Globemaster vs C-130 Hercules

[Guest bargiel20]

JCAM, are you a nav or a pilot? Because the C-17 doesn't have navigators. That might answer your question right there. I have no idea what a Toner is. But if you're a pilot, go for C-17.

[WHAP]

The 61st doesnt even know what they are getting. That is my squadron, and all of our guys are still going through E model schoolhouse. They said we should know this summer if its H or J models. As far as hercs or 17s are concerned. I just made that choice from tones in the fall and i love every minute of the herc. The driving factor for me was flying low. 17s will do a few low levels a year for currency. Hercs fly them all the time.

Also, 17s take trips, hercs deploy. So if you want to be gone for 3 weeks, home for 1 or less, then gone again, take a 17. If you want 2-4 months in the AOR followed by 1-3 at home. Take a herc.

[FreudianSlip]

Expect C-17s to very shortly being doing 4 month non-chopped deployments to the Died. I would guess about another month or so to start seeing the first crews doing the 4 month bit.

The question is, once they are back how long will TACC leave them alone?

As for the Herks, Pope has J-model Mx buildings already built...and yup...its being BRACed w/ H2 (I think) coming from the guard to Pope Army Airfield (w/ a small active duty squad to play with the guard...sts). When I PCSed to Pope over a year ago, I heard that the 2nd was in line to get the J. We even had a LTC, who was a J guy in the squadron to start the process. A year and a half later, I haven't heard anything (of value) about Js coming to the Active Duty side of things.

If you're worried about flying a shiny new plane, go to the C-17. If you're willing to wait out planes with wing cracks that are 40 years old in hopes that the J model will replace them, then Herk flying is a blast.

Also realize that the Air Force is jumping into the new light cargo aircraft that the army wants. So you might see a shift away from interest with larger purchases of the J to this new thing (which I don't know to much about).

Best of luck with your choice and you might want to start packing your deployment bag now. See you in the desert!

[Guest Grouch]

I'd agree with most people's posts and I have only had the chance to hop inside of a 17 once. It was nice, it even had a little bit of a new car/airplane smell, I didn't know planes had that. I figured they all smelled like 40 years of spilled flight meals, aircrew a$$ (linda's is quite foul), and army puke. It makes for an interesting aroma, but I digress. If you want to fly, get a herc, if you want to cruise along and monitor systems and have 3 beers a day, take a 17. Also don't count on new planes anytime soon if thats a driving factor for your herk decision. Good luck with the choice.

[Guest HercNav]

More hours, shorter deployments, more frequent tax-free months, and super easy DFCs.... go C-17!

I call the C-130 the last of the "John Wayne planes." Although first produced in the 50s among a LOT of great planes, the C-130 has changed very little over the years. I should say that the H3 is the last rough, tough, takes $#!+ from no one, C-130--and even that is a stretch with its glass cockpit. They call the J model a C-130, but few in the community agree with that.

If you want goochie, don't get stuck at a base that has C-130 (H1 or older)....

[Champ Kind]

This story might apply to the thread....

"C-17s would help USAFE’s air mobility business"

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123017857

by Louis A. Arana-Barradas

Air Force Print News

3/21/2006 - RAMSTEIN AIR BASE, Germany (AFPN) -- As the need grows for more Air Force transports to move cargo and troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. Air Forces in Europe is feeling the pinch.

Today, most Air Force airlift missions support military operations in the two countries, said Col. Phil Bossert, commander of 16th Air Force’s air mobility operations control center at this busy airlift hub.

Most missions executed through the U.S. Central Command Air Forces combined air operations center are air mobility missions, he said. The airlift missions “normally outnumber kinetic missions -- sometimes by as much as two to one.”

“This is very much a mobility war,” he said. “Airlift is definitely big business.”

But airlift is big business at Ramstein, too. USAFE, which has its headquarters here, has its own growing airlift needs as it transforms and expands its operations south and east. The colonel said it needs a squadron of new transport aircraft to keep pace with its airlift requirements.

“No doubt about it, we need C-17 (Globemaster IIIs),” he said. The Globemasters would boost the command’s fleet of airlift aircraft.

The colonel said 90 to 95 percent of the command’s daily operational missions in its area of responsibility -- which stretches from northern Europe to southern Africa and parts of the Middle East -- are mobility missions.

“With the global war on terrorism, business here is very, very good,” Colonel Bossert said.

But there is there is little airlift to spare, and so the command relies on an aging fleet of 52 aircraft. From its underground home, the AMOCC tries to match the command’s daily airlift requirements to its available aircraft.

Colonel Bossert said sometimes that is not possible. One reason is the command has “a significant number of problems” with the wear of the center wing box of its C-130E Hercules. This caused the command to ground some of its Hercules since last July. And more will be restricted in the next few years.

“We could really use a squadron of C-17s -- especially with the long distances we’re flying to Africa,” Colonel Bossert said. “The C-17 is ideal for landing in austere airfields in Africa.”

But for now, the only C-17 Globemaster IIIs in Europe belong to Air Mobility Command. Some fly out of Ramstein and a desert base. Their main focus is getting cargo from the United States to Iraq and Afghanistan and air-evacuating wounded troops to hospitals in Germany and elsewhere.

The command has had to rely on a rotating squadron of Reserve and Guard C-130s to help pick up the airlift slack. But when it had to ground some of its own “Hercs,” the Reserve and Guard could not keep pace with the demand, the colonel said.

As a result, the command could not support 145 missions from July through February, Colonel Bossert said.

He said the C-130s are hard-pressed to meet the requirements of the command’s many contingency missions -- it had 34 in the past 18 months. An example is the airlift support provided to U.N operations in Sudan’s Darfur region. It took several Hercules to do the job.

“One C-17 would have saved us from using four C-130s,” Colonel Bossert said. “And that one C-17 could have done in one week what the four C-130s did in about two and half weeks.”

As the command and U.S. Army Europe continue to streamline and transform, the need for airlift will grow. When the Army starts rotating Stryker brigades to bases in Germany and other parts of Europe, like Romania and Bulgaria, C-17s will be required for airlift, he said.

“It’s impractical to rotate battalion- or brigade-size units using C-130s,” he said.

A squadron of C-17s -- no matter where based -- would also help the command’s air evacuation mission. One thing it does now is to put medical teams on transiting Globemasters. On March 20, a C-17 flew 16 patients from Balad Air Base, Iraq, to Ramstein. The mission was a milestone for the transport, which surpassed its 1 millionth hour mark on the Ramstein leg of the flight.

Nurse Maj. David Ball -- a Mississippi guardsman recalled to active duty -- was the medical crew director on the historic flight. He prefers the Globemaster for such missions because it is “very friendly for air medical evacuation.”

“It’s a wonderful airframe,” the major said. “The lighting, the temperature, the oxygen and the ability we have to set up stanchions (is great). And you can plug directly into the wall for electricity.”

Major Ball, who has flown on the C-17 since it joined the Air Force inventory, said the aircraft is “the most versatile air medical evacuation platform available.”

Colonel Bossert said having even just a few C-17s would allow the command to provide better air evacuations -- and all types of airlift in general. It would make the command more responsive to airlift needs.

“Having a squadron of C-17s -- just a small squadron of six tails -- would have an enormous and positive impact on this AOR,” the colonel said.

___________________

Haters.... Sounds like he's about to give the Budda a reach-around, while he's at it.

[Guest AirGuardian]

1 Millionth hour mark... on a Mississippi bird! Must be alot of political pull in our state - go figure, plus we'll keep on hump'n it til the pigs do fly or get a replacement...

We're doing the Air Evac runs back and forth - prime time mission so we have it pretty dang good compared to the poor 17 guys in the Deid... Guard thing is still work'n for now!

1. Spin up the jet - let Betty fly the stick/HUD while you warm up a few ribs, chicken tenders and marinated salmon steaks (stinks up the cab!).

2. Make a few calls, read a few books, watch a movie or two....

3. Land, have a few beers and whatnot - load up the next day with a few cases of German spirits with room to spare.

4. Bring back your war torn heroes to the best Med Fac's in the country and to their families!

***PRICELESS!!!

From stateside-Sandbox-Stateside in < 120 hrs or so...

[Guest chosen_one50]

Alright, if you listen to Herc guys, they will tell you all 17's do is what a C-5 does, which complete horse shit because the C-17 is a much more capable aircraft than either. If you want to do all the low-level tactical shit all you have to do is go airdrop. When you ask the Army what they want from the AF, they'll tell you airlift, and when you ask them what airframe they want for airlift, I gurantee they will say the C-17...

Anyway, I digress. I'm a C-17 dude out of McChord and in the past two years I averaged around 200 days TDY a year, but no matter what airframe you go to, you will be gone, no if's and's or but's. We're at frickin war. Within the next couple of week's expect the C-17's to go to a 2 squadron deployment, cutting down the number of crews from the states required overseas (in theory) which will cut down the amount of time away from home when not deployed.

Overall, the base locations for C-17's blows the living hell out of Hercs. I love this jet and I love this assignment.

[LockheedFix]

"Single C-17 breaks airdrop record"

https://www.af.mil/news/story_print.asp?storyID=123017752

by Staff Sgt. Melissa Koskovich

U.S. Central Command Air Forces Public Affairs

3/20/2006 - SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFPN) -- A single Air Force C-17 Globemaster III airdropped 32,400 pounds of humanitarian aid within 40 minutes to four locations in central and eastern Afghanistan March 16.

This feat marked the most cargo airdropped to this many drop-zones in the shortest amount of time from a single aircraft in the history of U.S. airdrop operations, said Lt. Col. Charles Ciuzio, chief of the Air Mobility Division at the Combined Air Operations Center here.

The C-17 and accompanying aircrew are deployed to the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing from McChord Air Force Base, Wash.

The mission delivered 24 bundles of supplies to Afghans in need. The supplies included winter survival gear, tools, school supplies, food and blankets. This relief adds to the more than 2.2 million pounds of humanitarian aid provided for the people of Afghanistan since October 2004.

“This mission definitely proves the flexibility of our airpower,” said Maj. Gabriel Greiss, chief of Air Mobility Division tactics at the CAOC. “By getting so much done so quickly, we are undoubtedly optimizing the use of our air assets to help as much as we can.”

According to White House reports, 6 million people in Afghanistan and 1.5 million Afghan refugees depend on international relief programs for survival.

Is this our next DFC-winning crew?

[FourFans]

32,400 lbs. Wow. Must have been a backbreaking mission for a C-17. Good thing a C-130 can't do that.

Glory Whores

What airframe was it that carried half of the 200,000 lbs of humanitarian relief for the recent mud slide in the Philippines??? Was it that single C-17 that flew in once, 3 days after C-130's were already there flying multiple missions? Someone jog my memory, because I'm confounded.

[ 22. March 2006, 07:39: Message edited by: FourFans130 ]

[Guest mikedjp]

What airframe could have carried all 200,000 pounds of humanitarian relief in only one sorty? Neither the 17 or 130. They need to keep on with the C-5 re-engine program and put Fred back to work.

[FourFans]

you're a brilliant man mike...don't let anyone say different.

post edited. try a reattack on understanding my point.

PS

Do a little research on the amazing C-17 that saved the day in the Philippines. Pretty much a sad grab for press while people were suffering.

[slacker]

Originally posted by HercNav:

. They call the J model a C-130, but few in the community agree with that.

I think calling the J model a C-130 was a mistake from the begining. You're trying to fit a much more capable airframe into existing regulations and procedures, therefore losing much of the gained capability. We've finally gotten away from that.

I vote naming the C-130J the C-169. Because 169 is 30% more than 130 (if my math is correct), and that's about what you get. A 30% more capable airplane.

[Guest mikedjp]

Originally posted by FourFans130:

you're a brilliant man mike...don't let anyone say different.

post edited. try a reattack on understanding my point.

PS

Do a little research on the amazing C-17 that saved the day in the Philippines. Pretty much a sad grab for press while people were suffering.

I didn't miss your point, I just wanted to take an opportunity to plug for the C-5, my former ride. I'm in Nav school now and will most likely be on some 130 variant soon. As a former C-5 dude, I can relate to being victim to the C-17 media mafia.

edited for spelling.

[ 22. March 2006, 10:19: Message edited by: mikedjp ]

[HerkDerka]

Originally posted by G:

Overall, the base locations for C-17's blows the living hell out of Hercs. I love this jet and I love this assignment.

Now that is a good argument to use when trying to separate yourself from the strat world.

HD

[ 22. March 2006, 11:36: Message edited by: HerkDerka ]

[Guest AirGuardian]

Get over the media hype folks,

You all know its in regards for buying more and more heavy metal or whatever is the going thing these days.

17s nice, it works, does many great things - could do others things better... but it's not about your airframe overall!

BIG PICTURE!!! Procurement for tools that we want to have rather than need to have - granted, airlift like a few other assets - we will never have enough!

F-22 - F/A-22 - F-22..... get the picture! Media = Budget...

The 130 replacement will have its day... hopefully it won't be a prototype UAV of some sort - and that will be the end of all your heresay as well as mine!

[Guest NativeTexan]

I am a UPT stud at XL and am coming up on track select shortly. After watching the last few classes drop UAVs (and the number of UAVs being dropped increasing every class) the dream of going -38s and getting a fighter is slowly dying.

I have been reading up on the -130 and the -17 and have decided that if I don't go fighters, those are the 2 planes that I am most interested in. With track select coming up, I was hoping that someone could shed some light on the ups and downs of each of them.

Can you cross train from either the -130 to the -17 or vice versa? If I go -130s can I get into CV-22s later on? What is training with the Navy like compared to AF UPT?

Thanks for the help!

[slacker]

Here's my .02-

There are big differences between the C-17 and the C-130. The C-17 is strat air (for the most part) and while they like to claim tac, they're not really. With the C-17, you can take a 10 day trip all over the world. You'll wake up in your bed one day and be landing in the AOR the next. The C-130 deploys. You'll wake up in your bed one day and a week later find yourself finally in the AOR for 45-120 days. The C-17s come and go, the C-130s stay.

You'll find yourself more small, unique places doing different sh!t in a C-130, definitely off the beaten path. The C-17 (for the most part) stays on the well defined AMC enroute structure.

The C-17 is an AMC superstar

The C-130 is an AMC red-headed step child.

There are folks who have flown both- I think it would be easier going from a legacy C-130 to a C-17 than vice versa. The C-17 to C-130J would be fine too.

I don't know anything about the CV-22 cross flow.

Navy training at Corpus is great (or it was in 99). It was a big boy program- here are your books- show up prepared. AF training is here is the fire hose, I will make you learn it by repitition.

find a grain of salt.

[Dead Last]

Here's my .02-

There are big differences between the C-17 and the C-130. The C-17 is strat air (for the most part) and while they like to claim tac, they're not really. With the C-17, you can take a 10 day trip all over the world. You'll wake up in your bed one day and be landing in the AOR the next. The C-130 deploys. You'll wake up in your bed one day and a week later find yourself finally in the AOR for 45-120 days. The C-17s come and go, the C-130s stay.

You'll find yourself more small, unique places doing different sh!t in a C-130, definitely off the beaten path. The C-17 (for the most part) stays on the well defined AMC enroute structure.

The C-17 is an AMC superstar

The C-130 is an AMC red-headed step child.

There are folks who have flown both- I think it would be easier going from a legacy C-130 to a C-17 than vice versa. The C-17 to C-130J would be fine too.

I don't know anything about the CV-22 cross flow.

Navy training at Corpus is great (or it was in 99). It was a big boy program- here are your books- show up prepared. AF training is here is the fire hose, I will make you learn it by repitition.

find a grain of salt.

The 130 also has more options to transition to other 130 variants, MC/AC/EC etc...

Personally if I could do it all over I'd go Herks again.

Corpus was the same in 04 when I went through, if you show up knowing your shiite the flight would go well even if you screw some stuff up, if you didn't know your stuff it wouldn't be a fun flight. There is/was no stand-up or shotgun prior to flying, usually a couple hour pre-brief followed by a very EP intensive flight; example... just after rotate the IP pulls an engine on you. I felt that the instrument training was hands down the best I've had, I'm not sure how they are doing it with the T-44C(glass cockpit) but the actual partial panel stuff in the 44 with the God Box was great. And as slacker said it was a very big boy program much like the rest of the 130 community.

So choose wisely, you can life the life of Strat air and see the worlds prime locations, or go Tac air and have a much better chance of actually getting your hands dirty and seeing the stuff you never hear about.

cheers

[Guest Bender]

Apparently, if you ever want to do an actual airdrop...and I'm not talking about tossing a box full of paper that says, "Happy Landings" or "Good luck to you if you hang out with this guy," then you should probably just go fly C17's, 'cause all I see is airland (and not to any place cool either) in the AOR.

Not to mention the continual pussification...that's probably the same if not worse in 17's though...no factor probably.

BENDY

[Happy29]

Apparently, if you ever want to do an actual airdrop...and I'm not talking about tossing a box full of paper that says, "Happy Landings" or "Good luck to you if you hang out with this guy," then you should probably just go fly C17's, 'cause all I see is airland (and not to any place cool either) in the AOR.

Not to mention the continual pussification...that's probably the same if not worse in 17's though...no factor probably.

BENDY

I agree with BENDY! C-130's are trash. And by trash, i mean, the best mother F***ing aircraft in the air force inventory. Here is the thing. Don't pick the aircraft, pick the location. Go YJ, and you will have the time of your life. Go C-17's, you will be have the time of your life, but be gay. Your choice.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Not to mention the continual pussification...that's probably the same if not worse in 17's though...no factor probably.

Agreed. It's sad when you see video clips of the Army being resupplied in theater...by a Blackwater CASA 212. While working a staff job I got to sit in on a discussion about how the Army had asked the USAF to resupply some FOBs using dirt runways or perhaps airdrop, but the USAF declined citing the risk was "too high". I was just about ashamed of being AF at that point...imagine being an Army commander and having your guys get blown up daily from EFPs, and the AF is telling you it's "too risky" to operate Herks in the dirt.

If you fly Herks, the truth is you'll probably spend 99% of your time flying to the same 10,000'+ runways the C-17s go to, except instead of RTBing to Ramstein, you'll get to return to your tent at your deployed location.

Having said that...flying Herks, you'll have a CHANCE of doing something real world and cool...I finally did manage to do a real-world max effort operation, but it wasn't in the AOR. All I have to say is landing on the side of a volcano is pretty amazing.

[sputnik]

Fine, since no one else is going to, I'll speak up from a C17 perspective.

First, a lot of the above is correct, you'll go to far more places in the AOR in a Herc than a 17. That's pretty cool.

I think the image portrayed above of visiting the world's five star hotels sounds like fun, but not much like my life. That said, still a lot better for us I think. 10 day trip, hell, not in PACAF, our longest are usually 7 days. I'll make it to AOR in back in 5. Having deployed for months on end to the AOR, I'm quite happy to measure my flying visits in hours rather than months. There are two deployed C17 squadrons at any given time, far less exposure than the Herc's, but you'll still get to go at least every other year.

In the 17, unlike the Herc, airdrop is a separate qual. You can go airdrop, work your way to Chucktown and go SOLL II and I think get lots of tactical stuff out of the way. Still, even the peon airland guys do ALZs and NVGs and LLs and...you get the idea. Not the same as the Herc, but you can still play tactical if you want.

One of the best advantages of the Herc, as mentioned above, is the incredibly number of variants.

It really depends what you want to do. 17 bigger airplane, smaller crew, flies much greater distance. Get both tactical and strategic flying. Both are excellent, just depends on your desires.

[HerkDerka]

If you fly Herks, the truth is you'll probably spend 99% of your time flying to the same 10,000'+ runways the C-17s go to, except instead of RTBing to Ramstein, you'll get to return to your tent at your deployed location.

Having said that...flying Herks, you'll have a CHANCE of doing something real world and cool...I finally did manage to do a real-world max effort operation, but it wasn't in the AOR. All I have to say is landing on the side of a volcano is pretty amazing.

I wouldn't say 99%. It's just the nature of ops in the sustainment phase and completing for face time with the AMC pretty boy. It's really a matter of being in the right place at the right time. I seen deployments that where mostly trash hauling followed by deployments filled with lots of airdrop/LZ opportunities.

HD

[Swizzle]

Most Hercs, including most new C-130J's, can't aerially refuel. C-17s can and will. If you go C-17's, buy a comfortable seat-cushion.

My buddy from ROTC went 17s, I went 130s. While I was at Corpus training, he flew from Ramstein, Germany to Corpus Christi, Texas non-stop. A Herc would have had several awesome pit stops along the way.