How Many C17 Globemasters Would You Need To Carry

Would the C17 Globemaster III work as a gunship?

Thanks for A2A.Probably not. Lots of disadvantages for the C17 with almost no upside. It’s a jet so while I’m not 100% sure I’m about 90% sure it costs a lot more per hour to maintain and fly than a prop plane. Jets typically have higher stall speeds which means you’re going to have more trouble flying around your target in slow circles and burn more fuel. Additionally a C-130 costs about 20M and a C-17 costs more than 200M. So before you start adding all the weapons to the air frame you’ve spent 10x as much. This probably equates to at least a tenfold increase in operational costs as well. probably why 10x as many C-130’s have been built as well.C-17’s can also carry and Abrams tank. This is pretty important in the grand scheme of military thinking, their logistic capability is “monstrous”. Since we already have a much cheaper, more capable solution it seems pretty unreasonable the US would ever consider this. Just not enough bang for the buck particularly with the huge cost and opportunity cost. I think the US only has 2 aircraft that can carry an Abrams so giving up any of that military lift capability would be a problem.Range doesn’t matter that much. We keep gunships in theater and both aircraft are capable of midair refueling. The only advantage of the C17 is it’s about twice as fast so it could get to the target faster but being fast once you’re there is not a good thing and the cost is really problematic. Even after factoring the weapons and avionics packages you can likely buy 2–3 AC-130’s for one of these configured as weapons platform.

Is there still need for the C-17 Globemaster III in the US military since carriers can carry out much of the air attack?

Yes. Ships are notoriously slower than planes.The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is a large military transport aircraft. It was developed for the United States Air Force (USAF) from the 1980s to the early 1990s by McDonnell Douglas. The C-17 carries forward the name of two previous piston-engined military cargo aircraft, the Douglas C-74 Globemaster and the Douglas C-124 Globemaster II. The C-17 commonly performs tactical and strategic airlift missions, transporting troops and cargo throughout the world; additional roles include medical evacuation and airdrop duties. It was designed to replace the Lockheed C-141 Starlifter, and also fulfill some of the duties of the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy, freeing the C-5 fleet for outsize cargo.Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in 1997, continued to manufacture C-17s for export customers following the end of deliveries to the U.S. Air Force. Aside from the United States, the C-17 is in service with the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, NATO Heavy Airlift Wing, India, and Kuwait. The final C-17 was completed at the Long Beach, California plant and flown on 29 November 2015.

What are the differences between the C-17 Globemaster III and the C-5 Galaxy, besides size?

OK, another jet vs. jet comparison. C-17 is to replace the old C-141, the C-5 eventually and to some degree the 130. But like the F-35, it is a modern multi role transport with compromises. In some ways it is between a C-5 and a C-130 in role.The C-5 is bigger, weighs 112,000 lbs more, older (1970 roll out vs 1997 for the C-17), and designed to replace the C-141C-5 Pros: bigger, can carry more (5 Apache helicopters or 2 M-1 Abram tanks) than the C-17 (3 Apache or 1–2 Abrams tanks), bigger payload (285K lbs vs 170K lbs for the 17) faster cruise speed of 503 mph (vs 450 mph), cheaper ($168M new vs $258M new for the 17).C-17 Pros: Newer design, avionics and more efficient engines, can take off from a shorter strip; designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft and as narrow as 90 ft and from dirt strips, C-5 really needs long, smooth strips (8,400 ft minimum) and not suited for dirt runways. Designed for use by other (allied) countries. In short a bigger, faster, version of how the C-130 is used by many nations.BOTH had many teeing issues and high cost over runs at their starts.BTW, C-17s are currently in service with the US Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, Canadian Forces Air Command, NATO Heavy Airlift Wing, Qatar Air Force, United Arab Emirates, and UK Royal Air Force. C-5 on the other hand, is exclusively a US Air Force aircraft. The C-5 was too big for most other country's needs. The C-17 was made to be marketable to other countries to help spread the high cost.My opinion: we should keep some C-5s. update them to C-5Cs for big moves in addition to a fleet of C-5 for smaller, more diverse moves. After all, it takes 2 C-17s to carry what one C-5 can in most applications.

Military Aircraft: If I had $250 million, could I buy a C-17 Globemaster III if I wanted to?

Assuming you could legally buy a C-17, $250 million is just the down payment. You will need a field big enough to fly from and keep it..... Airport fees (based on weight) for all takeoffs and landings.  Parking fees while on the ground.  And at your destination too.You will need a BIG hanger.  Lotsa buck$$You need a crew, Big plane pilot at say $200,000/year, co-pilot a bit less, and a load master, about $100,000 / year.  Then there will be the ground crew, depending on what cargo you want to carry.And the loading equipment because the C-17 is NOT a self loader like the AN-124.They will need training and annual re-certification. But wait there's more....... Air traffic fees, also based on weight.Insurance.Maintenance....  the crew, the tools, the training, the spare parts, the spare engine (or more) and their overhauls every 2,000 hours or so,  And (almost) finally the biggie.... FUEL!!!! You can charter an AN-124 many times for $250 mil. and carry more, further than a C-17.

Would having the c17 globemaster III have been able to help in the Berlin airlift?

This appears to be a special case of the general question, “What if Counterparty A in Conflict B had a magic WIN button, and pushed it?”The answer is that Counterparty A would win Conflict B.I hope this helps.. . . .Okay, with that out of the way, two points: First, the Berlin Airlift succeeded, so of course having the C17 would have helped. Having oxcarts would have helped! You could sit them down in a field somewhere and leave them alone, while the Airlift proceeded without them!Second, it’s actually vaguely interesting to consider the airfields. The American bases at Rhein-Main and Wiesbaden had 5500 and 6000ft turf fields that would not have supported C-17 operations. RAF Wunstorf had much better facilities, unfortunately with a runway length unspecified by my source. Things are a little more stark on the Berlin side, with 5000ft of pierced steel planking at Templehof, 6000ft of concrete at Gatow, but the C-17 can deal with that just fine. Everyone involved in engineering the C17’s stoppy-things should take a bow. (I have no idea what they might be, being a historian of technology rather than an aviation-today guy.)So the answer is that it would have been hard to fit the C-17 into existing runways, but I’m sure there were some, somewhere in Europe. The other answer is that it is amazing just how craptacular the airports of the capital of the Nazis Thousand Year Reich actually were. It’s almost as if the Nazi reputation for doing things right has been exaggerated.

How could a C-17 Globemaster be used for offensive attack purposes?

You could use it to load and release hundreds of thousands of micro drones to attack and disable just about anything. Check out this video of F-18s deploying micro drones:Now imagine that inside the cargo bay of the C-17 are hundreds of canisters like this and that each can be individually programmed. One canister per target = hundreds of micro drones per target.The possibilities are almost limitless.