The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Logistics Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase
macawman    3/28/2003 12:13:28 PM
Jim Dunnigan questioned why the 173rd Abn air dropped from C-17s on the Kirkuk airbase instead of just landing. (Besides Jim, those troopers would not get their combat jump star on their wings) I looked at the discription of the Kirkuk base (globalsecurity.org) and found one dirt strip and one 2800 meter asphalt strip. To my knowledge, the US Air Force has never landed one of their multimillion dollar fully loaded heavy lifters on an unimproved asphalt or dirt strip. Our heavy cargo planes (C-5/C-17/747s) need wide and thick reinforced concrete runways.(The C-17 has a runway LCN rating of better than 40 on paved, the C-5 is rated at 44 on paved concrete,69 on asphalt. Janes) The touch down area on a comercial 747 rated airfield is 54 inches thick which tapers down to 24 inches on the taxiways (Discovery Channel) It appears that the Kirkuk field is restricted to C-130s for logistics. Maybe we could use the Russian multi-parachute rocket descent reduction system to air drop an Abrams tanks, or better yet, lease the AN-124 with its 12 landing wheels. It can land on unimproved dirt/asphalt field of less than 3000 meters (Janes).
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
fred79    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/28/2003 1:25:29 PM
can c-17 and c-5 do the no land drop thing that they do with the c-130 so they don''t have to land. you know where the equiptment is on a pallette that slide out teh back off of rollers and uses a parachute to pull it off the plane.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/28/2003 5:42:47 PM
The C-17 has a roller delivery system. Heavy equipment is pushed out a few feet off the deck. This action would likely tear up a strip like the one at Kirkuk. I do not know if an Abrams has ever been deployed in this manner and survived. I've seen it used for pallets of equipment, supplies, IFVs (Bradleys, LAVs),and light artillary.
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/28/2003 8:21:08 PM
i thought i saw some were that they developed a special pallet to deliver these kinds of loads i can understand how it might not be possible with a 70 ton tank though. how about on a concrete runway or could we develope a field just for this by flying in construction equiptment?
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/28/2003 8:43:15 PM
I have been looking in the globalsecurity.org target data base for Iraqi paved 1000 meter plus airfields that could support the landing of C-17s by Air Force standards. I have not found one that is not near a large Iraqi force in Northern Iraq. It looks like it will be only C-130s landing at these unimproved runways out in the hinterland of Kurd country. C-17s will provide on the deck pallet logistic drops. Note that the commentators now have the 173rd Abn. North of Irbil and not at Kirkuk Afd as earlier reported.
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/29/2003 5:09:37 PM
I also got the impression that the kurds were working on one of teh air bases before we landed troops is there a way they could extend a runway to support a c-17. I just though of how in WW@ we use metal plated driven into teh dirt to support aircraft on contructed runways in the japanese islands to fly b-29's off of. do we have that capability. I thought if we could reinforce the landing pad and then extend the roll out we might be able to land a larger plane. any one ever heard of some hting like this. or would we have to send in engineer to pour a long heavy runway to support large aircraft?
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/29/2003 5:48:59 PM
Fred: We do not need the C-17 to land. We will continue pushing the stuff off on the field. The AF has never transshiped an Abrams tank for combat purposes. I do not think they are going to start now.
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/29/2003 6:37:52 PM
ok do you think they would take sheridan that way.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/29/2003 7:03:42 PM
The 82nd Abn was/is deactivating their Sheridan light tank. This vechicle was last produced in the early 60's. By the late 60's in Vietnam the aluminum hull was cracking even then. The Shillelagh missile tube on the Sheridan and the M60-A2 was considered a dud by the 70's. It is obsolete and the only reason that it may still be around in the 82nd is that they have not found anything light enough to replace it.
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   3/29/2003 9:28:19 PM
I had just heard other talking about this tank. so will the 1st ID go in with out the armor group or are they not organized like the other mechanized units with a group of abrams? I just wonder why we don't have some type of system that can be air lifted to confront MBT's, or do we depend on air support to cover this?
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    There will be no Northern armoured front in Iraq!   3/29/2003 11:56:25 PM
IF Turkey does not allow passage thru their country of our forces. We have a number of systems to confront enemy tanks. But tank forces are all we have to TAKE and HOLD GROUND in enemy armour country.
 
Quote    Reply

fred79    RE:There will be no Northern armoured front in Iraq!   3/30/2003 10:53:31 AM
thanks for answering my dumb questions also looks like the 3ID may be moving up to the west or maybe even teh north side of bahgdad. FOX's imbedded said he couldn't say were they were going but he did say it was a substantial move and since they are 30 miles away from bahgdad now so how far can they move closer to bahgdad and be a substantial move? I think the nest few weeks will show some big movements al around the theater.
 
Quote    Reply

x-29/a-12    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   4/3/2003 11:59:49 PM
The C-17 has a rough field capability and can land on short fields. It does not have to land on paved runways. The C-17 design is the child of the YC-15. Boeings entry was the YC-14, a very unique aircraft that was really a great design. In landing roll tests, the aircraft landed and then rolled backward to a point before the spot of touchdown. For a dirt strip landing of a C-17 link The LCN numbers are a bit of a red herring. They reflect how much damage the plane will do to the runway, not the other way around. It is like an overloaded truck going over a bridge. Truck OK, bridge not. Runways for 747's can be at least 6 feet thick. I worked for Boeing in Wichita Kansas, and the plant adjoined McConnell AFB. At the time McConnell handle B-52's and we landed 747's there and now B-1's operate there. I stood in a section of the ramp near a hangar that was being replaced and the concrete was over my head (I'm 5'10). I asked the engineers working the job and they said that they were making the ramp thicker because the thinner concrete cracked more and required more frequent repairs. In essence thicker means better life cycle. Those requirements go away on a dirt strip. If the strip cracks you just move more dirt into the cracks. The GAO report says that the air force assumes an LCN of 20 in wartime operations. Interesting links: YC-14/YC-15 link C-17 Ops link
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why C-17s do not land -X-29 a-12   4/4/2003 4:20:06 PM
I did not mean to imply that the C-17 could not land on a tactical strip. As another board member pointed out, it is just the policy of Air Transport Command not to risk their heavy lifters and such air strips unless it is a dire emergency that is directed from a higher level of command. Thanks for the input on the LCN grading.
 
Quote    Reply

macawman    RE:Why C-17s do not land -X-29 a-12   4/4/2003 7:06:55 PM
According to that GAO report that X-29 posted the only place in Iraq that the C-17 would be allowed to land is the now renamed Baghdad Int. Airport.
 
Quote    Reply

AlbanyRifles    RE:Why C-17s do not land at the Kirkuk airbase   5/8/2003 1:11:48 PM
FYI, The Army phased out the M551 Sheridan in early 1990s (only used at NTC as OFOR vehicle)...4 BN 732rd Armor (Airborne) was disbanded right after GW 1. Nothing added to division. That is why a mech/armor task force (bn/bde) is ALWAYS assigned to light forces after Mogadishu (2-70 AR from FT Riley fought as part of the Screaming Eagles in Iraq)
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy