The A310, along with the A300 are however capable of transporting palleted freight, containerized freight and men into serviced airfields. Which does account for a not insignificant portion of what the militaries of the world haul around.
"The A310, along with the A300 are however capable of transporting pallet freight, containerized freight and men into serviced airfields. Which does account for a not insignificant portion of what the militaries of the world haul around." You say
Even that he can't do - as well.
The C-17 which I already noted can easily load and unload pallets, and carry substantially more. An A310 with more difficulty loading and unloading, can carry less total weight not as far and has greater restrictions in dimensions of what it can carry. The C-17 has a defensive aid suite and unlike the Airbus has not been hit over Baghdad (DHL hit in the wing).
http://community.webshots.com/photo/235558476/1235558991058804159VAMLJM
http://community.webshots.com/photo/235558476/1235561786058804159Lmzcmk
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1039411,00.html (News article)
This despite 5 - 7 TIMES as many C17s operating out of BIAP alone than A300 landing there the C17 was never hit by a MANPADS:
1. A C17 can sink and climb fast to get out of MANPADS range. An A310 can not sink as fast nor even remotely climb at the same rate. He spends more time in the engagement envelope of MANPADS weapon systems.
2. C17 has a comprehensive defensive aide suite making him not impervious, but a MUCH more survivable platform in a threat environment, as is the case even in Afghanistan.
If all you want is a cheap commercial plane, then charter them. That is what the US DoD does through: ATA, Flying Tigers, Tower Air, Evergreen and others. But…… look at what they do. They fly into places like Kuwait, transfer the troops onto a C130 or C17, and then fly into Baghdad or elsewhere. Why do you think they do it that way?
Right now, you as Germany or many others, lack “strategic lift”. What you have is civilian platforms that in many cases can’t even get those pallets you mention to their destination. Therefore, you either piggyback off the US or like the Germans charter Ukrainian platforms with a military strategic lift capability. You are “lacking” essential “capabilities” that under certain conditions may bite you in the ass. Can an A310 move troops, some pallets and some cargo? Sure, but even that he can’t do as well. How long does it take him to load or unload those pallets? How many can he carry? How far can that A310 go vs. a C17? What is if you are trying to transport a damaged helicopter back home? How fast can you convert that A310 to carry litters with casualties (As we have done with C17)?
If we discount all those “relevant capabilities” such as:
1. Roll on/off vehicles (Ramp, high payload, wide open bay)
2. Air to air refueling
3. Short field landings/takeoffs
4. Ability to operate unassisted once landed (APU, tight turns, backup…..etc)
5. Unimproved airstrips
We still come up with a plane that can’t do the job “as well”.
However, what you try to hand wave away is EXACTLY the issue. You try to discount those aspects that are pertinent to many military operations and have been used in the Balkans, Iraq 1991, Iraq 2003, Afghanistan, Vietnam, East Timor today, etc. An A310 simply lacks capabilities that are required from a military airframe. We are not talking about a tanker, AWACS or rivet joint that sits far off, and never lands at some “shithole”. What you are doing at this point called: “polemics”. It’s the technique of arguing, but it lacks substance in this case.
I could say: If we discount off-road capabilities, carrying capacity, range, and protection of occupants, a Chevrolet Cavalier would make a good military Jeep. After all, it is cheap and uses a lot of off the shelf components. A Chevrolet can also carry a suitcase just like that HMMWV! That is actually a quiet accurate analogy to the A310 vs. C17 issue we are debating and the logic you are applying.
You lack an airframe that has strategic lift (period). What you have today is a temporary makeshift answer that only partially fills the demands placed on a military strategic lift asset. The A310 is not even an option. Canada WILL buy something; the question is what? EADS would rather not see Canada today commit to a C17.