C-5M Super Galaxy

Justino · 09-23-2007, 11:10 PM

Hows that program going?? Havent heard much about it at all...last I heard, it had just done its first flight, and that was this past spring.

BTW..it would be pretty sweet to see Dragon do this new version of the C-5!

gospodin · 09-24-2007, 12:10 AM

Actually, all the pics I've seen of the C-5M only show a difference in the engines...they use the same engines that're used in the VC-25. Other than that, outwardly, the C-5M looks about the same as the C-5B. Most of the upgrades were in avionics, structural support, re-skinning and the engines.

champpitbull2 · 09-24-2007, 06:47 PM

It's looking more and more like the plan isn't going to happen. The C-5 has a horrible mission capable rate that is around 50%. Instead the Air Force would like to retire the oldest C-5s and replace them with about 30 additional C-17's. While the C-17 can carry half the payload it is available almost twice as much.

B-16707 · 09-24-2007, 07:21 PM

so what entails "mission capable"? does it mean reliability?

gospodin · 09-24-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by champpitbull2

It's looking more and more like the plan isn't going to happen. The C-5 has a horrible mission capable rate that is around 50%. Instead the Air Force would like to retire the oldest C-5s and replace them with about 30 additional C-17's. While the C-17 can carry half the payload it is available almost twice as much.

The other nice thing about the C-17 is the automated palletization system, the fact it can take off and land on unpaved or short runways, and it's faster and more manueverable. It's really a better plane for the new missions the military is planning. The C-5 is good for large loads well behind the lines, the C-17 is a front-line capable aircraft, like the C-130.

Justino · 09-24-2007, 07:46 PM

well I know reliability was/still is a huge issue. I grew up in Dover, and my grandpa and my uncle were FEs on the C-5 there, and that was all you would hear about. Planes were constantly broke, not being able to fly the missions, breaking when theyre overseas.

gospodin · 09-24-2007, 07:59 PM

While I was stationed at Altus AFB in the 80's, we had a "hanger queen" C-5 that never went anywhere the whole year I was there. We had a tornado that year that severely damaged two others. The twister lifted both planes off the ground and rammed them into each other, damaged the wingtip of one and right under the cockpit of the other. Pretty impressive display of tornado abilities (not to mention pretty much trashing most of the base).

champpitbull2 · 09-24-2007, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kaitanium

so what entails "mission capable"? does it mean reliability?

Yes. It means that the C-5 is capable of performing it's mission around only 50% of the time. The rest of the time the thing is broke. Beyond being so massive it has many complex systems that break often.

The C-17 is a very immpressive plane to watch no matter what it is doing. It's only downfall is that it sucks a lot of gas. Everything else is awesome.

champpitbull2 · 09-24-2007, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

While I was stationed at Altus AFB in the 80's, we had a "hanger queen" C-5 that never went anywhere the whole year I was there. We had a tornado that year that severely damaged two others. The twister lifted both planes off the ground and rammed them into each other, damaged the wingtip of one and right under the cockpit of the other. Pretty impressive display of tornado abilities (not to mention pretty much trashing most of the base).

I'm pretty sure I read about that one. I've never seen a tornado although I'd like to see one from a distance.

Spectre · 09-24-2007, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gospodin

The other nice thing about the C-17 is the automated palletization system, the fact it can take off and land on unpaved or short runways, and it's faster and more manueverable. It's really a better plane for the new missions the military is planning. The C-5 is good for large loads well behind the lines, the C-17 is a front-line capable aircraft, like the C-130.

Thanks

I needed a good laugh....

champpitbull2 · 09-25-2007, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre

Thanks

I needed a good laugh....

Laugh about what?

In this weeks Air Force times it said that A model C-5's are @ a 49% mission capable rate while the B models are @ 66%. The C-5M upgrade is projected to bring the B's up to a 75% rate. The project has now risen 15% from the original cost which now requires it to be reported to Congress by law. The AF Chief of Staff was qouted as saying he would like to get rid of 20-30 C-5's and replace them with C-17's. The upgrade is supposed to run 83 million a plane. That doesn't bode well for a plane that is over 30 years old and will only improve the MC rate by about 10%. It also said that two C-5M's have been completed with another one set to join them in December.

gospodin · 09-25-2007, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre

Thanks

I needed a good laugh....

So do I. Let me in on the joke.

Spectre · 09-25-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by champpitbull2

Laugh about what?

In this weeks Air Force times it said that A model C-5's are @ a 49% mission capable rate while the B models are @ 66%. The C-5M upgrade is projected to bring the B's up to a 75% rate. The project has now risen 15% from the original cost which now requires it to be reported to Congress by law. The AF Chief of Staff was qouted as saying he would like to get rid of 20-30 C-5's and replace them with C-17's. The upgrade is supposed to run 83 million a plane. That doesn't bode well for a plane that is over 30 years old and will only improve the MC rate by about 10%. It also said that two C-5M's have been completed with another one set to join them in December.

(edit, my laughing wasn't aimed at the C-5 in any way)

Why do you think they are placing C-17s in Alaska and in Hawaii?

gospodin · 09-25-2007, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by champpitbull2

The Chief of Staff was qouted as saying he would like to get rid of 20-30 C-5's and replace them with C-17's. The upgrade is supposed to run 83 million a plane. That doesn't bode well for a plane that is over 30 years old and will only improve the MC rate by about 10%. It also said that two C-5M's have been completed with another one set to join them in December.

Sucks when the upgrade costs more than the plane did when it was new. Maybe if they get rid of them, they might sell them to the civilian sector, like they did with the C-141....

(This is a joke, BTW)

Justino · 09-26-2007, 05:47 PM

Maybe they should just retire all the oldest, worst MC rated C-5s, and keep the youngest B Models (Some which are not that much older than I am). Then for every A Model C-5 they retire, the Air Force should replace them with 2 C-17s...

or is this what they are already doing?

champpitbull2 · 09-26-2007, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Justino

Maybe they should just retire all the oldest, worst MC rated C-5s, and keep the youngest B Models (Some which are not that much older than I am). Then for every A Model C-5 they retire, the Air Force should replace them with 2 C-17s...

or is this what they are already doing?

That is exactly what they are discussing, except some B-models are being mentioned too. General Moseley said it is between 20-30 planes. I think they only plan on replacing them one for one though.

Justino · 09-27-2007, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by champpitbull2

That is exactly what they are discussing, except some B-models are being mentioned too. General Moseley said it is between 20-30 planes. I think they only plan on replacing them one for one though.

Oh ok. But if they replace them one for one, that means that AMC would be at a smaller cargo capacity fleet, right? Or would the amount of C-17s already in service along with the future deliveries make up for the loss of C-5s?

champpitbull2 · 09-27-2007, 09:33 PM

It would replace them because they are only available between 66% for the B's and 49% for the A's. I don't have the C-17's #'s but I know they are over 90%. They would need to add more than a 1 for 1 trade off to equal what they have now. I was told the other day by the top enlisted flyer in the ANG that the C-17 is becoming the Guards highest priority in regards to airlift. In addition the new tanker is supposed to be a more active participant in the airlift mission. Who know's, the Air Force F's up projected results all the time. They are always twisting numbers and coming up with schemes to increase their budget and the amount of planes they can recieve.

gospodin · 09-27-2007, 09:37 PM

As of right now, there are 111 C-5's of all series in the AF. 20-30 aircraft being retired puts a big dent in that number, so if the AF plans to replace them one-for-one with C-17's, I hope there's a lot more C-17's being planned altogether to make up for that heavy-lift shortfall. Of course, there's always talk of making the military "leaner, faster, more technologically superior" than any possible enemy... The Soviet Union apparently didn't teach us that numbers can make up for lack of sophistication, since they once outnumbered us in equipment 5-to-1, and even if one of our aircraft or tanks was equal to three of theirs, they had two to spare.

D-AIHC · 09-29-2007, 09:48 AM

Does the USAF still operate C-141s? Or have they been retired? If so, when?

Spectre · 09-29-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D-AIHC

Does the USAF still operate C-141s? Or have they been retired? If so, when?

May 2006 they were retired...

Sad to see the T-tailed lizard go.

gospodin · 09-29-2007, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spectre

May 2006 they were retired...

Sad to see the T-tailed lizard go.

Had many a ride in those beasts, including an Eagle flight around the world. There still is some speculation as to what may become of these planes...many have been recycled, but the rest may be put into inactive storage for emergency recall...but after 10 years, usually they just cut them up, especially if they start storing C-5's. Damn shame...

jcsjets · 10-12-2007, 03:44 PM

Just up the road from me, the West Va. ANG is doing an upgrade to their facility to accomdate C-5s, the 167th TAG based in Martinsburg WV.

For years they have flown C-130s, but got the news 3-4 years ago that a change would be made. New hangers, longer runway among other things. Not sure when they are going into service, but much is going on at the airport.

I figure one day when I look up to see an airplane flying and it blots out the sun, I'll know they are airborne.

09-23-2007, 11:10 PM	#1
Justino The Aviator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Skies above Orlando Age: 18 Posts: 1,279	C-5M Super Galaxy Hows that program going?? Havent heard much about it at all...last I heard, it had just done its first flight, and that was this past spring. BTW..it would be pretty sweet to see Dragon do this new version of the C-5! __________________ Justin

09-24-2007, 12:10 AM	#2
gospodin Diecast Blasphemer Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ceti Alpha V Age: 52 Posts: 3,626	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy Actually, all the pics I've seen of the C-5M only show a difference in the engines...they use the same engines that're used in the VC-25. Other than that, outwardly, the C-5M looks about the same as the C-5B. Most of the upgrades were in avionics, structural support, re-skinning and the engines. __________________ Steve I either want less corruption in government, or more opportunity to participate in it.

09-24-2007, 06:47 PM	#3
champpitbull2 addicted Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 572	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy It's looking more and more like the plan isn't going to happen. The C-5 has a horrible mission capable rate that is around 50%. Instead the Air Force would like to retire the oldest C-5s and replace them with about 30 additional C-17's. While the C-17 can carry half the payload it is available almost twice as much.

09-24-2007, 07:21 PM	#4
B-16707 i need more space Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 6,887	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy so what entails "mission capable"? does it mean reliability? __________________

09-24-2007, 07:46 PM	#6
Justino The Aviator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Skies above Orlando Age: 18 Posts: 1,279	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy well I know reliability was/still is a huge issue. I grew up in Dover, and my grandpa and my uncle were FEs on the C-5 there, and that was all you would hear about. Planes were constantly broke, not being able to fly the missions, breaking when theyre overseas. __________________ Justin

09-24-2007, 07:59 PM	#7
gospodin Diecast Blasphemer Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ceti Alpha V Age: 52 Posts: 3,626	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy While I was stationed at Altus AFB in the 80's, we had a "hanger queen" C-5 that never went anywhere the whole year I was there. We had a tornado that year that severely damaged two others. The twister lifted both planes off the ground and rammed them into each other, damaged the wingtip of one and right under the cockpit of the other. Pretty impressive display of tornado abilities (not to mention pretty much trashing most of the base). __________________ Steve I either want less corruption in government, or more opportunity to participate in it.

09-26-2007, 05:47 PM	#15
Justino The Aviator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Skies above Orlando Age: 18 Posts: 1,279	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy Maybe they should just retire all the oldest, worst MC rated C-5s, and keep the youngest B Models (Some which are not that much older than I am). Then for every A Model C-5 they retire, the Air Force should replace them with 2 C-17s... or is this what they are already doing? __________________ Justin

09-27-2007, 09:33 PM	#18
champpitbull2 addicted Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Buffalo, NY Posts: 572	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy It would replace them because they are only available between 66% for the B's and 49% for the A's. I don't have the C-17's #'s but I know they are over 90%. They would need to add more than a 1 for 1 trade off to equal what they have now. I was told the other day by the top enlisted flyer in the ANG that the C-17 is becoming the Guards highest priority in regards to airlift. In addition the new tanker is supposed to be a more active participant in the airlift mission. Who know's, the Air Force F's up projected results all the time. They are always twisting numbers and coming up with schemes to increase their budget and the amount of planes they can recieve.

09-27-2007, 09:37 PM	#19
gospodin Diecast Blasphemer Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ceti Alpha V Age: 52 Posts: 3,626	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy As of right now, there are 111 C-5's of all series in the AF. 20-30 aircraft being retired puts a big dent in that number, so if the AF plans to replace them one-for-one with C-17's, I hope there's a lot more C-17's being planned altogether to make up for that heavy-lift shortfall. Of course, there's always talk of making the military "leaner, faster, more technologically superior" than any possible enemy... The Soviet Union apparently didn't teach us that numbers can make up for lack of sophistication, since they once outnumbered us in equipment 5-to-1, and even if one of our aircraft or tanks was equal to three of theirs, they had two to spare. __________________ Steve I either want less corruption in government, or more opportunity to participate in it.

09-29-2007, 09:48 AM	#20
D-AIHC Essen Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 6,192	Does the USAF still operate C-141s? Or have they been retired? If so, when? __________________ Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

10-12-2007, 03:44 PM	#23
jcsjets Junior Collector Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Virginia, USA Age: 43 Posts: 23	Re: C-5M Super Galaxy Just up the road from me, the West Va. ANG is doing an upgrade to their facility to accomdate C-5s, the 167th TAG based in Martinsburg WV. For years they have flown C-130s, but got the news 3-4 years ago that a change would be made. New hangers, longer runway among other things. Not sure when they are going into service, but much is going on at the airport. I figure one day when I look up to see an airplane flying and it blots out the sun, I'll know they are airborne.
	<