Justino

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

gospodin

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







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

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.

B-16707

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

__________________
WEBSITE to ORDER my decals & services
got broken/unwanted models? let me know, i may buy them off of you.

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.

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

Justino

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

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).

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

champpitbull2

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

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

Thanks I needed a good laugh....

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

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.

gospodin

So do I. Let me in on the joke.

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

Spectre

(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?

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

gospodin

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)

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

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?

__________________
Justin

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.

Justino

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?

__________________
Justin

champpitbull2

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

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







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

D-AIHC

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

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

Spectre

May 2006 they were retired...

Sad to see the T-tailed lizard go.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

gospodin

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...

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

jcsjets

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.

TexAV8R

Looks like the USAF is considering the Airbus A380 to replace the C5!

EXCLUSIVE: US considers Airbus A380 as Air Force One and potentially a C-5 replacement

__________________
Stay on the bomb run, boys! I'm gonna get them doors open if it harelips ever'body on Bear Creek!(Major T.J "King Kong" from the movie Dr. Strangelove)

champpitbull2

Not in a million years.

Spectre

Tell that to the guys who selected the EH-101 (US-101...er VH-71) as the new Marine one
It could very well happen...as much as I would hate to see it.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

champpitbull2

That is for a limited amount of niche choppers that will be assembled here by Lockheed Martin. The A-380 won't be chosen for the same reason the 747 wasn't chosen. It needs too much equipment to load and unload cargo. The C-17 is already deeply entrenched in the lawmakers minds as well as Gen. Moseley's as the solution to the problem. The C-17 is already proven while the A-380 has a long way to go. On top of this you have to question the authors credential when they say the E-4B is owned by the Navy and that it is called Looking Glass. It is neither.

D-AIHC

I like it when reporters/authors make mistakes like that. It makes you question the credibility of their "sources", doesn't it?

Anyway, don't be too sure...only time will tell. Looks like the KC-30 will have to set the precedent if that's going to happen.

__________________

Lufthansa - Star Alliance member since 1997

Spectre

Just like the KC-30 (if picked) The VH-71 will be built over there and then upgraded here in the US.

As far as your argument on the 747 vs C-5... you know as I know (even though I love the C-5) she is a pig and is ALWAYS broken (better not ask her to squat, she never gets up from a squat)...tell me that the 747 would need more to get the stuff to the fight than the C-5 Will, had or did?
What the C-5 has is the ability to roll on/roll off... but for I would bet 75% of her missions, a 747 would have done just fine.


We were broken once in Germany....needed a piccolo tube for the left wing ( a 2 foot part, weighing all of 2 lbs) It came on a C-5....nothing else was on that C-5, and she was only to make one fuel stop to where she dropped off no cargo. It took over a week to get the part and in the end, it was the wrong part...they FedEx'd it the next day. My point is, they do not need as many C-5s to do the mission they do...they could be supplemented by a more well rounded, less breakable aircraft.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

champpitbull2

I agree but I think that plane should be a plane with military operations in mind, like a C-17. The USAF would be limiting themselves by opting for an A-380. I would rather they look at buying AN-124's which they have already leased on prior occasions.

Spectre

I would rather have an An-70 than the POS C-17 so I guess in a way Point taken.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

Mystère

I'm not sure a C-5 like aircraft is still needed today. Its main utility was to quickly transfer main battle tanks or other heavy equipments from US to Europe in the advent of a USSR attack. This attack was planned to be overwhelming, thus the rapidity requirement, but I don't see one place in the world where it would useful now.

__________________


"Open your eyes, because the revolution won't be televised"

champpitbull2

Speed is more important today than it ever was. You just don't see it happening. C-5 and C-17's play a large role in the transportation of Spec ops and there equipment. When natural disasters occur you need that stuff ASAP. Also, the world is unpredictable. Tommorrow could be totally different.

champpitbull2

POS? The only bad thing I have heard about the C-17 is it's fuel consumption.

Spectre

= lack of range...

why do you think they have to put them in Alaska and in Hawaii?

Also, they have many problems in the airdrop department and computer time management. (I know this from personal experience)


the lack of crew though saves money, is horrible when they go to war because now, they have to fly four pilots up front to clear the wings and look out the sides while doing tactical manuvers...Pilots are very expensive to train.

The C-17 was shoved down the throats of the USAF and like the C-130J....there is never a bad reporter piece on them...they are God's gift to aircraft" if the DoD had anything to say about them

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

champpitbull2

I know every plane has problems in the begining but do they still exist? I know the J model wasn't wanted but now the AF wants more because of all the problems with the E models wing boxes. I would have to disagree with the notion that there is never a bad report on DOD acft. It seems quite the contrary. Every time I turn around some reporter is bashing a new plane. The F-22 is a favorite for it's high price tag but i have seen them on the C-130J, V-22, B-2,C-5, F-14, and so on. I have yet to see a bad report about the C-17. I'm not trying to be a jerk or sarcastic but could you provide some sources? I'm truely interested in learning about its deficiencies.

gospodin

Why would stationing them in Alaska and Hawaii have anything to do with airlift capabilities? Don't they need airlift in those states? Why would they station them in Oklahoma, S. Carolina, New Jersey, California, etc, and then send THOSE planes overseas? I don't think short range is critical when you have aerial refueling capabilities. And their range is comparable to the C-141B, so what's the beef? I've met several C-17 pilots who love these planes, and aren't just mouthing the standard line. There will always be critics of any aircraft or machine the military puts money into...sometimes it's a valid problem, but most of the time these systems work out well. The Abrams was considered to be the biggest waste of money the Pentagon ever spent, and yet look at it now: one of the world's best tanks, only out-performed by the British Challenger II. The Apache was another "problem child"...so was the F-86. The list is very long. They all worked out.

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

Spectre

Part of the problem is that it was sold to the USAF as a C-141 replacement with C-130 capabilities and a C-5 load.

The C-17 can not cross the Pacific Ocean with a load...it HAS to be air refueled. The C-5 does not need this.

The C-17 is capable of landing in and on a dirt zone, but because of the horrific weight on the wheels, it is required to have a road grader at the LZ before the first one has landed....so it is either driven in by the Army or flown in by the C-130. The LZ must be graded after each landing of a C-17 in the dirt because it rips the dirt LZ to shreads...can it land in the dirt, yes, is it practical...no.

When we did the air drops in Iraq, We were paired up with the C-17s...why? They were to do it themselves. They had enough aircraft to do it alone. The fact is, they could not do it alone. We were required as a "pathfinder" because they still have not fixed the constant reprogramming failures of the air delivery system of the C-17. Doing those kind of missions...the last thing you want to be is heads down reprogramming computers. You need your heads outside looking for Manpads and AAA.

They still have problems dropping troops out of both paratroop doors because of the wingtip vortices make them smack into one another the C-17 still is only authorized to drop troops out of one paratroop door....with that said, the C-17 can carry 102 paratroops...the C-130 carries 92 paratroops... we can drop more troops in less time over a hostile area keeping our crews and the paratroops in the hostile zone for a far less time making fewer passes. Because their drop speed is faster and they are dropping out only one door... they have to make several more passes to drop the same amount of troops. They are also a much bigger target.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

Spectre

I might not have voiced it like it should have been...yes, DoD aircraft are reported on unfairly all the time...but the DoD themselves LOVE the C-17 and it is hard to get any of the horrible facts on paper. The fact is, when the USAF/Pentagon put out the requirements for a new airlift aircraft, and the C-17 was submitted....it met ZERO of the requirements...none

Is it a beautiful aircraft? Yes she is, she is downright sexy looking.

The C-130Es should be retired... they are just tired as well as the C-130H/H1s
They were mistreated for many years with the practice of secondary fuel management and a lot of stress was put on the wingboxes... But I'll tell you what, a replacement wingbox is a hell of a lot less than a C-130J. For the price of a single J model, you can zero time 6 existing C-130s and you get a C-130 AMP zero time for 9-15 million vs a C-130J is 65-98 million.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

gospodin

The problem is that when all the specs for a new aircraft (or ship, or tank) are submitted, the cost becomes enormous. This general suggests an aircraft capable of 11,000 unrefuelled miles with full payload, another says it has to land on unpaved stretches less than 3,000 feet fully loaded, another says it has to have a less than 30 minute turn-around time... After awhile, you have an aircraft that can do all that and more, but it costs a zillion dollars to make. So they trim a little here, take another sacrifice in performance there, and go with the lowest-bidding contractors. And they still end up with overruns on a less-than perfect result. The military is all about "adapt and overcome", so we start out with a rough vehicle, and tweak it forever until it's perfect, and then retire it. Or we simply build another version, and hope it's better. After 20 years in the military, I've seen all this. We still have, in the C-17, a better aircraft than anything out there in it's category. The Il-76, the An-124, the C-5...none of these aircraft can do what the C-17 can regardless of its flaws. The C-130 is a great plane, but it's slower and smaller. Yes, you can cram almost as many troops into a C-130 that a C-17 takes, but the -17 also has equipment to drop with the troops...another C-130 has to drop that equipment separately. A C-130 can't transport a tank, but a C-17 can. When they fix the bugs in the systems (and they will, even if they have to throw more money into it), this will be an excellent plane...heck, they might even figure out how to control the vortecies from the wings.

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

Spectre

And I hope so...it is just when in times of old, it didn't seam to be about the money, it was building the aircraft that they wanted and chalk it up as a challenge.... we would have never made it to the moon if the requirements were thrown to the side like they are today (what half way? that ain't good enough?)...the fact is, those requirements were important. I agree with adapt and overcome....but you should not have to change the mission to do the job. How many times will they air drop a main battle tank? How many times will they deliver a main battle tank to a LZ? they do not...because the tanks are so complicated today, they do not just roll off and run, they have to be prepped as well...so they end up going to the main airports and trucked in. 9 out of 10 (if not more) missions the C-17 flies are to hard airport sized runways...so in the end did you need to spend $202 million for an aircraft bringing in the same mail that the DHL plane could also bring in? I again fully agree, the C-17 has its purpose and it can and will carry a hell of a lot more than the C-130 ever will. The fact is, both aircraft are not utilized as they should be. I can not tell you how many missions I flew in both Afghanistan and in Iraq were we flew empty...both ways! Or where we would carry a few boxes...the C-17s as well. Both aircraft are way under utilized. That is not the fault of the plane, the crews, the sqadrons...but why fly a $202M aircraft 3/4s empty when a $20M plane can fly the same almost empty crap.


The C-130 also has major flaws...she is far from perfect. They still do not have the electrical system figured out on the new system...they still have fires, ... we still flew with the circuit breakers pulled and we flew with the dirty power...no big deal we carried on. She is slow...very slow, But we could out run a C.160 any day of the week

You are right, they will hammer the C-17 and the C-130J out into nice planes...but there was a time when the manufacturer was responsible for that... now when the AF buys a bag o crap...it has to live with it and fix it themselves...


The C-130 is not the end all be all of all aircraft, yes I have a deep love for her but her time will end...hell, it should have ended long ago. She is old and tired. It is not right when you pay seven times more for a plane and it can not even do the same amount of stuff... the J model can NOT land in the dirt over and over again...it will from time to time but those props delaminate easily and are very expensive and you can NOT change just one blade in the field. The C-130J has a problem carrying its own bloody prop...so if you go into a LZ that only a Herk can get into...loose a prop now what? A very expensive loss over a piddly prop.

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

gospodin

Spectre, I agree with most of what you've stated. The military and the GAO are so concerned with cost overruns, they lose sight of the overall goal. They cut corners until they have a less than satisfactory, still overpriced weapon system, then they spend even more money fixing it. The real problem is waste and greed, and the fact that these new weapon systems are becoming so sophisticated, they're more prone to failure than the simple, effective stuff they made previously. If a design works, why can't they just build on it, like the B-52? Or the Herk, for that matter. Both planes have been around since the mid-Fifties, every incarnation an improvement on the previous generation (well, ok, the Jennies are a problem). If the C-141 was such a great design, why couldn't they build a similar, better plane that incorporated already proven design features? A C-141D, with stronger wings, better, more fuel efficient engines, improved avionics, better palletized loading systems...you'd have a killer cargo plane for a fraction of the R&D of an all-new plane. But nobody wants that, they want the gee-whizz golly brand new toy that a bunch of manufacturers who are lobbying in Congress say we need. And they are just slobbering over those contracts. If this evolution of technology and costs continue the way they are, we'll end up with a plane that costs billions...oh, wait, we already have one.

__________________
Steve







It's possible that the whole purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others...

Spectre

Steve,

Sounds like we are on the same page

__________________
My collection is for sale...please look


"You've never lived until you've almost died. For those who fight for it, life has a special meaning the protected will never know."

champpitbull2

Thanks for the info spectre, I learned a few things today.

mechdawg

I know Im joining this thread late but I have very good knowledge of the C-5 as well as the C-5M RERP. As to the nay sayers about my beloved airplane yes it has had a bad rap for breaking but no worse in reality to the C-17. It can take up to 4 C-17's to move the same volume of cargo as 1 C-5, it is easier, cheaper and more reliable to get 1 C-5 airborne than multiple C-17's. The new C-5M just managed to take 120,000 lbs of cargo direct from Travis AFB CA to Mildenhal AB England no fuel stops and no air refueling needed. Try that in a C-17. Also C-5B and A models regularly fly into C-17 Bases and stages to clear out their backlog of cargo. I dont mind the critisicm and will freely admit to the planes shortcomings. With better support and updated systems this new variant can fly farther faster and carry more cargo than any C-17. Oh and burn the same amount of fuel doing it.

AimHigherJets.com

So i'm secretly rooting for FRED, but I have to ask you MechDawg...
Your whole, faster, farther argument, does that include the immense cost to upgrade the aircraft? I don't think anyone questions the outcome of the upgrade, just the cost to do it. Especially with the C-5As. Hence the cancellation of that order. You are right the C-17 lacks legs and has been modded into a more strategic mission that it was probably meant to do. Nothing like cruising across the ocean at .76...boo.

__________________

mechdawg

The cost of the program is immense there is no doubt about that. But you need to consider that its not mearly and upgrade its practically a completely new weapon system and the cost per unit then is cheap compared to procurring a new more capable aircraft. A good portion of the cost will hopefully be recouped in maint savings and fuel savings over the projected life of the airframe. As for the A models being cut it is sad but since the bulk of current airlift is handled by the active duty units flying B models now, it does make sense to only convert the B's. The world will always have one A model that was converted for the test program. If you have not had the chance to hear the new planes its something odd to hear for anyone who is used to what Fred sounds like now. I will always miss the whine of my old TF-39's.

Chansen

What is the nacelle look like on this?

Justino

They're round and silver/gray and look like a big coffee can!

__________________
Justin

Reuster

All,

Just to put in my two cents, The C-17 is being used and abused and has a bunch of issues that i don't want to even get into. Yes, it can land on a dime. Yes, it is the premier airlifter of the USAF but it cannot do what the C-5 can do. the gross take off weight of a C-5 is close to a million, yes 1,000,000, pounds. No other aircraft can move the heavy equipment the Army needs and they sure as hell ain't waiting for a ship. The C-5M would have fixed the biggest issue the aircraft had which was the engines. this was the biggest Non Mission Capable (NMC) driver the weapon system has. To bad we don't have the money for the C-17, and the upgrades it needs, the KC-135 and the huge sustainment funds it needs, the KC-10 and the contract buget it has and the new KC-45 (Airbus or Boeing... the fight continues).

Well, thats my two cents and please take it easy on the old girl. The bastards already killed my C-141. God, I miss her.

__________________
V/R

SMSgt. Scott R. Reu
ELEN Lead Tech/Element Chief
315th AMXS CAFB