Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions  
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 19721 times:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20.../airforce_aircraft_budget_011010w/
It appears that the end of the C-5A is coming quick. It seams that Guard and Reserve units stuck with these POS's are lobbying hard to get new C-17's if only the USAF sends a C-5A to AMARC.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12547 posts, RR: 25
Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 19720 times:

Same old, same old. Congress raids maintenance budgets to get new planes (i.e pork) to hand out, then asks the services why it can't keep the old planes flying.


Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16865 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 19669 times:

As been discussed on other C-5 threads, they should retire about half of the 59 C-5A fleet which are the least mission capable. Upgrade the 29 A models which will remain to M models, and replace the 30 retired C-5As with new C-17s.

Currently:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
9 C-5A's

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
13 C-5A's

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
11 C-5A's

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
10 C-5A's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5A's

Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's

In addition to these I would add a second squadron of 13 C-17s to McGuire AFB , a squadron of 13 C-17s for Ramstein AB, a second squadron of 8 C-17s for March ARB



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19608 times:

Why is the US Congress reluctant to just retire all C5's and replace them with the C-17, what capabilities will they loose and how valuable are they to the US Military?
The C5 has been in inventory for many years, it has been hobbled by less than optimal engines and is now costing a bundle to upgrade engines and avionics.
The C-17 appears to be a C-141 replacement, so if there is no replacement in the works for the C5 and they do not want to order more C-17's how much more can they get from the C5 program. I would ask if the tooling still exist to make more C5's but I'm hard pressed to recall much programs in the last 20-30 years that have re-started a closed line.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19581 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
I would ask if the tooling still exist to make more C5's but I'm hard pressed to recall much programs in the last 20-30 years that have re-started a closed line.

Lockheed did exactly that when they restarted the C-5 line to build the B models.



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12547 posts, RR: 25
Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 19571 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
Lockheed did exactly that when they restarted the C-5 line to build the B models.

And they restarted the U2 line for the U2-Rs.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 19509 times:

Thanks guys, I really did forget the U2, have a couple tape on her and the SR-71, should have remembered.
The C5 then gives more questions, if it was re-opened before why not again, unless someone is claiming they are no longer needed? The C5-M program has been controversial from day one and is also not cheap, if improved new builds can be had would that not be a better option?


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19389 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Currently:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
9 C-5A's

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
13 C-5A's

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
11 C-5A's

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
10 C-5A's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5A's

Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's

How many C-5Bs are at Westover AFRB, Massachusetts? Is Westover AFRB, MA, Travis AFB, CA, Altus AFB, OK, and Dover AFB,DE the only bases with the C-5B (all of which will be converted to the C-5M)?

Quoting Par13del (Reply 6):
The C5 then gives more questions, if it was re-opened before why not again, unless someone is claiming they are no longer needed? The C5-M program has been controversial from day one and is also not cheap, if improved new builds can be had would that not be a better option?

Reopening the C-5 line at Lockheed.Martin is not needed if we continue with the C-5M modification and the C-17 line stays open (possibly incliding a C-17B and C-17C version).


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16865 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 19385 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
How many C-5Bs are at Westover AFRB, Massachusetts? Is Westover AFRB, MA, Travis AFB, CA, Altus AFB, OK, and Dover AFB,DE the only bases with the C-5B (all of which will be converted to the C-5M)?

Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusets;
16 C-5B

Travis Air Force Base, California;
16 C-5Bs, 2 C-5Cs

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware;
16 C-5Bs, 3 C-5Ms (2 were B and one was A model)



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineCargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 19309 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
second squadron of 13 C-17s to McGuire AFB

Is this your personal preferences or is it based on something you read? When I saw Gen Lichte this summer a question about basing was asked to him; he said Stewart and Wright Patt were next for C-17s and beyond that Charleston and McChord would be plussed up.

I prefer the new jets go to where they will be well used, which is in active duty squadrons co-located with reserve squadrons. The jets at Mississippi ANG and March aren't flown anywhere near as much as the jets at Charleston, McChord, and McGuire. We'll be flying mostly to Europe for the next 20 years; McGuire, Dover, and Ramstein would be the logical place to put new jets.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 19295 times:

As your fellow C-5 expert here, let me correct some info here...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
How many C-5Bs are at Westover AFRB, Massachusetts? Is Westover AFRB, MA, Travis AFB, CA, Altus AFB, OK, and Dover AFB,DE the only bases with the C-5B (all of which will be converted to the C-5M)?

Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusets;
16 C-5B

Travis Air Force Base, California;
16 C-5Bs, 2 C-5Cs

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware;
16 C-5Bs, 3 C-5Ms (2 were B and one was A model)

Dover has 14B models, 4 M models (yes I'm counting 3285 because its half way done and won't ever fly as a B model again)-and Dover is inducting its next jet this month.

Altus gave up their C-5s back in 2007, the have none and are out of the equation. They only had B models in the 80s, then they were A models only.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
As been discussed on other C-5 threads, they should retire about half of the 59 C-5A fleet which are the least mission capable. Upgrade the 29 A models which will remain to M models, and replace the 30 retired C-5As with new C-17s.

Currently:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
9 C-5A's

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
13 C-5A's

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
11 C-5A's

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
10 C-5A's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5A's

Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's

In addition to these I would add a second squadron of 13 C-17s to McGuire AFB , a squadron of 13 C-17s for Ramstein AB, a second squadron of 8 C-17s for March ARB

Currently, Wright-Patterson has 10, and Martinsburg has 11 C-5s. My thread about C-5 retirement chances going up fast had my initial tails that I would get rid of. Stewart is the most likely base to get C-17s in exchange for their C-5s. I doubt they would extend retirements over the "10" they called for, unless more C-17 orders come in, which is probable. I have already heard through the grapevine that they are not going to establish a C-17 squadron in RS. Memphis is also higher on the list to get C-17s which came as a surprise to me because they actually don't mind the C-5s there. Wright-Patterson has been b@$%ing about getting C-17s the day they found out they were getting C-5s....so after Stewart, I'd say Wright-Patterson would be next in line for C-17s...hopefully without that ugly tail flash they put on the 5s, lol.

Martinsburg is in love with their C-5s, and would probably pick up 3 from Stewart. In September and November of last year, Lackland swapped out 2 jets with WPAFB; the first, 0453 for 8219, and 8219 went into AMP mod immediately, and the second, 0451 with 9005. The second swap kinda shut my mouth up with my assumption that they were going to stage retirements out of WPAFB because 0451 is a good jet (currently in PDM). I'm keeping my eye out on the transfers as they happen and will post info as I get it.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 9):
I prefer the new jets go to where they will be well used, which is in active duty squadrons co-located with reserve squadrons. The jets at Mississippi ANG and March aren't flown anywhere near as much as the jets at Charleston, McChord, and McGuire. We'll be flying mostly to Europe for the next 20 years; McGuire, Dover, and Ramstein would be the logical place to put new jets.

Actually Mississippi and March are pretty close in hours compared to the fleet. Both are very active. Charleston and McChord clearly fly the most, but they also have most of the C-17s, so its kind of an optical illusion that certain jets fly more than others. March seemed to had picked up the Air Show circuit the last year or two, I'm kinda hoping someone else picks that up because I'm tired of seeing March birds performing (lol).


On another note, the C-5Ms are very impressive, and are doing quite well in operational testing. Alot of the downtime they've had were actually testing time vs. problem time. They've of course had a few bugs, but they are definately running at least a 75% MC rate. There is also a lack of aircrews to fly right now. Westover has 10 B models sitting there FMC and nobody to fly them. Plus, TACC has apparently restricted the number of aircraft that can be off station at one time from Dover and Travis...which has brought ops down a bit, and you know what C-5s on the ground equal up to...Broken!


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 18869 times:

The C-5 needs a 748i kind of make over. No redesign, just some material upgrades, some refinements, best engines possible. Cheaper than a clean sheet design, still a proven design.

Good designs do not need to be replaced, just updated. Look at the B-52s... they will probably outlive the 2 following generations of bombers (B-1B, B-2).


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4454 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 18049 times:

What is the likelihood that McGuire will get a 2nd squadron of C-17s?

It's a shame that the C-5 has been riddled with reliability issues for what seems its entire life. What outstanding capabilities the platform brings to the table, if it could only show up when needed.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17912 times:



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
Lockheed did exactly that when they restarted the C-5 line to build the B models.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
And they restarted the U2 line for the U2-Rs.


Lockheed also closed the P-3 production line in Burbank and moved it to Palmadle. Built all the airframes they had orders for and closed the line again. Then when Korea want to buy more P-3's they re-opened the production line again, this time in Marietta, Georgia.


User currently offlineN328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6484 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 17849 times:



Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
The C-5 needs a 748i kind of make over. No redesign, just some material upgrades, some refinements, best engines possible. Cheaper than a clean sheet design, still a proven design.

So...what? Like, adding wing-root extensions and an additional pair of turbofans, perhaps with all turbofans being GEnx? Along with fuselage barrel extensions and additional landing gear?



When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25358 posts, RR: 49
Reply 15, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 17467 times:

Monday's submitted 2011 budget again calls for no C-17 buys.


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 17422 times:



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 15):
Monday's submitted 2011 budget again calls for no C-17 buys.

When was the last time DOD submitted a budget request containing this aircraft? 2007?



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25358 posts, RR: 49
Reply 17, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 17258 times:



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
When was the last time DOD submitted a budget request containing this aircraft? 2007?

Sounds about right, but I think the Pentagon and White House will truly fight the issue this year. Obama yesterday in his budget release speech made specific mention of the unwanted C-17 funding, while Gates seperately mentioned something about finaly taking a stand on both the C-17 and F-35 second engine this year.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineCargotanker From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 158 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 17234 times:

Being fiscally conservative and a C-17 fan, I'm kind of torn on the issue. While I don't think our government should buy the military things that the military doesn't ask for, I think the C-17 is a bargain for the taxpayer. The C-17 is a proven and mature aircraft and will also be utilized in Iraq/Afghanistan within weeks of its delivery. Also, it will continue to be used extensively for the next 30 or so years. Whatever aircraft replaces the C-17 will probably cost $1 billion each, and experience huge cost overruns. If we can delay that aircraft by purchasing more C-17s now, we're probably saving the US taxpayer some money (eventually).

User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 17149 times:

The California delegation will defy Obama and Gates on the C-17. This program will prove very difficult to kill.

Frankly, from a industrial & strategic perspective, why should we let it die? We cede the market to Airbus.

IMO, this is another "trading horse" the administration will give away in return for something it "really, really wants". What this is, I can't say at this point.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17115 times:

Part of the problem here as I understand it is that when the C-17 goes, so too does the LB plant and the people employed there?

User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (4 years 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 17115 times:

What is the problem with the C-17, is there a dirty little secret that is hidden somewhere that makes all these politicians, various DOD, Pentagon and Air Force types want to cancel the a/c, unlike the A-10 this a/c is not ugly, so what gives?

The C-5 although larger, is and has been a hanger queen for numerous years, also not helped by an anemic engine, the upgrades which are finally being done to move the a/c to the M version is long delayed and massively expensive. Unless some form of quid pro quo is being engenderd with the Russians or EU for a replacement of the C-17 what gives? Did someone wink wink when the A400M was being designed so that they move it's capabilities close to the C-17 so that the US could eventually replace the C-130 and the C-17 with one frame, save money by not designing an a/c, and simply put an assemble line in the US for 100-300 frames?

Will the offset for the US industry be that they get the same amount of funds to design and build a 50 frame C-5 replacement, in the world of money, the OEM's would jump at the ability to make the same amount of money while producing a smaller number of frames, for years this was Boeing's philosophy and look where it got them.

All in all I believe something is going on and we need to know "The rest of the story".


User currently offlinebmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2275 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 15817 times:

Defense Sec. Gates appears to be strongly opposed to more C-17s (in last week's Aviation and Space weekly)
and is trying to convince President Obama on this.

Will this request get the green light?



The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 15730 times:

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 22):
Will this request get the green light?

This already got the green light back in December; bringing the total order of USAF C-17s to 223. Gates and Obama are opposed to buying anymore than the 223 already ordered and funded. The USAF doesn't need anymore C-17s, point blank. Really, they didn't need more than the 205. I hate the fact that they are replacing 10 C-5s for 8 C-17s....shouldn't it be more like 18 C-17s for the 10 C-5s? I really hate the fact that the C-17 people are pushing it as a C-5 replacement...its not!

Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
The C-5 although larger, is and has been a hanger queen for numerous years, also not helped by an anemic engine, the upgrades which are finally being done to move the a/c to the M version is long delayed and massively expensive.

Yes, the C-5M program should have been done a decade ago. Some say it should have been done in the 80s while the re-winging and C-5Bs were being built, but I don't think the technology was good enough at the time. Sure the re-engining could have happened, but I think it would have been more expensive then. Costs have been driven up because of horrible bidding and not factoring in any unexpected issues that might arise. That problem has shown its ugly head in many aircraft now, including the F-35 and A400M. The big problem with the C-5s now seems to be related to the down time it needs for all the sheet metal repairs; its alot of metal to keep smooth. The B models have nearly caught up with the A model flight hours; which quite frankly is sad. Upgrading the As to Ms is a waste of time and money because of the problems that have popped up over the last few years on them, grounding them or restricting them left and right.

On another note, I don't think there will ever be an A400M in the USAF inventory. As far as the USAF is concerned, their needs are met with the C-17 and C-130 combination. The A400M is just a waste of money for our military. If they want to piss money away, they should just RERP all the C-5As, buy another 4 dozen F-22s, and accept the rising costs of the F-35...oh and buy both the KC-45A and the KC-767 and shut everyone up, lol


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3548 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 15229 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 20):
Part of the problem here as I understand it is that when the C-17 goes, so too does the LB plant and the people employed there?

essentially correct, however the possibility of foreign sales may keep the production going at a slow drip for several years


25 KC135TopBoom : I have often wondered why the USAF when they reopened the C-5 production for the C-5B, in 1983 did not switch from the TF-39 engines to the CF-6-50 e
26 Stitch : But do you need to? Should perhaps the C-5M's serve exclusively as an "outsized / heavy" cargo transport for stuff like tanks, mobile artillery and l
27 Revelation : The USAF and the administration do not want more C-17s. They feel they have enough to perform their missions and are concerned about the cost of staf
28 Post contains links Revelation : I found the following to be interesting: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...acks%20C-130%20AMP&channel=defense So it seems it could be playing
29 Galaxy5007 : Less complicated just labling them all C-5Ms. The A and B models are essentially the same aircraft now; only minor differences; mainly associated wit
30 Revelation : That sounds very sensible. Unfortunately we're dealing with the US Government and Boeing, so it'll be a tough sell.
31 Stitch : Well the lower the production rate, the higher the production and parts acquisition costs. You also need less people to handle the workload (more tim
32 Post contains images TeamAmerica : It would be a jobs program concealed as military spending. Nothing new about that...Lockheed managed to keep the C-130 line open for 20 years despite
33 rwessel : If the rumor that the USAF is looking for a C-17 replacement in the 2020 timeframe is true, then it probably makes sense to keep the line open, even
34 Galaxy5007 : It is what it is....a rumor; its kinda absurd to even hear about a replacement for such a young aircraft. There was some of the justifcation for the
35 KC135TopBoom : Except for moving lots of people by tanker, that is essentially what the USAF does now. Most troop movements are done on chartered airliners.
36 Post contains links STT757 : The 305th AMW at McGuire AFB NJ is getting three additional C-17s, bringing their total to 16. http://www.mcguire.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204501
37 CX747 : Glad to see that McGuire is getting additional tails. Do we know where the additional airframes are going to be based out of? I know that a friend of
38 Galaxy5007 : Wright-Patterson is getting 8 to replace their 10 C-5As. 12 other C-5As will be retired from one of the three ANG units, and that decision won't be m
39 KC135TopBoom : Then will Westover AFRB, Lackland AFB, WVANG and TNANG (MEM) get a few more C-5s each? If the TNANG converts to C-17s (which makes much more sense tha
40 Galaxy5007 : 22 C-5s will be retired; all 10 WPAFB birds (which a few swaps have occurred between Lackland and WP to get rid of the POS jets), and then 12 other je
41 KC135TopBoom : So the 22 retirements will come from WPAFB (10), and Stewart ANGB (12), with Stewart getting back filled with other C-5s and WP getting C-17s. I agre
42 cargotanker : The addition of the extra tails is only temporary. These aircraft did not come with addtional aircrew or maintainers, same for the extra jets that ha
43 Galaxy5007 : Okay, you completely lost me dude. I'll try to clairify what I was saying. 10 C-5s will leave WPAFB, and be replaced with 8 C-17s. An ANG unit, most
44 KC135TopBoom : Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to work out the future C-17 basing, not the C-5 retirements. These 8 new C-17s will only screw things up even m
45 Galaxy5007 : The plan described above includes those 8 C-17s. This thread was started before the 8 were added the following FY. With the remaining 23 C-17s (P-201
46 STT757 : Send the 5 to McGuire, they have the ramp space and the assault landing strip at Lakehurst.
47 KC135TopBoom : What about sending some of the new C-17s to McCord, March, Hawaii, or Alaska?
48 STT757 : McGuire AFB is an OEF hub, they could use the extra lift.
49 Galaxy5007 : I don't think the AF wants to set up a second squadron at McGuire for one reason or another. McGuire is definately a worthy candidate for the other 5
50 cargotanker : Agreed, it is also the closest AMC base to Europe, which is the primary place AMC aircraft have been flying for the past 20 years and will be the pri
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
C-17 With VIP Gear: Unrefuelled Range? posted Sat Jul 19 2008 18:22:41 by Flighty
Russia Starting New Patrols With "old" Aircraft. posted Fri Aug 17 2007 18:26:12 by Readytotaxi
Usaf Gets Another 60 Raptors posted Wed Aug 1 2007 13:30:31 by F27Friendship
Should Usaf Start A A-10 Follow-on Program? posted Mon Aug 22 2005 14:59:16 by KC135TopBoom
USAF KC-10 Extender @ GRU.....Why? posted Sat Aug 6 2005 16:01:10 by BrunoSBGR
Artists Coat C-17 With Pride posted Thu Jun 9 2005 00:20:30 by Echster
Usaf Jets Over New Orleans posted Thu Apr 21 2005 03:10:49 by Snaiks
Usaf Signs For 60 C-17 posted Fri Aug 16 2002 17:23:48 by Raggi
KC-10, KC-135 Tankers With Winglets. posted Mon Jan 4 2010 01:13:59 by 747classic

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format