Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
C5M Working Well In Service...  
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined exactly 9 years ago today! , 5478 posts, RR: 31
Posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8730 times:

Sometimes they actually get things right. Upgrades and improvements don't always pan out but so far, it seems like the USAF is actually getting its moneys worth out of the C5M program.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...4/usaf-invests-in-c-5-upgrade.html

Quote:
Since its debut, the new fleet of pre-production C-5M models has quickly made a favourable impression among pilots and maintenance crews, even as it has added a new layer of complexity to the USAF's calculations for determining the appropriate size and mix of strategic airlifters in the future.

Some new aircraft designs wait years to begin operations in combat zones despite being declared ready for service. The C-5M has received no such luxury. Within its first year of operations, the C-5M has completed a single sortie that broke 41 aviation records and participated in two real-world surges of equipment and troops into Afghanistan, with the latest airlift spike ending a month ago.



What the...?
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 8526 times:

It is good to see the C-5M program is doing well.

User currently offlinekeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 8508 times:

Sounds good. Maybe the number of hired An124 flights can be brought back.

User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8124 times:

Don't you know the Reserve and Guard units flying C-5s wish they had this model!


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2980 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (4 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8040 times:

Quoting keesje (Reply 2):
Sounds good. Maybe the number of hired An124 flights can be brought back.

A lot of that lift has to be on Russian metal now, part of the deal of allowing US military supply flights over Russian airspace. In any case, let the Ruslans keep doing transatlantic ferry flights, eat up someone else's airframe hours.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7923 times:

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 4):
A lot of that lift has to be on Russian metal now, part of the deal of allowing US military supply flights over Russian airspace. In any case, let the Ruslans keep doing transatlantic ferry flights, eat up someone else's airframe hours.

What is the point of buying your own metal if you are going to use someone else's? That is like buying a Mercedes, then taking the bus everywhere cause it can drive in the commuter lane.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 7917 times:

Because its cheaper!

User currently offlineSpacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2980 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 7860 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
What is the point of buying your own metal if you are going to use someone else's? That is like buying a Mercedes, then taking the bus everywhere cause it can drive in the commuter lane.

Try doing an assault landing onto an unpaved strip in a warzone with someone else's metal. The C-5 still has uses, but schlepping MRAPs transatlantic isn't one of them.



The last of the famous international playboys
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8759 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7837 times:

Quoting Oroka (Reply 5):
What is the point of buying your own metal if you are going to use someone else's? That is like buying a Mercedes, then taking the bus everywhere cause it can drive in the commuter lane.

If we want to fly over Russia then maybe we need to give them a bone.

Plus if you want your mercedes C-5 to last 75 years, you need to garage it and only bring it out for special occasions like WWIII.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 7430 times:

I love how the USAF is "fudging" the numbers a bit to make the C-5M look like its this "wonder plane" after all the years of crap its been through being known as FRED. In reality; RERP, although it has improved the aircraft significantly, doesn't fix alot of legacy problems that we had with the A and B models. Hydraulic leaks are just as common as they were before, Dewar problems are just as bad, Flap and slat issues are the same; and the sheet metal work on the plane is actually worsened since RERP because of skin cracks and hitting birds and what not because the jet moves faster than it did before. Not to mention the hundreds of fuel leaks that keep showing up (some attribute that to being in testing for so long, others that fly the plane think the new engines are pushing the wings to the limit now...). I just think they are making it seem like a dream upgrade so the public sees it and agrees that our tax dollars should go toward it.

I'm all for the C-5M program; I'm just sayin...lol

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 3):
Don't you know the Reserve and Guard units flying C-5s wish they had this model!

Westover will get them...After Dover and Travis; but they will get them.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7357 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 9):
Galaxy5007

Sounds like some engineering and design failures. When the KC-135A was reengined, there were thousands of engineering changes to the drawings, plus it was really the first major modification program done with CAD/CAM.


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7333 times:

The -135 is a very basic and simple aircraft compaired to the C-5. Some of the long term difficult and unreliable systems of the C-5 were ignored for upgrade. The KC-135 had very high FMC rates before re engine, so they were starting with a good product in the beginning. The C-5 has never enjoyed that situation. Besides, the -135 didn't have an avionics mod that threw it's entire com/nav/afcs/instruments (and more) systems out the window did it?

User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 7253 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
JohnM

Actually, the KC-135 did receive many aviaonics upgrades at about the same time, but each was a seperate program from the reengining. They received;

Digital autopilot
FASAS/CAS
Digital fuel panel and controls
New comm suite including a new HF and VHF radios, as well as Have Quick UHF radio.
INS/DNS
Strobe lights
AFSATCOMM
Digital radar (later replaced by a new color digital weather radar)
Boom Trim System
Fin mounted refueling flood lights and new air refueling pod instrument panel
Delete the LOX and replace it with an additional gasious O2 system.
Some airplanes got a new cargo loading floor and cargo loading system
Replace the Solar or Air Research APU with a new duel APU (part of the KC-135R mod)
5 rotor brakes (all airplanes)
New landing gear (KC-135E/R/T)
Smart Tanker mod


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 3 months 1 week ago) and read 7216 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 11):
Some of the long term difficult and unreliable systems of the C-5 were ignored for upgrade

John is right here; thats the problem with the C-5M; is some of the horribly unreliable systems were ignored. The hydraulic system wasn't completely ignored, new suction lines and fittings (in fact I think all the lines from the wing root to the engines were replaced) were replace, and all of the flight control actuators and manifolds are being replaced with rebuilt ones (of course I've always been saying, rebuilt isn't going to go too far, new is what it needs). They replace the manifolds on a scheduled basis now as well (have been for quite some time) which has helped alot with failures in the system or even on the flightline. They are working some of the other issues in different TCTOs, but they aren't included in RERP. Several of the initial upgrades with the three protoype aircraft were also dropped for the production aircraft due to the cost over-runs. On top of that, they had clearance issues on 9024 which delayed the progress of that jet by nearly 6 months, and probably contributed to the decision to leave the A models out of RERP.

John; do you know if they are going to have a delivery ceremony for 3285 before it goes to Westover for ISO? I am getting conflicting reports on what they are doing with it...


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7187 times:

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 13):
John; do you know if they are going to have a delivery ceremony for 3285 before it goes to Westover for ISO? I am getting conflicting reports on what they are doing with it...

No, I haven't heard any word on that.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall when the Boys get it in ISO, it will be quite a shock.... Probably can't even crack cowl doors in the "legacy" ISO stands.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 3 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 7167 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 14):
Probably can't even crack cowl doors in the "legacy" ISO stands

I forget how they did it on 6013 and 6025 when they came through Dover in 2007. You all still had the old stands then; but I dunno if any work was actually done on the engines since they were still Lockheed birds and the flight testing was just a few months old.

Thanks


User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6512 times:

Update. The USAF is quite happy with the C5M program and they are now considering the C-5A for the same upgrades, based on the performance of the lone C-5A that was converted to an "M".
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0Upgrading%20C-5As&channel=defense

Quote:
“As the aircraft proves itself, we are talking to the Air Force about the benefits of a single fleet,” says Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin vice president for C-5 programs. The upgrade extends service life to at least 2040.

The three C-5Ms already in Air Force service, the former RERP development aircraft, include a single upgraded C-5A. This is achieving the same performance and reliability as the two modified C-5Bs, according to Lockheed Martin.

Re-engining the C-5 increases thrust by 22%, payload by 27% and range by 20%, says Jeffrey Armentrout, business development manager for strategic airlift programs. He adds that the mission-capable rate is exceeding the 75% target.

The company has a $6-billion fixed-price production contract to upgrade 49 aircraft, including two C-5Cs, for a total of 52 C-5Ms. The Air Force also operates 59 C-5As, but plans to retire 22 in 2011-12 because of excess strategic airlift capacity.



"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6505 times:

The story goes onto talking about upgrading the C-5As for a possible use as a CRAF aircraft. IIRC, the C-5A already has an FAA certification, but not in a C-5M configueration. If this goes through, and LM finds a CRAF airline that will do this (UPS would be my guess), would they still be air refuelable?

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 6488 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
The story goes onto talking about upgrading the C-5As for a possible use as a CRAF aircraft. IIRC, the C-5A already has an FAA certification, but not in a C-5M configueration. If this goes through, and LM finds a CRAF airline that will do this (UPS would be my guess), would they still be air refuelable?

The C-5A is "not" FAA certified.


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 351 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6386 times:

A civilian carrier operating C-5s....bankruptcy. No operator would touch the C-17 with a 10 foot pole. What operator would take one of the most maintenance intensive airframes in the world?

747s are cheap, parts are worldwide, and they fly the wings off them.


User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 628 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 6372 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 17):
would they still be air refuelable?

Its built in to the plane, so, there really is no reason to take it out.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 19):
A civilian carrier operating C-5s....bankruptcy. No operator would touch the C-17 with a 10 foot pole. What operator would take one of the most maintenance intensive airframes in the world?

747s are cheap, parts are worldwide, and they fly the wings off them

I agree here. Plus, the new 747-8F will be ramping up production soon, you have to figure...is a civillian airline going to want a brand new plane with current technology, or a 40 year old plane with some newer parts thrown in and STILL have major maintenance issues that plague the C-5M.

Lockheed doesn't like the idea that the USAF is going to retire another 19-22 jets. Whats interesting to me, is that the majority of the original cost over runs were caused by the A model RERP prototype. Sure the end result was good for 9024, but I still don't see it happening. It would be somewhat nice to see the remaining A models in the USAF after the retirements get RERPed, but I don't think that decision is going to come around until Dover has a full fleet of C-5Ms to judge off of. Wright-Patterson is supposed to start retiring jets any time now, so if Lockheed is going to save them, they better tell the USAF to mothball them and not take parts off the jet while its sitting at AMARG! Last rumor I heard...0446 was a top get the heck out of the fleet jet...lol


User currently offlineCMB56 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 233 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5999 times:

You might get someone to bite on a small batch of say 5 or less if the AF basically give you the aircraft but you pay for the upgrade. Along with that enough guaranteed CRAF business to at least breakeven. That would make a business case. But a fleet of 20-30 will just sit around more or less as they do now. 747Fs fly everyday as many hours as you can get business for. That is how they make money. Military transports were not designed to make money they are designed to move heavy stuff in a war time situation. Economics of operation are not high on the list.

User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5985 times:

Quoting CMB56 (Reply 21):
You might get someone to bite on a small batch of say 5 or less if the AF basically give you the aircraft but you pay for the upgrade. Along with that enough guaranteed CRAF business to at least breakeven.


CARF means Civil Air Reserve Fleet. There is no such thing as guaranteed CARF business. The CARF are civilian aircraft (passenger and cargo) that the Air Mobility Command (AMC) can call upon in times of "emergency" when the military fleet can not meet the requirements.

No airline is going to have 4 or 5 C-5's sitting around waiting for an "emergency" to happen.

I think you are getting the CARF confused with AMC charter flights.


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 5979 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
CARF means Civil Air Reserve Fleet.

No such thing... Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Although participating in CRAF does not guarantee DoD business, CRAF carriers do get preferential treatment...



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offline474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5966 times:

Quoting 474218 (Reply 22):
No such thing... Civil Reserve Air Fleet. Although participating in CRAF does not guarantee DoD business, CRAF carriers do get preferential treatment...


Hay I am "dyslexic"

With either name you can read all about it here it has only been used twice:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33692.pdf


25 CMB56 : From the Wikipedia definition: In 1952, after aircraft were commandeered for the Berlin Airlift, CRAF was created as a more orderly way of serving eme
26 Post contains links 474218 : Suggest you read the reference site: The CRAF has been activated only twice, during Operation Desert Shield (passenger and cargo aircraft) and Operat
27 ZANL188 : As I pointed out earlier, carriers that participate in CRAF are given preferential treatment when it comes to DoD airlift contracts. So it's quite li
28 CMB56 : The generic term used within the industry is CRAF. Whether it is formally activated or not that is the term people who make the contracts and flight p
29 474218 : True! Not true!!
30 Post contains links and images ZANL188 : Check this quote from the second link you provided: "The airlines contractually pledge aircraft to the various segments of CRAF, ready for activation
31 474218 : Exactly what I said CRAF and MAC contract flights are two different things. Why is that so hard to understand?
32 ZANL188 : But they're not. 1. MAC is long gone. 2. Want a peacetime AMC contract? Participate in CRAF or team with another carrier who does. 3. When CRAF is ac
33 Post contains links 474218 : I suggest you read the two references I provided. From: http://www.amc.af.mil/library/factsh...actsheet_print.asp?fsID=234&page=1 "Carriers with
34 CMB56 : For example: UPS is a member of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) and ... aircraft may be requested by the Air Mobility Command (AMC) for military ch
35 Galaxy5007 : I agree...its not like Evergreen, Kallitta and Atlas Air have their entire company in the CRAF; they are all contracted out by AMC; just like the AN-
36 srbmod : This discussion has veered well off-topic and will be locked. The merits and history of the CRAF is not directly relevant to the C-5M in service and i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Anyone Know How Many Mig-31 Are Still In Service? posted Sat Dec 29 2007 21:29:15 by Wvsuperhornet
How Many An22's Still / Again In Service? New Live posted Fri Nov 2 2007 04:05:00 by Keesje
Are There Any OV1 Mohawks In Service Anywhere? posted Sat Nov 11 2006 00:05:08 by Bisbee
Fighter With Shortest Time In Service posted Wed Jul 26 2006 21:57:35 by MissedApproach
Veteran Aircraft Still In Service? posted Mon Sep 19 2005 01:28:37 by Waterpolodan
Typhoon Maturing Now It's In Service posted Mon Jul 4 2005 09:42:54 by KennyK
Space Shuttle - When Again In Service? posted Sun Sep 19 2004 10:16:04 by TW741
How Old Are The KC-135s That Are In Service? posted Sun Jul 6 2003 19:37:58 by Da man
US Army Mil-8s In Service In Afghan posted Wed May 1 2002 17:09:46 by Heavymetal
"B-52's Forever" Will Be In Service Till 2040 posted Tue Apr 30 2002 16:42:45 by Galaxy5