Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Any Replacements For The C-5 Galaxy On The Horizon  
User currently offline444Pilot From Bahamas, joined Aug 2009, 20 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7895 times:

I was happy that a decision has finally been made for the replacement of the venerable KC-135. I believe the C-17 replaced the C-141 ... but what about the C-5 Galaxy? Are there any proposals in the works about a possible replacement for this mammoth workhorse?

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTristarcrazy From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7879 times:

Yes, the C-5M Super Galaxy

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/c5/

I believe all the C-5B's and half of the C-5A's will get the mods



717,722,732,733,737.738,739,742,744.752,763,764,772,L10,L15,DC3,DC6,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,MD90,CV880,A310,A319,A320.A33
User currently offlineADent From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1379 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7870 times:

The C-5 replacement will be fielded right after the B-52s are parked and all the KC-135s are replaced.  

User currently offlinecrownvic From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1898 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 7775 times:

The C-5 is similar to the DC-3 in that the only thing that can replace it, is another C-5! Tristarcrazy has the correct answer along with the large C-17 fleet. There is nothing "on the books" beyond this even in concept. The combination of a large fleet of C-17's along w/ the Super Galaxy fits the air forces future requirements, although many will disagree.

User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 4, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 7699 times:

I had always thought that the C-17 more or less bridged the gap between the 141 and C-5, more than replaced the C-141.....depending on how many hours were on even the newest 141s, I thought they might have re-engined them and got a lot more service out of them.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineebj1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7441 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 4):
I had always thought that the C-17 more or less bridged the gap between the 141 and C-5, more than replaced the C-141.....depending on how many hours were on even the newest 141s, I thought they might have re-engined them and got a lot more service out of them.

I believe the C-141s were at the point where they were literally worn out. New engines wouldn't have helped them. They were great airplanes but they were run hard and the fleet paid the price for that. I suspect in years to come we'll be saying something similar about the C-17.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7146 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 7439 times:

Why does there have to be a new C5, by that I mean for the type of missions required there will be no new design technology, the next a/c that replaces the C5 will have 4 engines, will have high wings to allow loading of cargo and a ramp either front and or back.
What technology will do is to change the materials used, manufacturing techniques and electronics, avionics etc. so ultimately, why would Lockheed not simply take the current specifications they have on paper and build new frames, what radical change in design can they come up with for a cargo carrier, its not like a fighter with stealth or no stealth.
I think the same thing for the A-10, if the US really want a ground attack a/c simply start building new A-10's the basic design of the a/c is sound and works, tweak the materials etc and away you go.

The current conversion program to the C5-M standard is expensive, if they still had the tooling, would it have been cheaper to simply build new frame with the modifictaions included, the 767 is still in production, is a 767 purchased new today identical internally to ones produced 20 years ago or have improvements been incorporated?


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7293 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):
I believe the C-141s were at the point where they were literally worn out. New engines wouldn't have helped them. They were great airplanes but they were run hard and the fleet paid the price for that. I suspect in years to come we'll be saying something similar about the C-17.

The C-141 had to die to make way for the C-17. I would look bad for the old plane to be as good, or better than it's replacement. The AF does not have the money or manning to operate both. Some 141's flew to DM code 1, pretty good for a plane that was to be cut up.

With all due respect, any future large air lifters need to be produced by Boeing. I am not willing to go beyond that, but I have my reasons.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8491 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7238 times:

Given their rate of use, the C-5 still has 30 years of use left. In C-5M format.

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7203 times:

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Why does there have to be a new C5,

I'm with ya on that kinda thinking.. just make newer, lighter and more up to date C-5's and A-10's. The design itself is sound, especially in the A-10's case. I know the C-5 was a maintance nightmare but if we built them anew with modern tech doesn't seem like a bad idea.



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7108 times:

Quoting ebj1248650 (Reply 5):
Quoting mayor (Reply 4):
I had always thought that the C-17 more or less bridged the gap between the 141 and C-5, more than replaced the C-141.....depending on how many hours were on even the newest 141s, I thought they might have re-engined them and got a lot more service out of them.

I believe the C-141s were at the point where they were literally worn out. New engines wouldn't have helped them. They were great airplanes but they were run hard and the fleet paid the price for that. I suspect in years to come we'll be saying something similar about the C-17.

Correct; the C-17 wasn't a bridge, it was designed to replace the C-141 which were worn out to the max. They were showing their age and signs of fatigue in the late 80s.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 7):

The C-141 had to die to make way for the C-17. I would look bad for the old plane to be as good, or better than it's replacement. The AF does not have the money or manning to operate both. Some 141's flew to DM code 1, pretty good for a plane that was to be cut up.

I agree with the first 141s that they retired probably had 10 years left in them; but the remaining fleet was used like crazy, alot of the 141s had 40K hours on them, some had more, some had less.

Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
The current conversion program to the C5-M standard is expensive, if they still had the tooling, would it have been cheaper to simply build new frame with the modifictaions included, the 767 is still in production, is a 767 purchased new today identical internally to ones produced 20 years ago or have improvements been incorporated?

Actually, building new frames would be extremely costly; if you built a C-5M from scratch, it would be at least $300M a pop. Thats why AMP and RERPing them is the best and most cost effective way in keeping them in the fleet.

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 9):
Quoting par13del (Reply 6):
Why does there have to be a new C5,

I'm with ya on that kinda thinking.. just make newer, lighter and more up to date C-5's and A-10's. The design itself is sound, especially in the A-10's case. I know the C-5 was a maintance nightmare but if we built them anew with modern tech doesn't seem like a bad idea.

I agree. There are still some legacy issues that need to be worked on that the AMP/RERP doesn't cover; fix those issue and incorporate it into new build C-5s and there you go. Fix (replace) the Dewar system, redesign the hydraulic system so you don't have 8 lines crossing one another and you have to take 7 out to get to one that needs changing, make it a fly by wire system, and make the flap/slat system and aft loading complex less complicated.

The thiing that has me aggravated is the fact that there are C-17s replacing C-5s right now because of the morons running our country. 8 C-17s should NOT replace 10 C-5s...and 8 more C-17s shouldn't be replacing 12 at another base. And the latest is another 8 will replace 10 more now...so 24 C-17s are replacing 32 C-5As...Thats Bogus. All I can hope for is the remaining A models get RERPed.


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 3 days ago) and read 7033 times:

Kind of off topic, but is Air Force thinking still leaning towards the Army getting the ground support role, once the A-10s are gone? I had heard at one time that the upper echelons in the AF at the pentagon weren't exactly fans of the A-10, anyway.


"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7022 times:

Quoting mayor (Reply 11):
I had heard at one time that the upper echelons in the AF at the pentagon weren't exactly fans of the A-10, anyway.

The Air Force has been trying to rid itself of the A-10 almost since it was incepted. Its not a flashy fighter or impressive strategic bomber, its the bastard child it never wanted. However nothing can do what the A-10 does as well as it does it, and the Gulf War proved that and thus staved off the vultures... for a time. My opinion is that it is a low cost, low maintenance airframe that does what it does better than anything we can come up with (be it the F-16XL, F-15E or F-35) and it should be left alone. It is exquisite at tank/armor killing, leave it be, and if the USAF doesn't want it give it to the US Army, which the AF is loathe to do.

As much as I'm a fan of the F-22, and I am, we aren't going to always need that kind of air supremacy (though I believe strongly its needed regardless) but we will always need a great CAS platform, and nothing touches the A-10 when it comes to that.  



[Edited 2011-04-22 23:10:13]


Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10395 posts, RR: 14
Reply 13, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6923 times:

Quoting HaveBlue (Reply 12):

My reserve unit at Barksdale was just converting to A-10s from A-37s when I got there in '80. Our local ANG unit here at FSM recently converted from F-16s to A-10s and while many at the time thought it was better than having the unit shut down, I think many have changed their minds about the capabilities of the A-10, down in the mud.



Ok, back on topic (which I willingly veered off of).


What are the percentages of airlift that are performed active vs. reserve/ANG?



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlinedimik747 From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 51 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6894 times:

Question that is slightly off topic, but since the C-5 is such a unique aircraft as you say (and i agree) have any been created for civilian cargo operations?

User currently offlineHaveBlue From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2106 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (3 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6879 times:

They had a proposal, the L-500, which never panned out.

An interesting story by TIME back in the day, it speaks of it towards the bottom of the page

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,712157,00.html

And discussed here a while back.

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...eneral_aviation/read.main/2693118/

 



Here Here for Severe Clear!
User currently offline747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 4 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 6256 times:

If Boeing wanted to build a super size cargo lifter to replace the C-5, they could. A C-5 replacement with a 24 ft wide and a nose and aft loading door that is powered by four GE 90-115, could be built, but runways at Air Force Bases would have to be redesigned to fix it.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Any Replacements For The C-5 Galaxy On The Horizon
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...
Nice Links For Phans Of The Phabulous Phantom posted Mon May 9 2005 11:29:42 by TriStar500
Looking For "Threshold: The Blue Angels Exp." Vid. posted Wed Aug 11 2004 21:34:20 by ExitRow
What Are The Markings On This F/A-18? posted Tue Mar 15 2011 17:39:43 by etherealsky
Any Ideas For A US Military Pilot Slot? posted Tue Jun 22 2010 11:31:07 by DeltaMD90
"By Americans, For Americans" Claim On Eads Web posted Thu Jun 10 2010 10:56:14 by eksath
Why Not Sell Some Of The "stuff" On Davis Monthan? posted Wed May 26 2010 01:36:11 by 4tet
Good Day For Mil Av On Saturday Locally posted Sun Mar 21 2010 19:01:00 by HaveBlue
What's The Scoop On That New Chinese Fighter? posted Sat Aug 1 2009 19:09:07 by LHCVG
The Finger On The UK Nuclear Button posted Wed Dec 3 2008 13:09:11 by GDB
Behind The Scenes On Air Force One posted Mon Nov 24 2008 18:05:49 by Wannabe
Aircraft Used In The Assault On Osama Bin Laden posted Mon May 2 2011 10:12:44 by tugger
Any Ideas For A US Military Pilot Slot? posted Tue Jun 22 2010 11:31:07 by DeltaMD90
"By Americans, For Americans" Claim On Eads Web posted Thu Jun 10 2010 10:56:14 by eksath
Why Not Sell Some Of The "stuff" On Davis Monthan? posted Wed May 26 2010 01:36:11 by 4tet
Good Day For Mil Av On Saturday Locally posted Sun Mar 21 2010 19:01:00 by HaveBlue
What's The Scoop On That New Chinese Fighter? posted Sat Aug 1 2009 19:09:07 by LHCVG

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format