Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6650 times:
Study determining C-5A's viability
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. -- Officials are evaluating the C-5 Galaxy's current health, service life and long-term viability during the first phase of an on-going study to decide the aircraft's future. This is one of 14 aircraft Air Force officials selected for retirement. (U.S. Air Force photo by Sue Sapp)
by Holly Logan
Warner Robins Air Logistics Center Public Affairs
12/10/2003 - ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga. (AFPN) -- Experts here are evaluating the C-5 Galaxy's current health, service life and long-term viability as the first phase of an on-going study to decide the aircraft’s future.
The four-phase C-5A Structural Risk Analysis and Model Revalidation study began here at the request of Air Mobility Command officials.
"We're going to provide a quick look at the C-5's status, and AMC (officials) will use that information to see if the C-5 is a good candidate for future investment and upgrades," said Col. Frank Bruno, strategic airlift directorate director. "If our tear-down analysis indicates that the plane is structurally sound, then they may consider it as a future investment. If not, they may be hard-pressed to invest more dollars."
Structural engineers, program managers and others from the strategic airlift and maintenance directorates here have been working fulltime examining the guts of the C-5 aircraft. The C-5, Tail No. 690004, is one of 14 aircraft Air Force officials selected for retirement.
"We're taking a hard look at the skeleton of the plane and trying to determine if there's any damage that hasn't been uncovered before through normal inspections," said Buc McRory, strategic airlift directorate structures engineer and lead engineer for the project. He will determine the plane's structural service life.
This particular C-5 was selected because of its true representation of the fleet, McRory said.
Workers from the nondestructive inspection division of the maintenance directorate are conducting the inspections, and results will be added to an existing model of the plane to compute how long it could continue flying, McRory said.
Although a majority of the tear-down part of the study will not take place until the third phase, some parts are being removed to help the inspection and will be used as spare parts, said Jerry Ethridge. He is the strategic airlift directorate program manager.
The study's four phases are:
Phase 1 -- Nondestructive inspection takes place here. Initial results are due to Air Mobility Command by February.
Phase 2 -- Planning and gathering of support equipment to tear down the plane. This phase runs through 2004. Components will be sent to an undetermined location later for further disassembly and inspection.
Phase 3 -- Tear down and further analysis.
Phase 4 -- Remaining parts of the aircraft will be disposed. (Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service)
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 1, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6512 times:
and here's a better hi res pic
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 3, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6445 times:
Zak
From Germany, joined Sep 2003, 256 posts, RR: 0
Reply: 2
Posted Thu Dec 11 2003 19:23:08 UTC+1 and read 50 times:
isnt that a military av thing?
i btw think that getting rid of the c5 and aquiring c17s is the way to go for the SAC
Well sad to say thats because your very misinformed and obviously have very limited knowledge about heavy airlift capabilities.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Garnetpalmetto From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5244 posts, RR: 55 Reply 4, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6439 times:
For the SAC? Umm...SAC doesn't operate cargo aircraft, buddy. SAC doesn't even EXIST anymore. And a C-17 hardly has the same capacity as a C-5.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6435 times:
Well is a very drastic but thourough method of doing an inventory of wear & tear. They are wasting a $$ aircraft but some scaling down was already planned.
Probably it will also help them make a good program for heavy maintenance & upgrades if continuation of C5 operations is preferred. New engines will make sence if they will fly the palne for another 30 yrs.
I think political long term strategy will determine the faith of the C5. That has to do with global political forecasts & centralization (cheaper) or decentralization (simplified logistics) of the armed forces.
The efficiency of the C17 and the commercial availability of lots of ex-Soviet Air Force An 124´s for outsized cargo didn´t help the C5.
Wannabe From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 675 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6405 times:
For every C-5 disposed of, you will need several C-17's to replace the capacity. For Boeing, that means plenty of sales. So do you think there is much lobbying going on to get rid of the C-5's? In the long run, upgrading and maintaining C-5's will save tax dollars, but don't expect that decision to be a logical one. Boeing is loosing passenger jet marketshare, the 767 tanker deal is in jeopardy due to the recent scandals, and most of their DOD business is under scrutiny. They are going to be putting the pressure on big time to decommission as many C-5's as possible.
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6381 times:
The problem with the AN-124 is that it's not under USAF control. I don't think the Air Force would like to find itself in a situation where they are dependent on outsize cargo aircraft that can be denied to them by a foreign government.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (9 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6353 times:
I doubt the airforce would want to be reliant on a potential enemy indeed, but the Washington beancounters have decided otherwise.
In an age where it is seen as being enlightened to slash military budgets the C-5 is only one of many victims.
The F-22 program is now only a farce of its former self, the number of units to be produced not enough to defend the continental USA let alone equip units dedicated to operations for NATO or the UN.
The B-1s are being RIFfed without a replacement. So is the A-10.
The US Navy is being downsized to a level where they can no longer maintain a carrier taskforce in every fleet at all times.
The US Army is loosing its forward deployment capabilities at the same time as the rapid deployment capabilities provided by the USAF and USN are being destroyed as well.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 10, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 6323 times:
The US Army and AirForce arent using any 124s, maybe some of the coalition troops are, but ive yet to see any 124s at baghdad or balad, which are the only airfields capable of handling them right now.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Keesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 6274 times:
Galaxy5, the antonovs are very uneconomical aircraft. They are ugly & come from the wrong country. But they are also made to land on bad runways, require a minimum of maintenance and are commercialy available on short notice to transport stuff from Europe to the Middle East, or within the Middle East.
The US military chartered this Ukrainian Antonov An-225 - world's largest plane - to transport food and supplies for the US troops in Afghanistan.
The Russians have always placed a great emphasis on the ability of their aircraft to operate from unprepared airfields; to operate in a wide range of climatic conditions; to operate with minimum of technical service. This is why today you see Russian Il-76s and An-124s chartered by the US military to transport supplies to the US troops in Afghanistan .....
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 12, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 6260 times:
They may have used them in afghanistan, but have yet to use any in iraq, as stated in my previous post. Also the C-5 can land on the same unimproved surfaces as any 124, or C-17 for that matter, as a matter of fact a C-5 can land on softer runway surfaces than a C-17, it also has a longer range than the 225, 124, and C-17.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Imisspiedmont From United States of America, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 6203 posts, RR: 43 Reply 13, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 5 days ago) and read 6240 times:
"The US military chartered this Ukrainian Antonov An-225 - world's largest plane - to transport food and supplies for the US troops in Afghanistan." Exactly so Keesje, the US government chartered the beast to transport humanitarian aid. That is a far cry from strategic airlift though.
The C-5 will be flying when most of you who are fathers of infant girls will be considering which shotgun to buy. I will certainly be dead before the last C-5 is retired.
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
KEESJE From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6235 times:
Exactly so Keesje, the US government chartered the beast to transport humanitarian aid. That is a far cry from strategic airlift though.
I couldn't find back the picture of the Blackhawks being off loaded.. However it's often handy to use a more neutral aircraft sometimes, certainly for strategic militairy missions. http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/07/05/spy.plane.return/
The C-5 will be flying when most of you who are fathers of infant girls will be considering which shotgun to buy. I will certainly be dead before the last C-5 is retired.
I hopeflly never will be allowed or forced to buy a shotgun ..
I will certainly be dead before the last C-5 is retired.
Then I hope the USAF won't decide to phase them out soon..
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 15, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 6224 times:
I hopeflly never will be allowed or forced to buy a shotgun ..
Don't knock, they are great investments.
One girl I used to know got a 20 plus year old Browning over/Under as a wedding present from her father....and two shells.
Apparently he bought it right before she was born and now he "didn't need it" to put the fear of god into her boyfriends anymore.
Never had been fired, don't even want to a take a guess on what the value of that gun was.
There are a hell of a lot worse investments to make.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 16, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6221 times:
We, did however, also contract a AN-124 to pick up our EP-3 out of china, but that was mostly due to political reasons.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 17, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 6224 times:
Purely political.
A couple of years earlier another EP-3 overran in Sicily, I think.
A C-5 returned that one back to the states.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2738 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 6182 times:
A little off topic, but did you know in Wichita, there is a law against cleaning your gun on your porch while waiting for your daughter's date to show up? I lived in Kansas ling enough not to be suprised by the need to pass this law...
Quick Question re: An-225 and -124- What are the fatigue lives like on those airframes? And how many hours does the -225 need to eat up before they decide to complete the second airframe? Speaking of, will airframe #2 have the two large overfuselage pylons that the first one has?
Imisspiedmont From United States of America, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 6203 posts, RR: 43 Reply 20, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 6175 times:
Well thank you KEESJE, I think.
I do see the C-5 in service another 20 years or so. As for me, I see another 10 or so years of "service." I don't need much more though as I'm obsolete.
What is it with all the "is there a possibilty airline X will.." threads? The answer it'll is possible.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 21, posted (9 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 6168 times:
As for pulling G's the C-5 or 124 or even the 225 for that matter really doesnt fit into its purposes, unless you are evading Manpads. SO, its not really relevant, and if the 124 and 225 are typical of former Soviet standards then i doubt very mush that the airframe will outlast a C-5 or pull as much G's.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 22, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 6002 times:
Whoa things sure do change, it looks like a congressional investigation may occur against the AirForce and boeing to include some higher ups like Gen Handy CINC AMC and Transportation command, Congressional leaders want to know what happened to all the funds that were to go to the C-5 AMP and RERP and instead were funneled to C-17 to straighten up faults with that airplane. Also there is a big question as to why buy more C-17s if we are trying to get rid of our largest airlifter the C-5, senators want to know why we are boneyarding a perfectly good aircraft and asking for money to but smaller less capable airframes. It looks like the shit is about to hit the fan. The boeing CEO Phil Condit was fired over a fiasco with the C-17 and 767 procurement. So the C-5 mothball program is on hold, since congress never gave approval for this action, that was taken by Handy, seemed he over stepped his bounds. http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2003/12/01/daily1.html
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
LMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5999 times:
Phil Condit was not fired over anything that was going on in C-17 program. He resigned due to the ethical lapses with it's rocket business and the 767 program.
Galaxy5 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, RR: 27 Reply 24, posted (9 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5971 times:
Condit was also involved with C-17 procurement issues at the time he was a CEO.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
25 LMP737: Of course he was involved with procurement issues, he was the CEO. What got him caned was the mess involving the 767 and insider info of LM rocket bid
26 Maiznblu_757: My friend is a boom operator in the KC135, and he really gets sick of flying out to the East Coast to meet up and fuel C17's coming from Europe. The C
27 Cancidas: doesn't the C-17 have a lot of technical problems too, in addition to the bad range?
28 Maiznblu_757: I dont know, but, the major technical problem is the range.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2034 posts, 
From Greenland, joined Sep 2003, 1993 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
, 6203 posts, 
From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 2738 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
