Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cost Overuns May Doom C-5 Upgrade  
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2298 times:

I don't know, how about cutting another 20'000 troops to pay for it or retire a much needed weapons system if the K street lobbyist guys had their way.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2007/09/airforce_c5upgrades_070923w/


I would help you but it is not in the contract
17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2239 times:

If the same guys who did AMP are on the RERP project, the airplane is doomed. The cost over runs are not a surprise to me.

User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2187 times:

Another article with the Sec. AF making it clear the program is in trouble.


http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070924/lockheed_martin_c_5_costs.html?.v=1


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2001 times:

I supposed the big question is "Do we still need an airlifter the size of the C-5?" If we do, we'll just have to eat the cost over-runs. If we don't, how many C-17s would we need to make up for the number of C-5s no longer in the inventory? And could this mean a resurrection of the idea of building a stretched C-17?


Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7567 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 1983 times:

When is the C17 production ending?

They need to get a move on.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 1926 times:

Maybe if the C-5 fleet does not survive the attack of the bean counters maybe a Sqaudron of these for those real oversized loads
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Fred Seggie - WorldAirImages




I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

Wow, where these people looking to cancel the program when it came to the USMC's V-22 and H-1 upgrade program - those programs should have been cancelled long ago due to a variety of reasons of which costs are a big reason.

User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1832 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 5):
Maybe if the C-5 fleet does not survive the attack of the bean counters maybe a Sqaudron of these for those real oversized loads
View Large View Medium

The thing is that the C-5 enables the USAF to load/offload stuff without the need for lifts and other services etc etc.


User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 346 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1822 times:

I think if the V-22 / UH-1/ AH-1 go or no go decision was made today, they might not survived. The budget issues are for real now, and I don't think too much is going to squeak by if it has serious questions. The AF has cut 40,000 troops, and still has big money problems. I think how we kicked the USSR's ass in spending during the cold war, we are now doing to ourselves, as over commited as we are all over the globe. If the wars stopped today, we are in a hole that will take many years to dig out of. I think the B models will get the RERP mod, and the A models are going to go out to pasture.

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

Quoting JohnM (Reply 8):
I think if the V-22 / UH-1/ AH-1 go or no go decision was made today, they might not survived. The budget issues are for real now, and I don't think too much is going to squeak by if it has serious questions. The AF has cut 40,000 troops, and still has big money problems. I think how we kicked the USSR's ass in spending during the cold war, we are now doing to ourselves, as over commited as we are all over the globe. If the wars stopped today, we are in a hole that will take many years to dig out of. I think the B models will get the RERP mod, and the A models are going to go out to pasture.

IMO the USMC way over-extended itself with regards to paying for the replcement of their entire Air Wing - they at least from today onward need to buy relatively inexpensive Super Hornets and Growlers and learn to love them because they spent their wad of cash on the V-22.


User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12457 posts, RR: 25
Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 1777 times:

Ok, I'm naive, I admit it, but I'm reading that LM says they have a firm fixed price contract to deliver at $83M a plane: if it's fixed price, what are we arguing about?

Quote:
“Lockheed Martin has submitted a firm-fixed price offer to modernize the remaining C-5 aircraft in the Air Force fleet at a per unit average price of $83 million — a price below Nunn-McCurdy thresholds,” said Jim Grant, vice president of Aero Business Development, Air Mobility and Special Operations Forces for Lockheed. “We have confidence in our cost estimates but are currently working with the Air Force to further refine those estimates.”

I suppose in Washingtonese "firm-fixed price offer" really means "estimated price"?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineT56A15 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1714 times:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 10):
I suppose in Washingtonese "firm-fixed price offer" really means "estimated price"?

Looks like the lobbyists have arrived. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2007/02/26/daily59.html Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo. (does Boeing have some kind of presence in Missouri?) is now introducing legislation to start yet another time/money consuming airlift study to determine what we already know. Get rid of a few C-5A' s with the most costly structural problems and upgrade the rest at a bargain $83 million per airframe. Backfill the lost airlift capacity with contract air for contingencies.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1698 times:

Quoting T56A15 (Reply 11):
(does Boeing have some kind of presence in Missouri?)

Ah yes, they have a assembly plant in St Louis that builds the F-18E/F and F-15 mudhens

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 7):
The thing is that the C-5 enables the USAF to load/offload stuff without the need for lifts and other services etc etc

The C-17 can handle "almost" everything the C-5 can do but not as much. The C-5C was bulit to handle oversized loads for NASA such as huge rocket stages. The roll on and roll off capabilty is nice for massive deployment of wheeled and tracked vehicles but for everyday use of standard supplies most of which are palletized which most USAF ATOC's already have the equipment on hand to offload the 747F's. Now with a small number of LCF's the DOD's requirement for special oversized requests will be met with a whole lot better dispatch reliability than a C-5 could only dream of. As an aircraft mechanic I would always chose MD or Boeing over Lockheed.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineSeefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1664 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 12):
As an aircraft mechanic I would always chose MD or Boeing over Lockheed

Are we talking about all Lockheed or just the Cargo planes which were designed and built some 50 to 60 years ago?

Have not heard anything bad about MD.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1646 times:

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 13):
Are we talking about all Lockheed or just the Cargo planes which were designed and built some 50 to 60 years ago?

C-130 fits into that category and it's been a great airplane. If you're talking within the last 50 years then the C-141 is included and it served very well.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineT56A15 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 56 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1636 times:

The article linked in my post mentioned some 1,850 jobs in Missouri that could be eliminated if the C-17 line is shut down. Just wondering if Sen. McCaskill was scaring up a study to buy more C-17's. That move may be good for the St. Louis and Long Beach area but may not be particularly good for the military or the tax payers. I know the mission capable rate is poor for the C-5, but would upgraded engines and avionics plus a move of some of the fleet to the guard and reserve improve it's performance? I don't think we'll be ever find out if the C-5 A's and some of the B's are sent to the desert.

User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1617 times:

The most obvious solution is to take the C-5 RERP/AMP money and buy new-build C-17s. Look, this boondoggle is going to run $15-20 billion for essentially new engines and glass cockpits. Why not replace the 100 x C-5s with 100 x C-17s at $200 million each for the same $20 billion price tag?

User currently offlineSeefivein From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

Na, not much spent on the C-17's

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/...bal-sustainment-partnership-02756/


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Cost Overuns May Doom C-5 Upgrade
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...
James May's 20th Century - Eurofighter Typhoon posted Wed Jul 18 2007 00:09:15 by EK20
Sweden To Approve Saab's Gripen Upgrade posted Sat Jun 30 2007 17:50:31 by Olle
May 9, 07: Meteorite Over US West Coast posted Thu May 10 2007 08:32:18 by Tomcat
Rnzaf Hercules Upgrade Announced posted Thu May 3 2007 11:49:48 by 777ER
The Cost Of Air Refueling posted Mon Feb 26 2007 00:17:29 by KC135TopBoom
Northrup Grumman May Forgo Tanker Bid posted Mon Jan 8 2007 22:25:31 by T773ER
UK May Withdrawl From F35 Project posted Tue Dec 12 2006 01:17:24 by VANGUARD737
E-6B Upgrade Project Complete posted Tue Dec 5 2006 16:38:58 by N328KF
Rumsfeld's Departure May Mean More F-22 - F-18E/F posted Wed Nov 15 2006 01:06:02 by MCIGuy
Bulgaria May Have Solution To Helo RPG Threat posted Fri Oct 20 2006 14:44:06 by Lumberton

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format