Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Will Replace The C-5?  
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 4418 times:

The C-5 Is getting kind of old and will soon need a replacement, but what will the military use as a replacement? Unless they get Boeing to develop a large C-17 they will have to turn to a civilian transport, maybe they could get boeing to develop a special 748. The 748f already has a swinging nose like the C-5 and is close to the size, kind of, and since the 748 isn't selling great maybe boeing would offer that as a military cargo version. What do you guys think?

32 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4410 times:

The B-747-8F cannot fully replace the C-5. There is a lot of outsized cargo that will fit into the C-5, but not the B-747F.

The USAF still has the C-5M program going, although it may not be for long unless costs can be controlled. If the C-5M is successful, we will have C-5s for another 25+ years.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4378 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
There is a lot of outsized cargo that will fit into the C-5

Into what kind of box size does "outsized cargo" actually translate?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 1):
The USAF still has the C-5M program going, although it may not be for long unless costs can be controlled. If the C-5M is successful, we will have C-5s for another 25+ years.

Didn't someone in another thread talked about a potentially stretched C-17?


User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1659 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4385 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 2):
Into what kind of box size does "outsized cargo" actually translate?

I believe its something that doesn't fit into a regular freighter like C-130, 747, A310, etc.


User currently offlineBladeLWS From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4367 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 2):

Into what kind of box size does "outsized cargo" actually translate?

Helicopters, tanks, that kind of stuff. Also a 747 or A480 cannot land on an unprepared strip or offload stuff without equipment, which makes them unsuitable for combat operations areas.

The C-5 replacement will be a completely new aircraft, you can bet on that.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4341 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 4):
The C-5 replacement will be a completely new aircraft, you can bet on that.

Has anyone heard what this plane will be like, or when design will start?


User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 5):
Has anyone heard what this plane will be like, or when design will start?

Doesn't matter, the losers will bitch and nothing will get built.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 2):
Didn't someone in another thread talked about a potentially stretched C-17?

I've brought that subject up before because at one time there was consideration being given to a stretched C-17A. Obviously, that idea didn't go anywhere ... but that's not to say it's dead altogether. Whether the C-17B as it's sometimes called, could be a good one-for-one replacement for the C-5 is something the more informed a.netters could elaborate on. I'm not in that league by a long shot.  Smile



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineDw747400 From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 1260 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4299 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 4):
Also a 747 or A480 cannot land on an unprepared strip or offload stuff without equipment, which makes them unsuitable for combat operations areas.

Though in theory the C-5 can operate from an unprepared strip, its so rare in practice I doubt it would be a deal-breaker if an off-the-shelf design could manage the outsize payload, provide the needed payload/range combination, and use the existing infrastructure. With a clean sheet design, its possible the USAF will develop a more comprehensive wish-list, but we may see the C-5 replacement being a very large logistics transport intended for strategic work only, with the C-17 taking on the few missions the new plane can't handle that used to use a C-5.



CFI--Certfied Freakin Idiot
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4233 times:

Quoting Dw747400 (Reply 8):
With a clean sheet design, its possible the USAF will develop a more comprehensive wish-list, but we may see the C-5 replacement being a very large logistics transport intended for strategic work only, with the C-17 taking on the few missions the new plane can't handle that used to use a C-5.

Would it be practical for Boeing to think of upscaling the C-17 to produce the C-5 replacement? Would it also be practical for Lockheed-Martin to think of producing a much modernized C-5, rather than designing a new very large transport from scratch?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12150 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4174 times:

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Would it be practical for Boeing to think of upscaling the C-17 to produce the C-5 replacement? Would it also be practical for Lockheed-Martin to think of producing a much modernized C-5, rather than designing a new very large transport from scratch?

Both are possible, but neither is going to happen.


User currently offlinePC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2444 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4172 times:

I get the feeling more and more that we may see the C-17's taking care of out-sized/unimproved strips and some 747F's taking care of the rest. Even a simple modification to the 747F could make a paratrooper platform, could it not?


Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4163 times:

Remember that Lockheed restarted the C-5 production line again after the first-gen C-5As were getting long in the tooth, and at the request of USAF.
81 C-5As, then 50 more C-5Bs were built. If the USAF needs a C-5 replacement, it's far cheaper to re-start the line again for the C-5Ds.
No new transports are on the drawing boards right now...the budget is already stretched far too thin with other programs going on at the moment.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting BladeLWS (Reply 4):
The C-5 replacement will be a completely new aircraft, you can bet on that.

Would it not be a better idea to build new C-5's?

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Both are possible, but neither is going to happen.

Agreed, with all of the political BS and the deficit due to the war, every hour will be squeezed out of the existing C-5 airframes and the forthcoming C-5M.

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 12):
No new transports are on the drawing boards right now...the budget is already stretched far too thin with other programs going on at the moment.
Regards.

It is just cheaper to outsource. An-124???


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4152 times:

Quoting N74jw (Reply 13):
It is just cheaper to outsource. An-124???

Depend on how much you are willing to depend on those An-124 contractors.


User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4146 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 14):
Depend on how much you are willing to depend on those An-124 contractors.

Money talks, unfortunately, and that is the ultimate thing that gets the Russians moving.


User currently offlineFridgmus From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1442 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4145 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Maybe we could get with the Antonov Bureau to crank up the line and produce new-build An-124's upgraded to our standards/systems?

Just a thought.



The Lockheed Super Constellation, the REAL Queen of the Skies!
User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4135 times:

Quoting Fridgmus (Reply 16):
Maybe we could get with the Antonov Bureau to crank up the line and produce new-build An-124's upgraded to our standards/systems?

Just a thought.

It is a great idea, and it makes sense. That is why the US Govt will never go for it. Could you imagine the USAF insignia on an An-124?


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1443 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4122 times:

Quoting N74jw (Reply 17):
It is a great idea, and it makes sense. That is why the US Govt will never go for it. Could you imagine the USAF insignia on an An-124?

Being a cold war vet I would never thought possible seeing aeroflot colors on a 767



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineN74jw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4118 times:

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 18):
Being a cold war vet I would never thought possible seeing aeroflot colors on a 767

True, true. I started my service at the end of the cold war, but we were still trained that way.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4097 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 10):
Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 9):
Would it be practical for Boeing to think of upscaling the C-17 to produce the C-5 replacement? Would it also be practical for Lockheed-Martin to think of producing a much modernized C-5, rather than designing a new very large transport from scratch?

Both are possible, but neither is going to happen.

Why will neither happen? Is it easier to start with a blank sheet of paper than it is to modify or upscale an existing design?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

A BWB would be good... You could fit some really wide stuff in there....

Andrea Kent


User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4022 times:

I personally like the box-wing idea... Only because it looks really cool though  Smile





In all reality, the way I think it should be handled is...

1) 747Fs for palletized/containerized freight that the KC-767s can't carry

2) C-17s (possibly including stretched or long range variants) for what the 747Fs can't carry or to places the 747Fs can't go (short/rough/no infrastructure/etc)

3) Leased An-124s or a smaller fleet of retained low time / modernized C-5s for the extremely rare occasion that you have cargo you can't transport with a C-17 or 747F... I doubt this really happens all that often. Our C-5 fleet could probably be stretched for decades to come if they are only used for flights where you NEED a C-5.


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 4001 times:

I think it's a safe bet that C-5M will proceed and there will be no new large military transport for some time. Most of the frames have a lot of time left on them and it's just the cheapest way forward.
What's often overlooked when comparing the C-5 to the 747 is the C-5s ability to squat, drop a ramp and let the cargo drive itself off the ramp. That makes for rapid deployment that an aircraft as tall as a 747 can't accomplish. It may seem like a small thing but it's not.

[Edited 2007-11-12 15:17:19]


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3978 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 23):
What's often overlooked when comparing the C-5 to the 747 is the C-5s ability to squat, drop a ramp and let the cargo drive itself off the ramp. That makes for rapid deployment that an aircraft as tall as a 747 can't accomplish. It may seem like a small thing but it's not.

and the wings being on top probably help a lot with the kneeling, i forgot that is a limiting factor of the 747


25 TF39 : I think some of the answer lies in how future (and now current) wars are fought. The C-5 was designed to bring immediate supplies to contain a conflic
26 Seefivein : This is the same of some Congress members have mentioned. AT that time, economics played a bigger roll, the South east needed a boost - and they thou
27 Galaxy5007 : After the C-5B production, the tooling was all destroyed. There is no way in restarting the line that was shut down two decades ago. Hence the whole
28 KC135TopBoom : Perhaps the best option is a new build fleet of 55 B-747-8Fs, which would fall under the designation of C-45, as I think that is the next designation
29 Ex52tech : I think that the military should shut up and keep flying the C-5. They put 20,000 hrs on an airframe, and think its junk.
30 R2rho : The answer is... nothing will replace the C-5. At least not for a long time, I think. The problem is it ain't cheap! While it is certainly proving eff
31 MCIGuy : You pretty much nailed it. Even with the cost overruns, it's a whole lot cheaper than developing a new frame. As for Antonovs, I think that's just dr
32 PADSpot : Yes we did. But it did not became reality for the same reason as usual: Procurement strategy 1st priority: German Industry 2nd priority : EU Industry
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic What Will Replace The C-5?
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...
What Will Replace The Space Shuttle? posted Fri Jul 30 2004 07:10:16 by Tasha
What Will Replace E-3 Orions? posted Sun Apr 23 2006 10:05:15 by Zkpilot
What Will Be The Next Heavy Transport Helicopter posted Thu Dec 23 2004 22:49:03 by Keesje
What Class Did The The Forrestal Class Replace posted Mon Nov 7 2005 19:14:07 by 747400sp
Will We Ever Replace The Space Shuttle? posted Thu May 27 2004 08:31:52 by Lehpron
Will The C17 Replace The C141 @ March ARB? posted Mon Apr 12 2004 07:12:04 by Maiznblu_757
What Will The F-35s Be Called? posted Thu Apr 8 2004 12:05:23 by Greaser
What Carrier Will Relieve The Kennedy? posted Sun Jul 28 2002 05:00:56 by CX747
What Will Happen To The Boeing Jsf? posted Sat Oct 27 2001 12:24:08 by Flyinghighboy
When Will The Polish Air Force Replace The Migs? posted Tue Oct 2 2001 06:16:10 by YKA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format