Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?  
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

New wing : better performance, more fuel / range, GENX engines, maybe center gear..

Atlantic crossing with a good load but without an additional tanker, extra capacity.

Drew up this sketch a few weeks ago:



Maybe a better idea then C-17B? I don't see many other C-5 replacement alternatives on the horizon..

145 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Oh, I dunno, maybe about 50% bigger too? There are just some loads where the C-5 size is required, and the C-17 can't cut it. True, the C-17 can take up most of the loads for the C-5, but there will always be a need for a C-5, so virtually a 1 on 1 replacement will be a must.


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

Will the CH-47 and or the new USMC CH-53K fit on a C-17C, do they fit on a C-17A ?. If this happens do the 2 C-5C's go to AMARC or given to NASA since that was their sole purpose was to carry oversized rocket components.


I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
Will the CH-47 and or the new USMC CH-53K fit on a C-17C, do they fit on a C-17A ?.



Don't know about the CH53.


User currently offlineVenus6971 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1440 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 3):
Don't know about the CH53.

Almost seems better just to put them on a gator carrier and fly them off. Once you get to the AOR it probably takes about 8 hours plus just to hang the the swash plates and blades plus the first FCF before they are ready for combat, I think on the C-5 they also have to pull the swash plate and rotor transmission.



I would help you but it is not in the contract
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I still don't understand why say, a 748F wouldn't be the ideal C-5 replacement.

Of course a couple things won't fit in a 748F. But a hell of a lot can. In battle, payload-range is (should be) very important. The most modern design will win on that.

Is it just marketing that says a C-5 is tougher than a 744F? Or little-used landing specs or what?


User currently offlineMoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2296 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 5):
I still don't understand why say, a 748F wouldn't be the ideal C-5 replacement.

One of the biggest advantages a C-5 has over a 747 is the low deck height and ramp arrangement. Cargo can be off-loaded directly without the use of loaders. You can drive right on/off a C-5, you can't do that with a 747.



KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Moose135 (Reply 6):
One of the biggest advantages a C-5 has over a 747 is the low deck height and ramp arrangement. Cargo can be off-loaded directly without the use of loaders. You can drive right on/off a C-5, you can't do that with a 747.

For those needs the USAF can use the C-17. Also Boeing developed the Boeing Onboard Loading Device (BOLD) for the 747. It may need some updating but it could accomplish much of what the USAF needs when they operate from an airfield without a loader.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8401 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

When you can get 748Fs cheaper than other options, the question becomes why not. I agree having your own custom C-5M designed for your fleet is gangsta and conveys a lot of seriousness. But the 748 ... also a pretty serious jet... and, it was classically designed for that purpose.


But if your equipment / tanks are designed for the C-5 then I guess it's the only game in town. It gives the impression however that for serious deployments, it constantly needs tanker top-ups. And of course, that costs uber money (and new tankers!!)

Can and does the C-5 cover respectable leg distances? Or are we talking 3 refuelings on a long journey..


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 7):
Quoting Moose135 (Reply 6):
One of the biggest advantages a C-5 has over a 747 is the low deck height and ramp arrangement. Cargo can be off-loaded directly without the use of loaders. You can drive right on/off a C-5, you can't do that with a 747.

For those needs the USAF can use the C-17. Also Boeing developed the Boeing Onboard Loading Device (BOLD) for the 747. It may need some updating but it could accomplish much of what the USAF needs when they operate from an airfield without a loader.



 Wink


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Keesje (Reply 9):


 

Isn't this basically what the C5 does anyways? The nose gear "kneels" to let in the cargo, seems like they could do it with a slghtly modified 748


User currently offlineZANL188 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 3501 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting DL767captain (Reply 10):
Isn't this basically what the C5 does anyways? The nose gear "kneels" to let in the cargo, seems like they could do it with a slghtly modified 748

Clever pix of a kneeling 748. The extra length might make it a doable thing. 2 problems though, the cargo floor in the nose of the 747F is narrower than the main deck and the overhead height is less than the area aft of the cockpit.. This will leave a lot of volume unused where outsized and oversized cargo is concerned



Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 293 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

1. The C-5 already beat the 747, about 40 years ago. That it wasn't derived into a commercial success won't cause the AF to give up on the plane after all this time. They're basically still low hour frames, and no amount of logic can kill a well lobbied modernization program that can stretch 20 years to finally implement.

2. I've been killed for saying this, but what doesn't fit in the competitors is basically one thing, for all intents and purposes; an M-1 tank. Today, as opposed to 20, 30, or 40 years ago, we have M-1's pre-positioned in nearly all major theaters. Alternatively, even the next Hmmwv is going to be resistant to shaped charges. The V-22 will self-deploy.

Conclusion; The C-17 is a great idea, unless Boeing sees a way to finagle the flying wing into service around 2025-2030. It's basically their call.


User currently offlineCX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4453 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

The C-17C or a larger C-17 has been broached by Boeing to the Air Force several times. The USAF has turned them down though. What the USAF has done is purchase extended range C-17s. This has given the originally short legged design an increased range.

For the most part the USAF is happy with the transports that they have. The C-5 transports outsized cargo while the C-17s pick up other items. They transport items to the theater and C-130s take it from there. To some extent the C-17 pulls double duty. They not only provide inter-theater lift but intra-theater lift.

Recent articles have also stated that Lockheed is looking to widen the C-130 to meet the future needs of the Army. If that program goes forward (Big and long winded if) the USAF would seem to have its transport fleet in order for many years to come.



"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 2):
If this happens do the 2 C-5C's go to AMARC or given to NASA since that was their sole purpose was to carry oversized rocket components

The C-5C's were also used to transport the NAVYs DSRVS but both have been removed from active service with Mystic being held in mothball reserve till the NAVYs SRDRS has full capabilty around 2012, they can be transported by standard USAF airlift.



My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

[quote=CX747,reply=13]The C-17C or a larger C-17 has been broached by Boeing to the Air Force several times. The USAF has turned them down though. What the USAF has done is purchase extended range C-17s. This has given the originally short legged design an increased range.[/quote

How do you identify the extended range C-17As? By block number? I don't know of any series of the C-17 except the A series. And the mention of a C-17C in this thread is the first I've seen of an actual stretch proposal ... though I believe it has a lot of merit.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineSinlock From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1637 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

By Block number. First off the "ER" upgrade only added changed the range from 2400nm to 2800nm.
There was a time you could tell the A from the A-ER by looking at the body fairing before the main gear, The fairing on the right side was longer than the other side as the fairing encases the APU. On the A-ER both the fairings are the longer length. AFAIK most if not all of the A's have been retrofitted with the longer fairing.



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Joey Collura



[Edited 2008-10-11 16:29:19]


My Country can beat up your Country....
User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Sinlock (Reply 16):
First off the "ER" upgrade only added changed the range from 2400nm to 2800nm.

Will the rest of the fleet get upgraded to the "ER" configuration?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3392 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 12):
1. The C-5 already beat the 747, about 40 years ago

no it did not. The C5 and 747 never competed for the C5's role.

Now as far as civilian side they never really competed either. Most on the fact the C5 makes a terrible airliner and terrible civilian cargo plane.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I could see putting in a fuselage plug in or two. A new wing however would be very expensive. In case you havn't herad we are having a bit of a cash flow problem right now.  Wink

User currently offlineEA772LR From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2836 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 32767 times:

I don't think the USAF needs any C-5 replacement anytime soon. They're spending tons of money on a C-5 modernization program, dubbed the C-5M Super Galaxy. All new avionics, beefed up airframe for longer lifetime, and most importantly, better-more efficient engines. I like the idea of a C-17 'stretch', but I can't see it happening.
http://www.edwards.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/070226-F-9126Z-249.jpg
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/060610-F-0000K-004.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2007/articles/jan_07/cockpits/images/cockpits/c5m_full.jpg
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi...07/cockpits/cockpit-views/c5m.html



We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 18):
no it did not. The C5 and 747 never competed for the C5's role.

I believe you are wrong. The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter. Unfortunately Lockheed proposed the C-5 which won not only for its largeness, but also for its on the ground drive through capability.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 911 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Gsosbee:
I believe you are wrong. The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter. Unfortunately Lockheed proposed the C-5 which won not only for its largeness, but also for its on the ground drive through capability.

Nope, Boeing's entry into the contest was not the 747, BUT, the 747 which was developed afterwards did pick-up some design elements from their C-5 entry.

Quote:
All three industry designs incorporated high-wing configurations with four large turbofan engines in underwing nacelles and front and rear doors with ramps for flow-through loading and unloading. The Boeing and Douglas designs had conventional tail configurations, whereas the Lockheed design incorporated a T-tail configuration. The C-5 design submitted by Boeing was found to have superior aerodynamic cruise performance in the transonic wind-tunnel tests performed at Langley. Boeing's experience with the C-5 competition coupled with Boeing management's vision of the market-ability of jumbo civil transports (and interest from Pan American Airlines) led to the development of the Boeing 747, which enabled Boeing to dominate the world market with a new product line. Although the 747 was a completely new aircraft design (low wing, passenger-carrying civil aircraft), the general configuration influence of the earlier C-5 candidate is in evidence.

[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5-history.htm]GlobalSecurity.org C-5 Galaxy History[/url

[Edited 2008-10-14 19:16:34]

User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12336 posts, RR: 25
Reply 23, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 21):
I believe you are wrong. The 747 was Boeing's entry in the contest for the large military airlifter.

No, it was not.

From Stich's profile, here's what Boeing's entry looked like:



Not exactly a 747, eh?

Note the high wing, etc.

According to Joe Sutter, the only major idea they took from the CX-HLS competition was the high-bypass engine, and even that engine was different than the one used on the CX-HLS entry.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineGsosbee From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 825 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (5 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 32767 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 23):

Exactly the evolution of the 747. Thanks for the confirmation.


25 Oroka : But not the 747.
26 Revelation : Not correct. You might be able to say the cargo plane had some influence on 747, but I don't know any authoratative source that would say the 747 evo
27 JohnM : The flight station pic above is of an AMP modded plane, not RERP (M model). It has the original throttles, they are replaced with new whiz bang TBW jo
28 Galaxy5007 : They aren't going to replace the C-5 anytime soon. They are AMP modifying all the A models, and RERP modifiying all the B models and two C-models (as
29 Flighty : Exactamundo, they need to keep a watchful eye on their alternatives. It still seems to me the USAF could keep a fleet of say 30 748F pretty darn busy
30 Post contains images Areopagus : Here is a C-74 for you.
31 KC135TopBoom : No, the B-747 evolved from the B-367-80, to the KC-135 (B-717-100), to the B-707/B-720, to the B-727, and finally to the B-737. The B-747 did not evo
32 JohnM : Where did you see that? If the C-5As are going out to pasture, somebody should tell the AMP mod people to quite wasting our money and AMPing the A's.
33 Post contains links and images Keesje : Some are beyond repair.
34 Ha763 : The 747 was always meant to be a freighter once Boeing settled on the design. They felt that supersonic jets were going to take over the pax role ver
35 KC135TopBoom : The USAF is mostly through the process of retiring 50 C-5As. Another 10-15 C-5As may be added to the list. If that happens, that will only leave 10-2
36 StudeDave : No disrespect, but I have to disagree with you on this one. I have read somewhere (in more then one place) that the hump was/is there due to freight
37 ZANL188 : Check out chapter 11 of Clive Irvings book "Wide-body". Juan Trippe was convinced cargo would be as important in the future as pax were. Consequently
38 ZANL188 : Another book that discusses Pan Ams involvement and desire for a nose loading 747 freighter is Robert Serlings "Legend & Legacy" specifically chap. 1
39 Galaxy5007 : Where on earth did you get this info? They aren't retiring any other C-5As! The USAF retired the 66 and 67 models and 70-0450 and 70-0458. They tore
40 ZANL188 : USAF did exactly that with the C-141Cs, upgraded with a phaseout plan already in place.. Otherwise I concur with your comment - 'Boom has gotten into
41 Gsosbee : I agree, the plan right now is not to retire - the A's get the AMP only. However, everything will be up for discussion with the new administration who
42 JohnM : I think TopBoom you need to check your source and math. If Dover, Travis, Westover, and Stewart all have B models, thats lots more than 49 planes (th
43 Flighty : I like that rumor. It has a nice balanced feel to it.
44 Galaxy5007 : Westover wants to keep the C-5s, which is why they wanted the B models so bad. Stewart on the other hand did hint at the idea at getting C-17s IF the
45 Post contains links TropicBird : The plan I read for the C-5A's is that when the RERP program is complete (2010) then the USAF can go back and ask Congress to allow them to retire som
46 KC135TopBoom : There are a few additional things the USAF is considering here. The economy, and the effect the C-5A, with a current mission capable rate around 50%-
47 Flighty : That has got to be part of the cost calculation. New 747s have availability of >90% in the civilian world. The costs should be scaled accordingly. Fe
48 XT6Wagon : A 748 based tanker would make a wonderful deployment tanker. IE pack a whole bunch of people in who need to go somewhere, and use the remaining wiegh
49 Oroka : The USAF will never go for a 747XYZ because they cant jam tanks and other heavy equipment in it. The decks are not strong enough, the deck height is t
50 Studedave : I think you're missing the point. It's not about the tanks and stuff that can't fit. If you could use these birds to haul troops and smaller stuff--
51 PhilSquares : Where did you come up with that? Do you know what the floor loading limits on the 74F vs. the C5 are? I think you will find they're very close.
52 Galaxy5007 : I think he answered that question already in his post. I truely believe that some A models will collect dust in the desert. However, I don't think th
53 Post contains links KC135TopBoom : Perhaps. The B-747-400ERF does have more range than the B-747-8F. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747family/pf/pf_400erf_prod.html http://www.boeing
54 EA772LR : Buy 165 748Fs?? I can't imagine how much money that would cost...billions and billions and billions. Of course I am not in the military, therefore my
55 Spacepope : I count 12 there. The USAF initially retired 14 A models, and have scrapped at least one completely. Looks like these are from that initial batch of
56 Galaxy5007 : Only one "bad actor" was retired. 70-0458 was that bad actor, and had the most maintenance cost to Lackland AFB in FY 2002 compared to any other airc
57 ZANL188 : I'm sure they're close... but I know that the 747 lacks the tread/wheelways the C-17. C-5, C-130, and C-141 were designed with. A USAF 747F will need
58 Venus6971 : Most 747F that are contracted by AMC have the extra rails and stowage for them to go between civilian pallets to military sized ones.
59 ZANL188 : No doubt.... However having to use a subfloor is a pain in the backside, especially if you don't happen to have the pallets handy.... C-5, C-17, etc
60 PhilSquares : Well at my airline, we move rolling stock for the country's military. And it's done on the 744F with no problem at all.
61 ZANL188 : Try it with a 747 then try it with a C-5, C-17, etc. Then you'll see how poorly suited to the task the 747 is. 747 needs subfloor, loading vehicle/pl
62 Galaxy5007 : Those systems alone work at about a 90% MC rate, lol. The aft doors are the biggest pain in the butt! Some of the A models are restricted to not use
63 XT6Wagon : It wouldn't be hard at all for Boeing to build the planes with the proper floor structure from the start. If for some reason used planes are used, I
64 TexL1649 : I hear ya XT6Wagon, but remember when it comes time for delivery any USAF 747 will cost the taxpayer at least 1.5 times what Cathay/JAL/Lufthansa migh
65 ZANL188 : You may want to reconsider. 747s, even 747Fs, have relatively weak floors. On the freighters the load is transferred thru the pallet, to the roller s
66 Keesje : I strongly doubt a new cargo would have to to able to do everything a C-5 or C-17 can. C-17 can do MTB's etc & will fly for another 30-40 yrs. The bul
67 Flighty : It would have to. What you say seems logical. Another way to re-state what you have said (please correct me if wrong) but the C-5 and C-17 are extrem
68 Venus6971 : lets put into perspective the military does everything in a inefficient manner ( even killing people, IE using a hellfire to kill one guy when a well
69 Oroka : You are telling me that if you had the space, you would jam a M1A1 in a 747F with no concerns about the floor being able to support 55t is that small
70 PhilSquares : Calm down there.... My point was you are the one who commented on the floor loading. I asked if you did know what Fred's floor limits were and if you
71 ZANL188 : I'd like to see your source on that. You can drive deuce and a halfs, k-loaders, forklifts, etc on a C-5s floor with no covering or protection. I wou
72 Venus6971 : All wheeled vehicles I have ever seened loaded on a 747F or KC-10 were palletized and were moved around on a cargo movers installed on the aircraft u
73 STT757 : Ramstein wants them bad. The Memphis C-5s are spending the next few months here at McGuire AFB so they can complete construction of their new ANG bas
74 Galaxy5007 : Cool, you'll have to try and get me a couple of tail shots of each Memphis C-5 there if you can. 9018 and 9019 were just re-painted, and I still don'
75 Flighty : That's fine, and I am sure you are right. Maybe it is naive to think a newer airframe is make-or-break in the military world. In the civ world, yes,
76 Oroka : So, pinching pennies and getting an inferior aircraft is fine with you? For a military aircraft, what you can jam in it dimension wise is pretty impo
77 Gsosbee : M1A2's were ferried from Italy to Northern Iraq in 2003 via the C-17A (1 tank/airplane). Why would the C-17C be a lesser airplane?
78 Oroka : I dont know why I thought the C-17 wasnt wide enough for a M1A1... I thought I read somewhere that only the C-5 was wide enough for a M1A1. I retract
79 Gsosbee : No problem. The C-17 is space (v. weight) limited. It might not be able to haul some of the self-propelled howitzers; someone on the board should kno
80 PhilSquares : You seem to like to put words in my mouth! That is not what I said and please comment on what I write not what you think I write. How did I say penny
81 Venus6971 : This is the difference between civil and military rules about operating aircraft Got a brother who works mx for AA and sees some military attitude co
82 PhilSquares : ???? You lost me on that one. Rules have nothing to do with it. The aircraft I was flying was a 747F, enroute speed is ,84-85, while the C5 will do a
83 Venus6971 : Civilian use the most effecient way to make a buck, plus you almost seem to have the wing falling off before you don't take the acft. Where a C-5 cre
84 Galaxy5007 : We had a crew that wouldn't take an aircraft because the fridge didn't work, and another crew that wouldn't take another plane back to Travis without
85 Venus6971 : Back in my 89th days on C-137's galley items were a no go item before we left ADW but when things like coffee brewers went tango uniform we had a Mr
86 KC135TopBoom : Abort, abort, abort.................
87 Oroka : Odd, seems like your words... maybe I have my glasses on backwards or something? How many hummers did you transport, how many over sized cargo loads
88 PhilSquares : The C5, while somewhat capable of landing in austere fields, does so on a very rare occasion. That capability, while often cited as a requirement for
89 Oroka : But when it is needed, it is essential. Also, the USAF definition of 'austere' includes lack of loading/unloading equipment which the C-5 does regula
90 ZANL188 : Efficiency is relative to the mission the aircraft was designed to perform. Sure the 747 is more efficient when it flies from prepared airfields with
91 PhilSquares : You're missing my point. the C5, doesn't do that! Anyplace the C5 operates in and out of, currently, a 744F could operate there too. The 744F is 9.9
92 Oroka : Your telling me that in an aircraft that can handle what... 130 tons, they were only hauling 50, then bringing in airliners to haul more. Wow, that i
93 Galaxy5007 : I would sure like to see a 744F land in a sand pit, or on a glacier. The high floatation landing gear on the C-5 with 28 wheels distributing the weig
94 ZANL188 : I know who's missing the point and it isn't me. I can't count the number of times I 've handled C-5s at airfields that couldn't support 747s. Further
95 ZANL188 : Darn editting error won't let me edit messages with tags - anyway C-130 floor is rated at 50PSI full width, not just the treadways... My Bad.
96 Post contains links PhilSquares : Got a reference????? I do. Check this out http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita.../policy/army/fm/55-9/ch2.htm#fn2_2
97 ZANL188 : You bet, I got the C-5 -9. But your reference will make my point just as well... Show me where your 747 can do this: From your reference... Vehicles
98 Post contains links ZANL188 : Some additional info on 747 limitations from: http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/shared/media/epubs/AMCPAM24-2V2.pdf 6. Main Deck Pallet Configuration. Du
99 Post contains links TropicBird : Any need to strengthen the floor of a new build 747 for the USAF can be done. It will add some weight but that is offset with the increased capabiliti
100 Oroka : IIRC the Air Canada 744s (non-Canadian) had strengthened floors as part of a deal with the Canadian DOD in something similar to US CRAF. While no goo
101 ZANL188 : Only after the aerial port guys put in a subfloor for you.... oh and loaded the vehicles with a elevator loader...... oh and figured out a way to get
102 PhilSquares : ZANL188.................. Do you know what it means when you get to a base and see 3 C5's there and two are up on jacks???? It means the base only has
103 TF39 : To answer the OP's question: C-17C as. C-5 replacement. I'd go with the stretched/improved C-17. Basically, it's what the C-5B should have been. We al
104 Post contains links TropicBird : Although the C-17 & C-5 do not need a loader, to speed up the turns, it appears the AMC uses them extensively in Iraq & Afghanistan. According to the
105 Venus6971 : The advantage I saw personaly that the C-5 has over a C-17 is the nose door and kneeling system especially when you are trying to load a 40 ft semi tr
106 Revelation : It could, once! Harsh, but true! I thought the C-17 floor was strong enough for M1s. Wiki says "One of the larger pieces of rolling stock that this a
107 TF39 : Very true. And if the stretched C-17 could carry two of the M1 tanks (instead of one), any advantage the C-5 had would be gone. Even after seeing it
108 ZANL188 : Phil - I spent the better part of a career working C-5s / 747Fs on a daily basis. I'm well aware of the C-5s departure reliability problems, its home
109 PhilSquares : Do you understand that the capabilities you are saying are so mission essential are not used! You keep touting all the tremendous capabilities of the
110 Galaxy5007 : I also was amazed to see this. The kneeling system is VERY reliable, as its hydraulic powered. As you said, the original pneumatic kneeling system wa
111 Keesje : I think all of you are a bit right. Bad runway / heavy load capability probably will remain a requirement. On the vast majority of missions however t
112 Hawaiianhobo : I was just wondering where you saw in the -9 that the C-5's floor was rated at 50PSI? I don't doubt you or anything, but I'm pouring thru my -9 and I
113 Post contains images Keesje : I guess a C17-C would require a thourough systems update. Lessons learned from the C-17 can be incorporated. The bigger more optimized wing could redu
114 Mayor : And probably chained to a pallet, instead of roll on, ready to go.
115 Post contains links and images Mayor : But the point is, the C-5 HAS that capability, the 747F does not. Sometimes the a/c are designed with capabilities that are seldom used, but required
116 Seefivein : Agreed I believe that newer and stronger engines to come will dictate what will be the next line of transports, after all, that is the main reason fo
117 Oroka : Yeah, but consider all the equipment needed to load and unload the Hummer. The only equipment a C-5 needs to load a Hummer is a Hummer
118 Mayor : That was my point, too.
119 Mayor : I doubt that the C-5 would ever be used in any real world application of airdrops, except maybe a non-combat role. Fat Albert would make a lovely tar
120 Hawaiianhobo : Can somebody tell me when the first C-5M's are supposed to be delivered to Travis? I was told Dover was going to put their first Super Galaxy into ser
121 JohnM : It will be a long, long time before anyone else will get any M models. Only 3 M aircraft exist at this time, and the next batch to be modded has not e
122 Galaxy5007 : The original plan had the first one in Oct 2011. As John said though, the first production RERP hasn't even begun yet. Why that is, I don't know. I kn
123 HawaiianHobo : Man, 3-4 months seems like years when you see the same tail#'s out on the AMP spot day after day. We had/have this Wright-Pat bird sitting out there
124 Galaxy5007 : I agree. When we first started AMP at Dover, it was just one plane at a time, 6013, 6025, and then 5003. After that they went to three at a time and
125 HawaiianHobo : Well, if thats one thing I can say about our AMP ramp at Travis, is that its always full! From what I learned on my last deployment, the Westover bird
126 ZANL188 : I was looking for a way to compare the strength of C-5 floor to the 747 in terms of the PSI. I know that anything I can drive on the treadways of the
127 Galaxy5007 : Same with Dovers' AMP Ramp. The B-models that Westover have now, that were former Travis and Dover aircraft indeed have alot of K write-ups. The A-mo
128 HawaiianHobo : See, I thought that too, at first. You know, an obvious ploy to pull in more C-17's. But the more I look at it now, I see it as they're just giving u
129 Seefivein : HhhMmm After the way the election came out I can see some unbelievable support coming to replace what's out there. Other replacements for the C5's se
130 Galaxy5007 : Its the first Major upgrade to the C-5 Galaxy. The wing mod and torque deck mods were actually design flaws in the original construction, which had t
131 Seefivein : Is this becasue the Air Force will not allow it? agree Will the Air Force maindate that any new BIG transport be thier's - and only their's like the
132 Galaxy5007 : Its because the AF won't supply the manning for it. Lockheed won't supply the manning for it because once the planes are fixed, then they are out of
133 Post contains links Seefivein : Lockheed Martin Delivers First C-5M Super Galaxy http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/p...008/12092008ae_c5m_robins-afb.html
134 Gsosbee : IMHO, the fury against the KC-X being perceived as a Euro airplane would pale to the rage if they tried to purchase a Ukranian airplane. The general p
135 Galaxy5007 : I think you posted in the wrong thread... Its probably 9024 they delivered. 9024 is going to go through a routine PDM before getting delivered to Dov
136 Post contains links Seefivein : More C5 bashing read the article and in it they say the C17's are only 200 million - more misrepresentation but the good point is in the article that
137 Post contains links Seefivein : Some C17 bashing http://www.cdi.org/program/document....d&ProgramID=37&from_page=index.cfm
138 Post contains links Seefivein : scroll down about 3/4's the way down. http://www.correntewire.com/tags/cheney If a C5 was used instead, a full size Rv would do the trick -- but we al
139 Galaxy5007 : The plus side is Cheney go bye bye in less than a month. Biden Loves the C-5, and has supported Dover AFB tenfold. Thats a good thing for the C-5, esp
140 Gsosbee : Unfortunately Biden doesn't know the nose from the tail. The 5B's will be fine as 5M's. It is the A model that the discussion is all about. I am not
141 ZANL188 : Why is that Greg? They've worked well in both Gulf War I & II...... We don't fly pallets of logistics into contested airfields... vehicles & troops y
142 KC135TopBoom : The CRF is required by contracts to support military cargo and passenger operations where ever the USAF sends them to. The CRF also gets DOD funds to
143 Gsosbee : Control of the air. If you can be assured that there will always be total air dominance, relying on the CRF and the civilians is a viable option. You
144 ZANL188 : Yes but why, as you state, can CRF not be relied upon? Where control of the air is lacking even military airlift becomes unreliable.... Air Superiori
145 Gsosbee : The US might be able to takeover the airplanes, but they cannot force any airline/cargo carrier to provide crews to active areas. A lot of airplanes
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Boeing C-17C As C-5 Galaxy Replacement?
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...
V-22 As A C-2 Greyhound Replacement? posted Wed Nov 11 2009 20:30:02 by 747400sp
C-5 Galaxy Replacement posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:59:13 by 747400sp
Kawasaki XP-1 As YS-11 Replacement posted Wed May 26 2010 17:36:07 by DEVILFISH
US Considers A380 As AF1 And C-5 Replacement! posted Wed Oct 17 2007 04:08:39 by LifelinerOne
Boeing May Use Antonov An-72 As Platform For FCA B posted Fri Jan 20 2006 20:48:53 by Atmx2000
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:10:29 by N328KF
Boeing KC-46A Tanker Passes Initial Design Review posted Wed May 9 2012 07:59:58 by Stitch
Usaf Retires First Boeing C17 Globemaster III posted Fri Apr 27 2012 04:17:08 by 747classic
RAF 6 Boeing Sentry E3D Grounded posted Sat Apr 14 2012 13:22:51 by gingersnap
Boeing Phantom Eye Taxi Tests posted Tue Mar 13 2012 09:51:54 by kanban
V-22 As A C-2 Greyhound Replacement? posted Wed Nov 11 2009 20:30:02 by 747400sp
C-5 Galaxy Replacement posted Fri Jul 28 2006 22:59:13 by 747400sp
Kawasaki XP-1 As YS-11 Replacement posted Wed May 26 2010 17:36:07 by DEVILFISH
US Considers A380 As AF1 And C-5 Replacement! posted Wed Oct 17 2007 04:08:39 by LifelinerOne
Boeing May Use Antonov An-72 As Platform For FCA B posted Fri Jan 20 2006 20:48:53 by Atmx2000
Boeing Willing To Use 787 As Tanker posted Wed Sep 14 2005 16:10:29 by N328KF
Boeing KC-46A Tanker Passes Initial Design Review posted Wed May 9 2012 07:59:58 by Stitch
Usaf Retires First Boeing C17 Globemaster III posted Fri Apr 27 2012 04:17:08 by 747classic
RAF 6 Boeing Sentry E3D Grounded posted Sat Apr 14 2012 13:22:51 by gingersnap
Boeing Phantom Eye Taxi Tests posted Tue Mar 13 2012 09:51:54 by kanban

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format