galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 2:55 am



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
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:03 am

and here's a better hi res pic

"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
zak
Posts: 1926
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:23 am

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
10=2
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 7:32 am

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
Posts: 5351
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:02 am

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
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 8:02 am

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.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
wannabe
Posts: 652
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 1999 3:37 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Fri Dec 12, 2003 1:15 pm

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
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Sat Dec 13, 2003 12:47 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
jwenting
Posts: 9973
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2001 10:12 pm

RE: What Figher Planes Would Have Been Available?

Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:14 am

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.
I wish I were flying
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Sat Dec 13, 2003 7:28 pm

USAF and Army are already using An124´s in Iraq ....

Cut back like these are a result of the end of the cold war and changing global politics / conflicts
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Sun Dec 14, 2003 2:20 am

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
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:16 am

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 .....


http://www.aeronautics.ru/img/img005/an-225_charter_us_army.jpg

Changing realities in the post-cold war commercial environment I guess,
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:21 am

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
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 12:16 pm

"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.
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 5:48 pm

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..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 7:19 pm

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
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:53 pm

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
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 9:56 pm

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.
 
keesje
Posts: 8867
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Mon Dec 15, 2003 11:13 pm


Well perhaps its the fact antonovs can pull more g's...

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3183
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Dec 16, 2003 1:14 pm

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?

T.J.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
IMissPiedmont
Posts: 6200
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 12:58 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Dec 16, 2003 2:32 pm

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.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
The day you stop learning is the day you should die.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Dec 16, 2003 9:55 pm

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
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:21 am

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
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Dec 30, 2003 8:41 am

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.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Dec 30, 2003 10:55 pm

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
 
LMP737
Posts: 4859
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Wed Dec 31, 2003 12:35 am

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 bids.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 pm

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 C17 has terrible long range performance. The C5 nor the C141 never had this problem.
 
cancidas
Posts: 3985
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 7:34 am

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Tue Jan 13, 2004 1:19 pm

doesn't the C-17 have a lot of technical problems too, in addition to the bad range?
"...cannot the kingdom of salvation take me home."
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: C-5 Mothball News

Thu Jan 15, 2004 2:54 pm

I dont know, but, the major technical problem is the range.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests