User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Jan 23, 2005 5:58 am

My understanding (from Aviation Week) was that the follow-on order for 42-56 C-17s for USAF was to be placed in the 2nd quarter of this year. It had to be done by then to prevent a line shutdown. Anyone know the progress of this? The fifth RAF C-17 was to be ordered at the same time, right?

[Edited 2005-01-22 21:59:23]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
Blackbird1331
Posts: 1740
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:47 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:58 am

I can not answer your question, but, this is a good program and I doubt it will end abruptly. I would like to see a civilian version of the C17. This is interesting because it involves the military V. private sector interests. Consider the argument that Airbus gets subsidies and Boeing does not. Did the Boeing C17 program get financial assistance? Does the US government actually own the rights to the C17?
Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13201
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:31 am

McGuire AFB (nearby) received their first of 13 C-17s this past fall, perhaps they will add another Wing to the McGuire fleet?.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Jan 23, 2005 11:15 am

STT757:

Well, they will probably replace more C-141s in-place. And perhaps augment C-5As as well. However, 14 of them are destined for USSOCOM as MC-17s to replace the MC-141s. The other 42 are for AMC. Now, I don't know if the 14 USSOCOM units have been ordered yet or not, but I don't think so.

[Edited 2005-01-23 03:15:45]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
CX747
Posts: 5576
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Jan 23, 2005 12:52 pm

It is good to hear that this airframe continues to garner orders. Is there any possibility of an increase in the number of C-17s based at McGuire?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
FlagshipAZ
Posts: 3192
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 12:40 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:23 am

Per my latest issue (1/17/05) of Aviation Week, the C-17 Has enough orders to keep the line open at LGB thru 2011. The USAF will probably get all 222 C-17s that they want. Currently they have approximately 110-115 birds. And the RAF will get their 5th C-17 as well. Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Jan 24, 2005 3:52 am

FlagshipAZ:

The problem wasn't the line itself. It was long-lead items.

And my Aviation Week from last July mentioned the delivery of USAF C-17 #121.

[Edited 2005-01-23 19:52:53]
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:27 am

As a C5 pilot, the plane is the most useless airlifter the AF has ever invested in. it can't make it across the ocean with a full cargo load, it can't hold enough fuel, so it either has to hit a tanker, or stop for gas somewhere. And if it has the center wing tank mod it then limits the amount of Cargo weight and also reduces it from an oversized airlifter to a C141 in basic terms. The military should cancel its orders and buy 747-400s or how about 777 cargo planes? How about bail out some airline companies and buy their older 747s and DC-10s and paint them gray and use them. Hell for 40 million a bird the C5s can be re-fitted with new engines and glass cockpits. We carry three times what a C17 carries and can fly 3 times as far without even a full fuel load! To answer some of your questions though, because Boeing is the only large scale US plane company the AF plans to buy 180+, but has not approved the 222, and might not. Maguire will have a full two squadrons of C17s, Dover AFB is getting a Squadron of them as is Travis AFB. There is talk of placing them in Alaska and in Hawaii as well. Makes sense to put a strategic airlifter in the middle of the ocean right.....The reason why no one has seen a civilian version flying around is because of its shortfalls with fuel and its tremdous overhead cost, no one wants it. A DC-10 carries more pallets, an old 747 carries even more pallets, almost as much as the C5. So who would waste money on something that can carry only 18 pallets, and with that much cargo can't make it anywhere without a fuel stop?
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:56 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
it can't make it across the ocean with a full cargo load, it can't hold enough fuel, so it either has to hit a tanker, or stop for gas somewhere.

So are you saying that the next time you come thru my base I'll be able to put 209,000LBS of cargo on your aircraft (without getting a waiver) and you can go straight to Moron without hitting a tanker? That'll be the day...

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
And if it has the center wing tank mod it then limits the amount of Cargo weight

So what? If you put additional tanks on the C-5 you'll have the same result.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
The military should cancel its orders and buy 747-400s or how about 777 cargo planes?

Ever trying getting a Stryker or M1 on a 747? Not happening pal. What 777 cargo planes? No such animal. How about delivering airborne troops -- that's not going to happen on a 74 or a C-5.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
We carry three times what a C17 carries and can fly 3 times as far without even a full fuel load!

C-5 can't take a full tank of gas and still carry a worth while load....

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
The reason why no one has seen a civilian version flying around is because of its shortfalls with fuel and its tremdous overhead cost, no one wants it

And there are no civilian C-5s flying around because ...?

And why don't you tell everybody why the C-5 needs those new engines and avionics? Will RERP/AMP do anything for the hydraulics? Will C-5s with broke kneeling systems still show up at my base unable to load items that need a low ramp crest?

The C-5 is a unique machine and and USAF needs it, but it will never match the reliability and flexibility of the C-17.

regards-- a retired USAF air transporter/load planner/airlift validater
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:56 am

 Smile
Just for your understanding of why we in the C5 are sick of the C 17 and think its a waste.
1. There is no way a C17 can carry 219,000 pounds of cargo, and the C5 actually can. There aren't many runways long enough to get off the ground with our antiquted engines with that much cargo and fuel to fly very far, but with a max gross weight of 840 thousand pounds wartime, We could get pretty far if we have to. If you do the numbers, 380K is the planes empty weight, 209K cargo, so 589K, put 250K of gas and you have 839,000 pounds. So pretty much, if we hve the runway we can do it, and I have, out of Moron Air Base during the hieght of the War, 832,000 pounds, made it from Spain to Kuwait 8 hours without any fuel stop. Looks like we can do it, and I did.
2. We dont need additional fuel tanks on the C5, we can carry the gas and if we get our new engines we will be able to take a normal cargo load out of Charleston (130K, 36 pallets) and a normal fuel load and never need the tanker, easily. So why would we even consider new fuel tanks, the C5 was actually a decent design in that respect.
3. Most of what we in AMC are carrying are smaller equipment right now or pallets, when we carry the outsized cargo AMC calls upon the C5 usually or a C17 if it needs a smaller amount moved. So why wouldn't we buy used 747s for the pallets? And I know there are no 777 cargo planes, but Boeing should make them, be a good replacement for the MD 11s and DC 10s!
4. A C5 can take a full load of gas, 332K and still take 125K on cargo if waived to wartime weights (which we are now) if the base has a decent runway, see number one.
5. As far as our problems with breaking, when you divert all of AMCs funds to one plane the others break (my friend a KC 10 pilot has noticed the reliability of that plane fall the last 5 years as well). The C5 parts aren't timed anymore, the plane is on a "fly to fail" mentality which means they don't replace anything until the part actually breaks. It usually breaks at the worst possible time. Try driving a 1967 Chevy and never doing anything to it until it breaks. Chances are it won't go that far. And don't think those C17s are that reliable. I can count half a dozen times in the last year I have brought them parts to forward locations to help them get off the ground. There were no C5 in the civilian world cause at the time of it's inception it wasn't needed, and with its crappy kneeling system no one would want it, just like the C17 its a better military plane than civilian.
But the C5 is a better and far more diverse cargo carrier than the C17. We can airdrop pallets and then troops, but we don't anymore cause AMC got sick of the C5 showing up the C17 drops, the C5 still holds the record for the heaviest drop. We can back up too, but they don't want us to because AMC doesn't want to chance something breaking on the plane. we can load at both ends, the C5 was designed to land and drive around on unprepared surfaces and can easily, it has a smaller footprint than a C17. And as far and the whole short takeoff and landing thing, I will give it to the C17, but last night with a gross weight of 589,000 pounds we landed here in Rota and our landing distance was less than 2500 feet. Aren't too many planes with 24 brakes, we may not get off the ground well, but we can stop better than just about anything!

I am not sure the length of your runway "at your base" But to be honest, the C17 isnt all it was supposed to be and it is not a premier airlifter by any means of the imagination, unless you are work for Boeing or are a General who wants a new toy. There was a reason why in the 80s the military said no, but apparently someone wanted to get another star and reintorduced the idea. We have takers that are rotting away and cargo planes (141s) that were doing fine and yet the rotting planes are flying still and the good planes with all new avionics are in the boneyard. That's some brilliant thinking. Sure the C5s are falling apart, and with the Engines and avionics the Hydraulics will still be there, but thinking the C17 is the answer to the US militarys airlift needs, not even close.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:34 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
1. There is no way a C17 can carry 219,000 pounds of cargo, and the C5 actually can. There aren't many runways long enough to get off the ground with our antiquted engines with that much cargo and fuel to fly very far, but with a max gross weight of 840 thousand pounds wartime, We could get pretty far if we have to. If you do the numbers, 380K is the planes empty weight, 209K cargo, so 589K, put 250K of gas and you have 839,000 pounds.

Trouble is your users (me) can't put 209K of cargo on the C-5, we can't even put 150K on it. We are limited to 135K. If I can get a waiver from AMC (rare, only granted when it's to AMCs advantage) yeah I can got to 209

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
3. Most of what we in AMC are carrying are smaller equipment right now or pallets, when we carry the outsized cargo AMC calls upon the C5 usually or a C17 if it needs a smaller amount moved. So why wouldn't we buy used 747s for the pallets? And I know there are no 777 cargo planes, but Boeing should make them, be a good replacement for the MD 11s and DC 10s!

DOH!! The way AMC justified the C-17s & C-5s was to justify flying the outsized by air!! Congress will be very interested to learn AMC doesn't need that capability anymore. Yeah there's a role for 747s to fly pallets -- it's called CRAF! If you have to ask what that stands for you have no business in this discussion.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
4. A C5 can take a full load of gas, 332K and still take 125K on cargo if waived to wartime weights (which we are now) if the base has a decent runway, see number one.

125K payload is a waste of an airframe. Figure 22K for 73 pax & bags leaves only 102K for cargo which amounts to a couple of frontend loaders and a couple of pallets. Still plenty of room for the loads to play football on the main deck.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
5. As far as our problems with breaking, when you divert all of AMCs funds to one plane the others break (my friend a KC 10 pilot has noticed the reliability of that plane fall the last 5 years as well). The C5 parts aren't timed anymore, the plane is on a "fly to fail" mentality which means they don't replace anything until the part actually breaks. It usually breaks at the worst possible time. Try driving a 1967 Chevy and never doing anything to it until it breaks. Chances are it won't go that far. And don't think those C17s are that reliable. I can count half a dozen times in the last year I have brought them parts to forward locations to help them get off the ground. There were no C5 in the civilian world cause at the time of it's inception it wasn't needed, and with its crappy kneeling system no one would want it, just like the C17 its a better military plane than civilian.

Dude!! The C5s mission capable rate sucked big fat ones when AMC had money! No doubt it got worse when the money went away. That's why there's C-5s getting scrapped at DM for spares! Sure I've seen C-17s break, but I don't have to plan for them breaking like I do a C-5. And the C-17 will usually do it enroute, whereas the typical C-5 has a hard time leaving home station. How do your home station and enroute departure reliability rates stack up against the C-17s? Poorly I bet....

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
But the C5 is a better and far more diverse cargo carrier than the C17. We can airdrop pallets and then troops, but we don't anymore cause AMC got sick of the C5 showing up the C17 drops,

So the C-5s poor ontime reliability record for picking up the Army had nothing to do with it? Yeah right....

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
the C5 still holds the record for the heaviest drop.

Big whoop. No doubt that it has that kind of record. Trouble is AMC won't use the capability.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
We can back up too, but they don't want us to because AMC doesn't want to chance something breaking on the plane.

There's a lot of things AMC won't let the C-5 do for fear of breaking something. Back up, using congested airfields, using contested airfields, etc

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
we can load at both ends

When it ain't broke it can. My personal experience: 1 in 3 can't load at both ends. And we never know which we're going to get so we don't plan to use that capability.

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 9):
the C5 was designed to land and drive around on unprepared surfaces and can easily,

Have you ever done it? AMC doesn't operate the C-5 that way and hasn't since shortly after they started to operate them.

I was one of your airlift customers. I dealt with all kinds of airlift and all kinds of airlift users. In my world, C-5 has a shitty reputation and for the most part it's deserved. My God man the design was so poor they had to replace the wing! Replace the wing! On the other hand it has capabilities no other airlifter does. Most C-5 crews are aware of it's strengths and weaknesses and will play to them. But every so often I got a C-5 crew that was in it's own world and would "plan" their malfunctions for primo spots --
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:52 am

True, there are C5 crews that do plan and use the C5 rep to break, not me. I am only flying OIF missions and I work damn hard, yesterday I flew here to Spain from Travis, had one mission writeup that wasn't essential and the plane went downrange and back already. You have some bad experience, my last 2 week mission was 8 legs long and 4 times both ends were opened and we were knelt 3 times. Not a single break. It is people like you and your bad stories that put the image of it in other peoples heads. You only remember bad things, or do you have anything good to say about the airframe?
Also for you understanding, the wing was changed not by lockheed but by washington under the original plan to keep costs down and at the time the thought that they would replace the fleet in 20 years anyways. It was a mistake and that is why Lockheed put the original designed wing on the B models and redid all the A models.
Im not sure how 120K is a useless load, considering 36 pallets usually weighs about that much when we go to Charleston (why they have the C17s there which I counted 24 of last night on the ramp). All I know is my home station reliability rate right now is over 80% and the C5 worldwide is 78%, those arent bad numbers considering the newest one is almost 20 years old. Lets wait and see how reliable the C17 is in 20 years. I wonder why the c5s are landing in Charleston all the time and taking max loads out of there when its a C17 base they are so preferred?
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:56 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 11):
I wonder why the c5s are landing in Charleston all the time and taking max loads out of there when its a C17 base they are so preferred?

Because the funding for that mission was changed to the C-5 to give everyone a piece of the pie. KC-10s go to Charelston for the Soto cano runs, it doesn't mean the C-17 can't do it or does it poorly. But right now the 10 has it, next year it'll probably change again.
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:01 am

Really, didn't realize that at all. there are a lot of planes there not just C5s, all the Atlas/World/evergreen guys land there too. It is though rather disparaging to land and count that many tails and then be told by TACC how the C17 is the premeir Strategic Airlifter!
do you think the 10 has lost its Gucci status?
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:27 am

No worries. But TACC is in mushroom mode anyway, I wouldn't trust them to not steal my wallet if I'm drowning in a river. The missions AMC does change constantly, both with demand and funding. The 10s used to do A7s and YSIDs back in the day, then A7s went to the FREDs IIRC and YSIDs went to Barney. Now YSIDs are back in the 10 and A7s are now G4s or something and back in the 10. All this stuff changes and has more money and politics written all over it than congress. It's a battle just keeping your head above the water.

Most definitely. But look at what she's suffered through the last decade. Alot has to do with constant desert rotations and a lack of TLC, but alot also has to do with the bases. I just came from mcguire, and although mx guys do miracles over there, the quality of the jets here at SUU is leaps and bounds above what I was used to at the m to the g. 3 or 4 pages of 781Ks were normal there. Not here. Not even mentioning how much cleaner and nicer looking (both exterior and interior) SUU tails are, sts
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:32 am

YES
I am a KSUU pilot too and the difference between Dover C5s and the Travis ones are remarkable. I find that when I am on a Dover tail in the system I can assume I will break (as the last one I flew I had to shut the engine down 300 miles off the coast of Canada, but I still flew it all the way to Dover!) and the Travis tails will fly, like the one I flew here to Spain last night, two legs, 13+ hours and only ONE write up. Maybe I should bag on just Dover C5s, hell I would even agree with someone who talked bad about them and not the Travis Tails. Why is it the West Coast 10s and 5s are running better, think the weather has an effect? I agree, the desert is destroying the planes!
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:36 am

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 1):
I would like to see a civilian version of the C17.

There was a civilian MD-17 project but there were no takers. The airplane does not have adequate operating economics for civilian applications. Its range is not good enough to make it across the water with a full load, and civil operators can carry more pallets for less money with an MD-11 or a 747F. When they need to carry outsize loads they can always charter a military aircraft, but that need is fairly rare, and seems to be well met by existing aircraft with companies such as Volga-Dnepr. If there was a desire for them UPS or FedEx had, and probably still could, have their opportunity.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:26 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 7):
The military should cancel its orders and buy 747-400s or how about 777 cargo planes? How about bail out some airline companies and buy their older 747s and DC-10s and paint them gray and use them.

We both know the chances of the USAF canceling it's C-17 orders are pretty slim. Now let's say the USAF does cancel the remaining C-17 orders and goes with your suggestion. The 777F is still a paper airplane that has yet to fly. In addition you will not have the capability to carry roll-on-roll off equipment like the C-17. The 747-400 can carry a ton of stuff as we all know. If I'm not mistaken you can put vehicles and certain equipment on it through the nose. However it can't be more than eight feet tall. In other words no heavy vehicles or helicopters like the Blackhawk. Another thing about the 747-400F and 777F. When you're flying all that cargo you are going to need a 12000ft runway. Unimproved fields nees not apply.

Older 747 and DC-10's can be attractive due to their low price. However they come with their own set of issues. Number one is finding suitable airframes. A lot of your DC-10's out there are in service with companies like FedEx. The one's that you find that are suitable might/will have a lot of hours on them. Which means they won't have as long a service life as a new airframe. Then you have to take into account that these aircraft will have come form different carriers. This means different equipment, engine, effectivities etc. This can be a tremendous pain in the butt and can prove to be expensive in the long run. Then you have to look at the cost of maintaining these older aircraft. As someone who has worked on twenty five year old DC-10's I can attest to their temperamental nature.

Then don't forget you will be adding another type aircraft to the USAF transport fleet which will drive up your costs.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:19 pm

I totally agree with what you are saying, it would help but in the long run I think using companies like Evergreen and Atlas is a far smarter solution to the AF needing to move Pallet cargo. As far as the C17, its no bargain either at what 250+ million to move 18 pallets with a fuel stop? Or fly two airplanes to get that one C17 and its 18 pallets to its destination? But on the issue of Outsized, your right, the C17 is a smarter choice. But don't let them fool you, they don't land on unprepared surfaces either, very very rare, we let the little and very tough little C130s do all that fun stuff. Pretty much the C5 and the C17 are going to the same places in Iraq right now, barring a few that don't have the ramp space for a C5. To make things more cost effective with the planes the AF has they should consider the 40 million a bird for the C5 Engines and new Avionic upgrades! In the long run it will save them money in gas and parts!
 
N1641
Posts: 201
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 2:10 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 22, 2005 11:54 pm

C-17 vs. C-5? arent they 2 totally different missions?, wouldnt a 747 replace a C-5 before it replaced the -17, C-5= carry a whole lot of stuff somewhere, C-17= carry not as much but do into crappy little strips in a war time environment? I suppose you could just have the C-5 bring its tons of stuff into Baghdad Intl then let a billion 50 year old C-130's deliver it to all the little fields in Iraq.
 
LMP737
Posts: 4810
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:19 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 18):
totally agree with what you are saying, it would help but in the long run I think using companies like Evergreen and Atlas is a far smarter solution to the AF needing to move Pallet cargo.

I'm not exactly sure what you are agreeing with me on. Maybe a little clarification might help.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:39 am

Im agreeing with the thought of older airplanes wouldn't solve the AF problem of moving cargo and that the Commercial carriers do a good job and get things done just as well, but that they can't go in country.
The C5 and C17 mission is very close to the same thing right now. Both are considered Strategic, although one was built and designed for tactical airlift. What we do now, and I can say this cause I have landed a C5 personally in Iraq over 40 times now, is bring in A LOT of stuff, rolling stock (trucks tanks etc) and pallets and then it gets dispersed from there. There are a limited amount of fields we can land at because of the ramp space and destruction we did to them when the war started. It's not new news that the C5 goes to Baghdad, that's where one was shot and hit (they shoot at us a lot but thankfully miss). Although the C5 was never intended to fly into such hostile areas we are now because it saves lives, every C5 that lands is roughly 3 convoys that don't have to happen. We have so much equipment and resupply to get there that all AMC assets move it. A lot of times we pick up equipment in Kuwait brought there by the Commercial movers to and bring that up into country as well.
A 747 could never replace a C5, it doesn't kneel (you'd be hard pressed to find something to lift a Abrahms tank etc.) The 747 also can't fit the oversized cargo a C5 can. The plane is remarkable but still would never be able to do what the C5 does, a reason why the military chose it over the 747, although it looks like Boeing won out on that deal as time went on!
The 130s are great, but they usually can't carry what we bring in country, so we are landing there on a regular basis, loaded to the max, just like the C17s. the 130s are doing a lot of Intratheater stuff, but the C5 and C17 is where the bulk of the cargo is coming in on!
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:08 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 11):
You have some bad experience, my last 2 week mission was 8 legs long and 4 times both ends were opened and we were knelt 3 times. Not a single break. It is people like you and your bad stories that put the image of it in other peoples heads. You only remember bad things, or do you have anything good to say about the airframe?

Fredplt,

The C-5 has a bad rep. AMC knows it, the airlift users know it, I know it, and you know it. I have been in the airlift business 23 years and have simply learned to plan for the C-5 being late, broke, etc. Fact of life for folks working with the C-5.

regards
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:08 am

So how about the Boeing 747 LCF design for transporting 787 sectoins? Could it find a home in the military?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 9:58 am

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 23):
So how about the Boeing 747 LCF design for transporting 787 sectoins? Could it find a home in the military?

No. Again there is no way to easily get heavy equipment on or off at an austere location. Commercial aircraft, AN124 & L100 aside, just can't do it.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
dl021
Posts: 10836
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:04 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:01 am

I think that idea is so new that the planners at Sodom-on-Potomac have yet to start analyzing it.

It would be useful for outsize loads perhaps, but there would be zero ro/ro at unprepared fields (I mean airports without the necessary loading eqpt.) and there is not a good way to set it up for aerial refuelling.

That airplane is pretty specific purpose wise and while it may have uses it is probably too limited for the USAF to plan on using them. I would not be surprised to see Boeing make enough to charter them out.
Is my Pan Am ticket to the moon still good?
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:36 pm

SATL382G its obvious you have an issue with the C-5 ive seen you post many times that you don't like it, But again your posts are way off base, i don't care how long you say you've load planned C-5's you are wrong in your make believe cargo weight waiver. Ive talked to numerous people about it from TACC to local TALCE, they have yet to hear about any cargo limit waiver for 209,000lbs or your latest 135,000lbs. Ive been flying the C-5 for over tens years now and the only weight waivers we need are for those going over 769,000lbs or when the aircraft weight exceeds the PCN/ACN/WBC of the field. Also sure the C-5 breaks, show me an airplane that doesn't, for every C-5 thats broken down somewhere i can guarantee you that theres a C-130, C-141 and C-17 waiting for a part in the world as well. Ive been flying into the AOR pretty regular for the last few months (one of the main reasons ive been not posting here) and guess what, the C-5s have been flying non-stop in country with a very high reliability rate, hey get rid of those silly chap4 restrictions and the C-5 rate goes to almost 100% (except for the occasional ground fire and missle strike). "When it ain't broke it can. My personal experience: 1 in 3 can't load at both ends. And we never know which we're going to get so we don't plan to use that capability." again what a bunch of crap statement, hardly any missions have door problems, and if they did they wouldn't leave their home base with one, and even if they did you could still load practically the same cargo, as the deck angle and openings at both ends are pretty much the same.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Thu Mar 24, 2005 2:41 pm

Fredplt,

I know you mean well, but you really need to think hard about what you're saying on the net. Read your last post and think like a terrorist.... Especially after reading the second and last sentences. Sure everyone knows they're coming in eventually, but you might as well copy and paste some form 59s. Or maybe post an ICAO workload sheet from GDSS.

Think harder next time you post
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:48 pm

Yeah, no one can see the C5s on the ramp out there, so hard to see them sitting in broad daylight at an international airport.
You are right though my bad. I need to re read these things before I post them.
 
c17loadmstr
Posts: 87
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2001 4:21 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:44 pm

I was at that location for a month working as a duty loadmaster. Yes, you can see all the planes on the ramp driving down the interstate. But one thing I didn't see while driving by each day was the departure schedule posted on a road side sign. Unlike that particular base, the forum isn't secure. Think good OPSEC.
There are 3 types of people. Those who can count, and those who can't.
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Thu Mar 24, 2005 4:50 pm

I get the point, I wrote it when I was tired after about a 18 hour day with no sleep. I understand and I regret it now. I was here for three months myself last year and it is easy to see them on the highway and easy to ehar them taxiing out for takeoff but I was wrong in what I said period. I am sorry, and I regret what I said. I can't even believe I put it there, just shows what stupid things people do when they are tired.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:17 pm

Quoting Galaxy5 (Reply 26):
SATL382G its obvious you have an issue with the C-5 ive seen you post many times that you don't like it, But again your posts are way off base, i don't care how long you say you've load planned C-5's you are wrong in your make believe cargo weight waiver. Ive talked to numerous people about it from TACC to local TALCE, they have yet to hear about any cargo limit waiver for 209,000lbs or your latest 135,000lbs

Dude -- Check AFI 10-403, Your bases Installation Deployment Guide (XAFBI 10-403), Your MAJCOM airlift planning guide, your installation logistics planners, the loadmasters that teach the AMC affiliation course, and with the bookies at TACC. No more than 135K without a waiver from AMC.

If I tell TACC I have 450K of pax/cargo to move, and they send C-5s, they will send 4 airframes. They won't send 2 or 3 they'll send 4.

I don't have a problem with the C-5 that does it's mission within it's limitations.
I do have a problem with crewmembers whose heads are too big for their flight suits, who don't know the airlift system, and who assume that since they don't know than nobody on the ground knows either.

Try expanding your horizons a bit and talk to some folks who aren't wearing a zipper suit.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:47 am

SATL382G Get your head out of your own ass, there is nothing that says a normal operational C-5 is restricted from carrying any weight over what you claim, no waivers required what so ever. Take some of your own silly advice and do some research and quit acting like an arrogant prick with a grudge against aircrew and a certain airframe, becuase thats all you sound like. And to those in the know, you obviously don't know what your talking about.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:56 am

galaxy5 is right, I just showed some of my loadmasters that message by SAT382G and they started laughing. And for those of you worried about my opsec slip, that message was deleted, thanks for watching my back!
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Fri Mar 25, 2005 12:49 pm

As an un-qualified affiliation instructor take what I say with a grain of salt.....

What SATL382G is saying, is that for peacetime planning purposes the C-5 is restricted to 150K. Every other airlifter in AMC there are restrictions for how much cargo you can plan to load on it. Barney's is 90K.

Again, the airframe is capable of carrying more, but for planning purposes, it's restricted to these numbers. So in this case, SATL382G is in the know

Fredplt, talk to some former TALCE loadmasters next time. If you ask me how much cargo the KC-10 can carry I'll tell you 175K. If you ask me how much it's normally limited to I'll tell you that answer. These numbers aren't normally known by your run-of-the-mill loadmaster, ask someone who's more familiar with AMC cargo ops, in this case SATL382G knows more than most fliers do.
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:34 pm

Quoting Galaxy5 (Reply 32):
SATL382G Get your head out of your own ass, there is nothing that says a normal operational C-5 is restricted from carrying any weight over what you claim, no waivers required what so ever. Take some of your own silly advice and do some research and quit acting like an arrogant prick with a grudge against aircrew and a certain airframe, becuase thats all you sound like. And to those in the know, you obviously don't know what your talking about.



Quoting Fredplt (Reply 33):
galaxy5 is right, I just showed some of my loadmasters that message by SAT382G and they started laughing.

Well that's why I don't call loadmasters to order airlift..... Did either of you check any of the sources I gave you or are you just trying to show everyone how arrogant/ignorant you can be?

Quoting Duce50boom (Reply 34):
What SATL382G is saying, is that for peacetime planning purposes the C-5 is restricted to 150K. Every other airlifter in AMC there are restrictions for how much cargo you can plan to load on it. Barney's is 90K.

Thanks for the kind words Duce!! A couple of things though, peacetime planning is for wartime contingency by definition. So when we draw up a large wartime deployment plan it's going to be at 135K where the C-5s are concerned (Where did you get 150K?) and the number of airframes ordered will be governed by that figure. TACC can and has issued waivers to the planning ACL, but only for it's own convienence not the users. Naturally some very dense cargo loads will force TACCs hand, a M1 or a 50K Container Handler for example.
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Sun Mar 27, 2005 4:35 pm

No worries SATL, you were right, Galaxy and Fredplt, were wrong. You gotta see it from their perspective though: As fliers we know what our jet is capable of, but not how it's actually employed by AMC and users, apart from what we see on the loads we carry and the scuttlebutt we hear from various sources. So you saying it's limited to 135K without a waiver to us sounds like "the C-5 can only physically carry 135K without a waiver." There's a big difference between capability and employment. I haven't been to an affil class or AICPC, but I do have the AMC airlift planning guide. You're right though, the wartime is also the peacetime for the C-5. But the actual number is 151,400 pounds, not 135K:

· Maximum Takeoff Weight: 769,000 lbs
· Normal Operating Weight: 374,000 lbs
· * Peacetime Planning ACL: 151,400 lbs
· * Wartime Planning ACL: 151,400 lbs
· * Maximum Design ACL: 291,000 lbs

You gotta love online debate!

Some stump the dummy trivia, do you know why the KC-10's peacetime planning ACL is 100K and not 105K or 120K?

[Edited 2005-03-27 08:36:15]
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 28, 2005 1:21 am

Duce,
151.4K? That's even stranger.. From the AMC airlift planning guide I take it?

Do me a favor. If the debate on the planning figure continues take a look at the sources I gave Galaxy (aside from the AMC planning guide). Unfortunately, being happily retired, I no longer have access to a PC on the .mil domain, if I did I could square this away with a couple of mouse clicks.

Quoting Duce50boom (Reply 34):
As an un-qualified affiliation instructor take what I say with a grain of salt.....



Quoting Duce50boom (Reply 36):
I haven't been to an affil class

Huh? You mean you haven't been to affil lately right?

regards
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
Duce50Boom
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue May 29, 2001 8:03 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:39 am

Yup, from that. No problem with the other sources. We'll see how that goes.

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 37):
Quoting Duce50boom (Reply 34):
As an un-qualified affiliation instructor take what I say with a grain of salt.....

Quoting Duce50boom (Reply 36):
I haven't been to an affil class

Huh? You mean you haven't been to affil lately right?

regards

No, I have not been to an affil class, or AICPC ever. Trips are slow in the TALCE world so until I do, I am an un-qualified affiliation instructor
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Mon Mar 28, 2005 11:32 pm

You guys can use planning guides for reference all you want, then call it that, A guide, not a restriction, Thats what we are talking about, SATL calls it a restriction with waiver requirements, which is what it is not. There is not weight restriction of 150,000lbs for the C-5 galaxy. Lets put it at that.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:38 am

uh Galaxy, restriction is the word you used not me. I never called it a restriction. It does require a waiver however. As far as I, the airlift user, am concerned it may as well be a restriction since I'm not going to get more ACL than that from TACC without a compelling reason (i.e. dense cargo)

Be angry about it if you like but that's how it works. Maybe you guys on the flying side of the house can tell me why this happens? I've always understood it was to enhance flexibility for performance reasons (runway, tanker availability, range, payload, etc) but I never understood why it was applied in a blanket fashion. I've seen lots of airlift (strat air in general) go half empty from a cube and structural ACL standpoint. Is AMC consolidating payloads at the stage?
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:42 am

Maybe we all got off on the wrong foot here. Let me try to smooth this out. When you are referring to the planning cargo weight of the C-5 to be either 135,000 or 150,000lbs which ever, you constantly refer to it as a restriction which it is not. It is a planning tool. A restriction is 1: a principle that limits the extent of something; 2: an act of limiting or restricting 3: the act of keeping something within specified bounds (by force if necessary). However you keep referring to this planning number as such. I have also read thru the regs you posted such as AFI 10-403

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfiles/af/10/afi10-403/afi10-403.pdf

And

http://www.e-publishing.af.mil/pubfi...-403_amcsup1/afi10-403_amcsup1.pdf

Nor is it a limit to the aircraft itself as a limit is to confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds or to fix definitely; to specify. If you are referring to it as a restriction or limit that is a misuse of the term, when you plan you develop a scheme, program, or method worked out beforehand for the accomplishment of an objective it is a proposed or tentative project or course of action or a systematic arrangement of elements or parts; a configuration or outline. How ever it is not a restriction. So when you state the Airframe is restricted you are saying it is beyond its operational limits, constraints and capabilities. Since this is not the case with your numbers you should not call it a limit or restriction, you are using this planning number and configuration to try and develop and estimate your requirements. So lets call it that.
I can accept that the normal cargo planning weight is 135k or 150k, but it is not restricted or beyond the capabilities of the airframe. Does that clear this issue up?
BTW the other day when I was in Kuwait we had a cargo load of around 231,000lbs, I asked the TALCE guys if they had a waiver for that cargo weight (in jest of course) and they looked puzzled, I then asked about what we are discussing here, they laughed and we discussed it, they are on the same sheet of music as me, it’s a planning tool and guide not a restriction or limit.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:22 am

I will put this in, SATL may be going off something he used in the past. Since the start of the OEF/OIF "conflicts" a lot of things have changed. I am no loadmaster, but I have never had as an Aircraft Commander called TACC for a waiver for a Load so the whole debate mistifies me. Anyone of you could be correct but flying the airplane I just haven't seen this ever come into play in the last three years aboard the airplane. FRED giveth and he taketh away, remember when he doesn't want to fly you aren't going to, but lately he seems to be ready to stand tall and prove himself. Its good too, because General Handy is pleased with the new avionics and I found out today all 112 C5s in the air will get all new glass cockpits and the new engines will be coming. 3 years they say for a possible total fleet change! Not too shabby at all. I will start a thread on this soon with the info from the top for all to read!
 
B747
Posts: 259
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 10:08 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:58 am

Fredplt,

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 42):
3 years they say for a possible total fleet change! Not too shabby at all. I will start a thread on this soon with the info from the top for all to read!

I look forward to finally hearing some progress being made on this issue.

Thanks,
Brian
At Pope, where not happy, until you're not happy!
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:24 am

Quoting Fredplt (Reply 42):
I am no loadmaster, but I have never had as an Aircraft Commander called TACC for a waiver for a Load so the whole debate mistifies me.

Fredplt -- it's not a process the aircrews are involved in, so yeah an A/C would never call it in. Duce was aware because he had taught the AMC affiliation course. So I was kind of mystified why you fly guys were denying it. As I have explained before it's between the Bookies at TACC and the Airlift Users.

regards
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:49 am

Quoting Galaxy5 (Reply 41):
When you are referring to the planning cargo weight of the C-5 to be either 135,000 or 150,000lbs which ever, you constantly refer to it as a restriction which it is not.

Hey gang I just read thru this thread again and I do not see anywhere where I used either the word RESTRICTION or RESTRICTED. If I missed it, please post a quote where I used it.

What I said was:

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 8):
So are you saying that the next time you come thru my base I'll be able to put 209,000LBS of cargo on your aircraft (without getting a waiver) and you can go straight to Moron without hitting a tanker? That'll be the day...

...and...

Quoting SATL382G (Reply 10):
Trouble is your users (me) can't put 209K of cargo on the C-5, we can't even put 150K on it. We are limited to 135K. If I can get a waiver from AMC (rare, only granted when it's to AMCs advantage) yeah I can got to 209

Since ordering airlift and assisting others to do the same is part of what I recently used to do for a living and since line aircrew aren't involved in that process I really don't understand why you guys are arguing the point. Unless there are extenuating circumstances TACC is going to hold the user to the planning factor ACL.

Thanks for links....

regards
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
USAFMXOfficer
Posts: 168
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 4:20 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 12:01 pm

Fred - Don't get too excited about a program that appears to be funded in the FYDP. Current DoD budget situation is extremely volatile to say the least. Many many programs are getting cut to support OIF and OEF ongoing operations. Even the AF "golden child" the F/A-22 is under the gun.
44th Fighter Squadron Vampire Bats - 63 years of history
 
fredplt
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:46 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 6:02 pm

Well four planes at Dover have already begun and the new Simulator is there (at Dover) and being set up. The payments have already been made and now it looks they will all get the CF6-80 engines everyone has been talking about. In the long run this upgrade is expected to save the Air Force Billions of dollars in Maintenance and fuel costs alone. All kinda of new systems work too, should be very interesting and as soon as I get back to my desk at the base I will put a copy of it on here for all interested to read. But true, I don't believe anything until I see it with my own eyes!
 
galaxy5
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2000 10:09 pm

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:30 pm

"Trouble is your users (me) can't put 209K of cargo on the C-5, we can't even put 150K on it. We are limited to 135K. If I can get a waiver from AMC (rare, only granted when it's to AMCs advantage) yeah I can got to 209"

Thats a restriction there SATL. thats exactly what you are implying in that statement.
"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: Follow-on C-17 Order

Tue Mar 29, 2005 11:32 pm

Quoting Galaxy5 (Reply 48):
We are limited to 135K.

We as in "the airlift users" are in fact limited. I'm not talking about an airframe limitation or restriction. Check out the remarks section for your deployment missions in GDSS and/or GTN and you will find the ACL the users of that mission are "limited" to.

Do you really think that a C-5 just flies into a base with the folks there just chomping at the bit to load it up to it's maximum design payload and then gas it up 'til the tanks are full with no consideration of other factors? Come on I know that you know better
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests