Venus6971
Topic Author
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:30 pm

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/20.../airforce_aircraft_budget_011010w/
It appears that the end of the C-5A is coming quick. It seams that Guard and Reserve units stuck with these POS's are lobbying hard to get new C-17's if only the USAF sends a C-5A to AMARC.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14033
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 6:16 pm

Same old, same old. Congress raids maintenance budgets to get new planes (i.e pork) to hand out, then asks the services why it can't keep the old planes flying.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 8:24 pm

As been discussed on other C-5 threads, they should retire about half of the 59 C-5A fleet which are the least mission capable. Upgrade the 29 A models which will remain to M models, and replace the 30 retired C-5As with new C-17s.

Currently:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
9 C-5A's

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
13 C-5A's

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
11 C-5A's

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
10 C-5A's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5A's

Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's

In addition to these I would add a second squadron of 13 C-17s to McGuire AFB , a squadron of 13 C-17s for Ramstein AB, a second squadron of 8 C-17s for March ARB
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:22 pm

Why is the US Congress reluctant to just retire all C5's and replace them with the C-17, what capabilities will they loose and how valuable are they to the US Military?
The C5 has been in inventory for many years, it has been hobbled by less than optimal engines and is now costing a bundle to upgrade engines and avionics.
The C-17 appears to be a C-141 replacement, so if there is no replacement in the works for the C5 and they do not want to order more C-17's how much more can they get from the C5 program. I would ask if the tooling still exist to make more C5's but I'm hard pressed to recall much programs in the last 20-30 years that have re-started a closed line.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3448
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:44 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 3):
I would ask if the tooling still exist to make more C5's but I'm hard pressed to recall much programs in the last 20-30 years that have re-started a closed line.

Lockheed did exactly that when they restarted the C-5 line to build the B models.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14033
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:48 pm



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
Lockheed did exactly that when they restarted the C-5 line to build the B models.

And they restarted the U2 line for the U2-Rs.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 10, 2010 11:04 pm

Thanks guys, I really did forget the U2, have a couple tape on her and the SR-71, should have remembered.
The C5 then gives more questions, if it was re-opened before why not again, unless someone is claiming they are no longer needed? The C5-M program has been controversial from day one and is also not cheap, if improved new builds can be had would that not be a better option?
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:51 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Currently:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
9 C-5A's

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
13 C-5A's

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
11 C-5A's

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
10 C-5A's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5A's

Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's

How many C-5Bs are at Westover AFRB, Massachusetts? Is Westover AFRB, MA, Travis AFB, CA, Altus AFB, OK, and Dover AFB,DE the only bases with the C-5B (all of which will be converted to the C-5M)?

Quoting Par13del (Reply 6):
The C5 then gives more questions, if it was re-opened before why not again, unless someone is claiming they are no longer needed? The C5-M program has been controversial from day one and is also not cheap, if improved new builds can be had would that not be a better option?

Reopening the C-5 line at Lockheed.Martin is not needed if we continue with the C-5M modification and the C-17 line stays open (possibly incliding a C-17B and C-17C version).
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Jan 11, 2010 2:56 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
How many C-5Bs are at Westover AFRB, Massachusetts? Is Westover AFRB, MA, Travis AFB, CA, Altus AFB, OK, and Dover AFB,DE the only bases with the C-5B (all of which will be converted to the C-5M)?

Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusets;
16 C-5B

Travis Air Force Base, California;
16 C-5Bs, 2 C-5Cs

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware;
16 C-5Bs, 3 C-5Ms (2 were B and one was A model)
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Jan 11, 2010 5:27 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's



Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
second squadron of 13 C-17s to McGuire AFB

Is this your personal preferences or is it based on something you read? When I saw Gen Lichte this summer a question about basing was asked to him; he said Stewart and Wright Patt were next for C-17s and beyond that Charleston and McChord would be plussed up.

I prefer the new jets go to where they will be well used, which is in active duty squadrons co-located with reserve squadrons. The jets at Mississippi ANG and March aren't flown anywhere near as much as the jets at Charleston, McChord, and McGuire. We'll be flying mostly to Europe for the next 20 years; McGuire, Dover, and Ramstein would be the logical place to put new jets.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:13 am

As your fellow C-5 expert here, let me correct some info here...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 8):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
How many C-5Bs are at Westover AFRB, Massachusetts? Is Westover AFRB, MA, Travis AFB, CA, Altus AFB, OK, and Dover AFB,DE the only bases with the C-5B (all of which will be converted to the C-5M)?

Westover Air Reserve Base, Massachusets;
16 C-5B

Travis Air Force Base, California;
16 C-5Bs, 2 C-5Cs

Dover Air Force Base, Delaware;
16 C-5Bs, 3 C-5Ms (2 were B and one was A model)

Dover has 14B models, 4 M models (yes I'm counting 3285 because its half way done and won't ever fly as a B model again)-and Dover is inducting its next jet this month.

Altus gave up their C-5s back in 2007, the have none and are out of the equation. They only had B models in the 80s, then they were A models only.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 2):
As been discussed on other C-5 threads, they should retire about half of the 59 C-5A fleet which are the least mission capable. Upgrade the 29 A models which will remain to M models, and replace the 30 retired C-5As with new C-17s.

Currently:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
9 C-5A's

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
13 C-5A's

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
11 C-5A's

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
10 C-5A's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5A's

Future:

Tennessee Air National Guard, Memphis;
10 C-17s

New York Air National Guard, Stewart Airport;
10 C-17s

Air Force Reserve, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base Ohio;
10 C-17s

West Virginia Air National Guard, Martinsburg, West Virginia;
13 C-5M's

Lackland Air Force Base, Texas;
16 C-5M's

In addition to these I would add a second squadron of 13 C-17s to McGuire AFB , a squadron of 13 C-17s for Ramstein AB, a second squadron of 8 C-17s for March ARB

Currently, Wright-Patterson has 10, and Martinsburg has 11 C-5s. My thread about C-5 retirement chances going up fast had my initial tails that I would get rid of. Stewart is the most likely base to get C-17s in exchange for their C-5s. I doubt they would extend retirements over the "10" they called for, unless more C-17 orders come in, which is probable. I have already heard through the grapevine that they are not going to establish a C-17 squadron in RS. Memphis is also higher on the list to get C-17s which came as a surprise to me because they actually don't mind the C-5s there. Wright-Patterson has been b@$%ing about getting C-17s the day they found out they were getting C-5s....so after Stewart, I'd say Wright-Patterson would be next in line for C-17s...hopefully without that ugly tail flash they put on the 5s, lol.

Martinsburg is in love with their C-5s, and would probably pick up 3 from Stewart. In September and November of last year, Lackland swapped out 2 jets with WPAFB; the first, 0453 for 8219, and 8219 went into AMP mod immediately, and the second, 0451 with 9005. The second swap kinda shut my mouth up with my assumption that they were going to stage retirements out of WPAFB because 0451 is a good jet (currently in PDM). I'm keeping my eye out on the transfers as they happen and will post info as I get it.

Quoting Cargotanker (Reply 9):
I prefer the new jets go to where they will be well used, which is in active duty squadrons co-located with reserve squadrons. The jets at Mississippi ANG and March aren't flown anywhere near as much as the jets at Charleston, McChord, and McGuire. We'll be flying mostly to Europe for the next 20 years; McGuire, Dover, and Ramstein would be the logical place to put new jets.

Actually Mississippi and March are pretty close in hours compared to the fleet. Both are very active. Charleston and McChord clearly fly the most, but they also have most of the C-17s, so its kind of an optical illusion that certain jets fly more than others. March seemed to had picked up the Air Show circuit the last year or two, I'm kinda hoping someone else picks that up because I'm tired of seeing March birds performing (lol).


On another note, the C-5Ms are very impressive, and are doing quite well in operational testing. Alot of the downtime they've had were actually testing time vs. problem time. They've of course had a few bugs, but they are definately running at least a 75% MC rate. There is also a lack of aircrews to fly right now. Westover has 10 B models sitting there FMC and nobody to fly them. Plus, TACC has apparently restricted the number of aircraft that can be off station at one time from Dover and Travis...which has brought ops down a bit, and you know what C-5s on the ground equal up to...Broken!
 
Oroka
Posts: 1077
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:16 am

The C-5 needs a 748i kind of make over. No redesign, just some material upgrades, some refinements, best engines possible. Cheaper than a clean sheet design, still a proven design.

Good designs do not need to be replaced, just updated. Look at the B-52s... they will probably outlive the 2 following generations of bombers (B-1B, B-2).
 
CX747
Posts: 5583
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Jan 31, 2010 10:11 pm

What is the likelihood that McGuire will get a 2nd squadron of C-17s?

It's a shame that the C-5 has been riddled with reliability issues for what seems its entire life. What outstanding capabilities the platform brings to the table, if it could only show up when needed.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:15 am



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 4):
Lockheed did exactly that when they restarted the C-5 line to build the B models.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 5):
And they restarted the U2 line for the U2-Rs.


Lockheed also closed the P-3 production line in Burbank and moved it to Palmadle. Built all the airframes they had orders for and closed the line again. Then when Korea want to buy more P-3's they re-opened the production line again, this time in Marietta, Georgia.
 
User avatar
N328KF
Posts: 5810
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Feb 01, 2010 3:20 am



Quoting Oroka (Reply 11):
The C-5 needs a 748i kind of make over. No redesign, just some material upgrades, some refinements, best engines possible. Cheaper than a clean sheet design, still a proven design.

So...what? Like, adding wing-root extensions and an additional pair of turbofans, perhaps with all turbofans being GEnx? Along with fuselage barrel extensions and additional landing gear?
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' -Theodore Roosevelt
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:11 am

Monday's submitted 2011 budget again calls for no C-17 buys.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Feb 02, 2010 10:37 am



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 15):
Monday's submitted 2011 budget again calls for no C-17 buys.

When was the last time DOD submitted a budget request containing this aircraft? 2007?
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Feb 02, 2010 7:37 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 16):
When was the last time DOD submitted a budget request containing this aircraft? 2007?

Sounds about right, but I think the Pentagon and White House will truly fight the issue this year. Obama yesterday in his budget release speech made specific mention of the unwanted C-17 funding, while Gates seperately mentioned something about finaly taking a stand on both the C-17 and F-35 second engine this year.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:05 pm

Being fiscally conservative and a C-17 fan, I'm kind of torn on the issue. While I don't think our government should buy the military things that the military doesn't ask for, I think the C-17 is a bargain for the taxpayer. The C-17 is a proven and mature aircraft and will also be utilized in Iraq/Afghanistan within weeks of its delivery. Also, it will continue to be used extensively for the next 30 or so years. Whatever aircraft replaces the C-17 will probably cost $1 billion each, and experience huge cost overruns. If we can delay that aircraft by purchasing more C-17s now, we're probably saving the US taxpayer some money (eventually).
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Feb 02, 2010 11:15 pm

The California delegation will defy Obama and Gates on the C-17. This program will prove very difficult to kill.

Frankly, from a industrial & strategic perspective, why should we let it die? We cede the market to Airbus.

IMO, this is another "trading horse" the administration will give away in return for something it "really, really wants". What this is, I can't say at this point.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:31 am

Part of the problem here as I understand it is that when the C-17 goes, so too does the LB plant and the people employed there?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6692
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Wed Feb 03, 2010 12:38 am

What is the problem with the C-17, is there a dirty little secret that is hidden somewhere that makes all these politicians, various DOD, Pentagon and Air Force types want to cancel the a/c, unlike the A-10 this a/c is not ugly, so what gives?

The C-5 although larger, is and has been a hanger queen for numerous years, also not helped by an anemic engine, the upgrades which are finally being done to move the a/c to the M version is long delayed and massively expensive. Unless some form of quid pro quo is being engenderd with the Russians or EU for a replacement of the C-17 what gives? Did someone wink wink when the A400M was being designed so that they move it's capabilities close to the C-17 so that the US could eventually replace the C-130 and the C-17 with one frame, save money by not designing an a/c, and simply put an assemble line in the US for 100-300 frames?

Will the offset for the US industry be that they get the same amount of funds to design and build a 50 frame C-5 replacement, in the world of money, the OEM's would jump at the ability to make the same amount of money while producing a smaller number of frames, for years this was Boeing's philosophy and look where it got them.

All in all I believe something is going on and we need to know "The rest of the story".
 
bmacleod
Posts: 2547
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2001 3:10 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sat Apr 10, 2010 7:11 pm

Defense Sec. Gates appears to be strongly opposed to more C-17s (in last week's Aviation and Space weekly)
and is trying to convince President Obama on this.

Will this request get the green light?
"What good are wings without the courage to fly?" - Atticus
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sat Apr 10, 2010 8:23 pm

Quoting bmacleod (Reply 22):
Will this request get the green light?

This already got the green light back in December; bringing the total order of USAF C-17s to 223. Gates and Obama are opposed to buying anymore than the 223 already ordered and funded. The USAF doesn't need anymore C-17s, point blank. Really, they didn't need more than the 205. I hate the fact that they are replacing 10 C-5s for 8 C-17s....shouldn't it be more like 18 C-17s for the 10 C-5s? I really hate the fact that the C-17 people are pushing it as a C-5 replacement...its not!

Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
The C-5 although larger, is and has been a hanger queen for numerous years, also not helped by an anemic engine, the upgrades which are finally being done to move the a/c to the M version is long delayed and massively expensive.

Yes, the C-5M program should have been done a decade ago. Some say it should have been done in the 80s while the re-winging and C-5Bs were being built, but I don't think the technology was good enough at the time. Sure the re-engining could have happened, but I think it would have been more expensive then. Costs have been driven up because of horrible bidding and not factoring in any unexpected issues that might arise. That problem has shown its ugly head in many aircraft now, including the F-35 and A400M. The big problem with the C-5s now seems to be related to the down time it needs for all the sheet metal repairs; its alot of metal to keep smooth. The B models have nearly caught up with the A model flight hours; which quite frankly is sad. Upgrading the As to Ms is a waste of time and money because of the problems that have popped up over the last few years on them, grounding them or restricting them left and right.

On another note, I don't think there will ever be an A400M in the USAF inventory. As far as the USAF is concerned, their needs are met with the C-17 and C-130 combination. The A400M is just a waste of money for our military. If they want to piss money away, they should just RERP all the C-5As, buy another 4 dozen F-22s, and accept the rising costs of the F-35...oh and buy both the KC-45A and the KC-767 and shut everyone up, lol
 
User avatar
kanban
Posts: 3647
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 1:00 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun Apr 11, 2010 3:24 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 20):
Part of the problem here as I understand it is that when the C-17 goes, so too does the LB plant and the people employed there?

essentially correct, however the possibility of foreign sales may keep the production going at a slow drip for several years
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:04 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
also not helped by an anemic engine, the upgrades which are finally being done to move the a/c to the M version is long delayed and massively expensive.

I have often wondered why the USAF when they reopened the C-5 production for the C-5B, in 1983 did not switch from the TF-39 engines to the CF-6-50 engines that were going on the then new built KC-10As.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 23):
Gates and Obama are opposed to buying anymore than the 223 already ordered and funded. The USAF doesn't need anymore C-17s, point blank. Really, they didn't need more than the 205. I hate the fact that they are replacing 10 C-5s for 8 C-17s....shouldn't it be more like 18 C-17s for the 10 C-5s? I really hate the fact that the C-17 people are pushing it as a C-5 replacement...its not!

I agree, you cannot use a single C-17 to fully replace a single C-5. We would need a streched C-17 to do that, and I just don't see that happening now that the C-5M program is in LRIP.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 23):
Yes, the C-5M program should have been done a decade ago.

Yes, it is long overdue. But there was a proposal back in the early 1990s for a C-5D (former C-5A) and C-5E/F (former C-5B/C) program that never happened due to the reorganization that ruined the USAF with name and mission changes to different commands, like retiring SAC, MAC, ADC, and TAC moving tankers into the new AMC, and the bombers into the new ACC. I don't remember what that program was going to update on the C-5s, but IIRC it did include a reengining program.

But this new program throws all C-5A/B/Cs that will be modified into just one MDS, the C-5M. Why didn't they give a new MDS for the one or two C-5As modified and call them C-5Ns and the two C-5Cs the C-5Q, leaving all the C-5Bs as C-5Ms?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23214
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Apr 12, 2010 2:39 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I agree, you cannot use a single C-17 to fully replace a single C-5.

But do you need to?

Should perhaps the C-5M's serve exclusively as an "outsized / heavy" cargo transport for stuff like tanks, mobile artillery and large rotary-winged aircraft and let the C-17 and KC-X fleets handle moving personnel and palletized loads?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14033
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon Apr 12, 2010 4:22 pm

Quoting Par13del (Reply 21):
What is the problem with the C-17, is there a dirty little secret that is hidden somewhere that makes all these politicians, various DOD, Pentagon and Air Force types want to cancel the a/c, unlike the A-10 this a/c is not ugly, so what gives?

The USAF and the administration do not want more C-17s. They feel they have enough to perform their missions and are concerned about the cost of staffing and maintaining more planes than they feel are necessary. This situation was even worse when Congress prohibited the retiring of C-5As.

I suppose they could buy them and park them in the desert, but they'd rather use the money on other things.

Politicians, mostly from CA where the C-17s are built, are the ones that keep adding more C-17s to the budget. They are a highly visible source of well-paying jobs and no politician wants to be blamed for the shutdown of the LGB plant which would point out yet again that CA is losing its ability to attract or retain the aviation industry.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14033
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 12:21 am

I found the following to be interesting:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...acks%20C-130%20AMP&channel=defense

Quote:

The U.S. Air Force is planning to trim its buy of C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) kits made by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics by 20 aircraft, indicating the service is likely to retire 20 aircraft if approved by Congress.

The Pentagon's April 2 Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) is the first public acknowledgment of the reduction in C-5 AMP numbers (Aerospace DAILY, April 5).

The Air Force had sought to retire some of its oldest C-5s to save money for maintenance.

And an excess of C-17s provided by Congress, against the desires of the Air Force, will allow for the retirements without affecting the readiness of the operational fleet.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said March 30 that the long-awaited Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study (MCRS) found that the number of strategic airlifters needed is in the low 300s.

The Air Force is buying 223 C-17s. Schwartz indicated in March that the service could begin retiring 17 C-5s in Fiscal 2011.

Originally, all 112 C-5s were slated to receive the AMP, with only the Bs, one C and an A undergoing the re-engining program for now. It is possible more re-engining kits could be added to the 52 now planned to support the Air Force's need to boost reliability of the entire fleet.

So it seems it could be playing out the way some of our very knowledgeable posters have speculated.

Less AMP kits will let the older/weaker C-5As retire without pouring money into them, and hopefully the money will be used to re-engine more of the better ships.

Ending up with 220 C-17s and 80 or so C-5Ms would be a nice place to be.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 4:01 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
But this new program throws all C-5A/B/Cs that will be modified into just one MDS, the C-5M. Why didn't they give a new MDS for the one or two C-5As modified and call them C-5Ns and the two C-5Cs the C-5Q, leaving all the C-5Bs as C-5Ms?

Less complicated just labling them all C-5Ms. The A and B models are essentially the same aircraft now; only minor differences; mainly associated with materials used in building, the A models have visible fire bottles in the cargo compartment (FE1301), and except 0457 and 0461, the A models don't have ADS yet, but are slowly working that (0457 was the new prototype). The C-5Cs could technically keep their designation since they are already different from the other jets...Not sure if they are going to be changed to M or not?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 28):
So it seems it could be playing out the way some of our very knowledgeable posters have speculated.

Less AMP kits will let the older/weaker C-5As retire without pouring money into them, and hopefully the money will be used to re-engine more of the better ships.

Ending up with 220 C-17s and 80 or so C-5Ms would be a nice place to be.

I figured it was pointless to AMP jets that were heading to the boneyard; which is why I hated seeing 8212 on the S Ramp at Dover in AMP mod! It would be nice to get them all RERPed, but thats a stretch. I thought it was interesting that it said only one C model was to be RERPed; here I've heard both were going to get re-engined...maybe they actually considered scrapping 8216...
I think that would be a good balance though.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 27):
I suppose they could buy them and park them in the desert, but they'd rather use the money on other things.

I say they should buy them and put the older high houred C-17s in the desert and moth ball them for a while...But, they really need to go to a low rate production for a while...like no more than 6 a year. They got a start with going from 15 to 10 last year.
I think of it this way, the longer the plant stays open, the longer incidents like 0196 , 6165 and 6002 can be fixed rather than written off. Thats good for everyone.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 14033
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 2:34 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 29):
I say they should buy them and put the older high houred C-17s in the desert and moth ball them for a while...But, they really need to go to a low rate production for a while...like no more than 6 a year. They got a start with going from 15 to 10 last year.

That sounds very sensible. Unfortunately we're dealing with the US Government and Boeing, so it'll be a tough sell.
Inspiration, move me brightly! Light the song with sense and color.
Hold away despair, more than this I will not ask.
Faced with mysteries dark and vast, statements just seem vain at last.
Some rise, some fall, some climb, to get to Terrapin!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23214
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:47 pm

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
That sounds very sensible. Unfortunately we're dealing with the US Government and Boeing, so it'll be a tough sell.

Well the lower the production rate, the higher the production and parts acquisition costs. You also need less people to handle the workload (more time per frame) - not just on the line, but everywhere else. So while building one C-17 every two months would stretch out the delivery backlog, it could end up being more expensive, overall.
 
TeamAmerica
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 6:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
Well the lower the production rate, the higher the production and parts acquisition costs. You also need less people to handle the workload (more time per frame) - not just on the line, but everywhere else. So while building one C-17 every two months would stretch out the delivery backlog, it could end up being more expensive, overall.

It would be a jobs program concealed as military spending. Nothing new about that...Lockheed managed to keep the C-130 line open for 20 years despite lacking requests from the US military.  
Failure is not an option; it's an outcome.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:10 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 31):
Well the lower the production rate, the higher the production and parts acquisition costs. You also need less people to handle the workload (more time per frame) - not just on the line, but everywhere else. So while building one C-17 every two months would stretch out the delivery backlog, it could end up being more expensive, overall.

If the rumor that the USAF is looking for a C-17 replacement in the 2020 timeframe is true, then it probably makes sense to keep the line open, even at the higher unit costs associated with a low production rate, so we can just build some more C-17s in 2020, rather than developing a whole new aircraft for umpteen billion dollars.

Unless someone can explain to me what new capabilities a C-17 replacement is going to need that would justify a whole new aircraft.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:53 pm

Quoting rwessel (Reply 33):
If the rumor that the USAF is looking for a C-17 replacement in the 2020 timeframe is true, then it probably makes sense to keep the line open, even at the higher unit costs associated with a low production rate, so we can just build some more C-17s in 2020, rather than developing a whole new aircraft for umpteen billion dollars.

Unless someone can explain to me what new capabilities a C-17 replacement is going to need that would justify a whole new aircraft.

It is what it is....a rumor; its kinda absurd to even hear about a replacement for such a young aircraft. There was some of the justifcation for the newest orders of C-17s...to supplement the older frames that have put alot of hours in the air already. They'll be looking for a C-5 replacement far before a C-17 replacement...All this replacement talk is BS; way too soon for too many aircraft. Lets stick to replacing the darn KC-135s first!

On another note, the USAF would probably price the difference between keeping the line warm in LRP, or storing the tooling and restarting the line when its needed. Which ever is cheaper will be the probable result. It might be more expensive to keep Boeing on board in the storing process though; because they want to shut down the LGB plant and move on.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Wed Apr 14, 2010 1:28 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 25):
I agree, you cannot use a single C-17 to fully replace a single C-5.

But do you need to?

Should perhaps the C-5M's serve exclusively as an "outsized / heavy" cargo transport for stuff like tanks, mobile artillery and large rotary-winged aircraft and let the C-17 and KC-X fleets handle moving personnel and palletized loads?

Except for moving lots of people by tanker, that is essentially what the USAF does now. Most troop movements are done on chartered airliners.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon May 17, 2010 1:39 pm

The 305th AMW at McGuire AFB NJ is getting three additional C-17s, bringing their total to 16.

http://www.mcguire.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123204501
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
CX747
Posts: 5583
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sat May 22, 2010 10:46 pm

Glad to see that McGuire is getting additional tails. Do we know where the additional airframes are going to be based out of? I know that a friend of mine is hoping that Stewart is going to get them. As for looking into a replacement for the C-17, I think that's a little inmature. The aircraft is one of the USAF's most technologically advanced platforms. Let's focus on either fixing the C-5 or buying something that will properly replace it.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun May 23, 2010 12:46 am

Quoting CX747 (Reply 37):
Glad to see that McGuire is getting additional tails. Do we know where the additional airframes are going to be based out of? I know that a friend of mine is hoping that Stewart is going to get them

Wright-Patterson is getting 8 to replace their 10 C-5As. 12 other C-5As will be retired from one of the three ANG units, and that decision won't be made until next June. However, Stewart and Memphis are the front runners to get them. Knowing the political power of NY, Stewart has a pretty good chance. Memphis on the other hand, was one of those bases that got jipped with C-5s instead of a 141 replacement C-17.

Originally, McGuire, Travis and Dover were all getting one jet each. I guess they decided that McGuire would be the best base to just take all 3 jets. If WPAFB gets 8, and 10 replace the ANG base, that still leaves 5 that aren't assigned yet. Curious still on where those 5 jets are going. Its also not set in stone by any means that WPAFB or the ANG unit will get new ones; they might get hand me downs from Charleston and McChord.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Sun May 23, 2010 2:09 pm

Then will Westover AFRB, Lackland AFB, WVANG and TNANG (MEM) get a few more C-5s each? If the TNANG converts to C-17s (which makes much more sense than Stewart ANGB), then where will the MEM C-5s go? Will all 10 WPAFB C-5s be retired? Or will some go to DOV?
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon May 24, 2010 2:18 am

22 C-5s will be retired; all 10 WPAFB birds (which a few swaps have occurred between Lackland and WP to get rid of the POS jets), and then 12 other jets will get retired, through the ANG unit they pick. Dover won't get any other C-5s. They might get one or two of the C-17s that aren't allocated yet however. Memphis only has 9 C-5s, so 3 will end up going bye bye from other bases (if Memphis gets picked). If Stewart somehow gets picked, 12 of their 13 will go away, then one will go to Memphis to bring the total up to 10. Dover will have 18, Travis 18, Westover 16 (the 52 B/C and M models). Lackland will keep 16. Martinsburg, Stewart and Memphis are up in the air depending on who converts to C-17s.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon May 24, 2010 1:15 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 40):
22 C-5s will be retired; all 10 WPAFB birds (which a few swaps have occurred between Lackland and WP to get rid of the POS jets), and then 12 other jets will get retired, through the ANG unit they pick. Dover won't get any other C-5s. They might get one or two of the C-17s that aren't allocated yet however. Memphis only has 9 C-5s, so 3 will end up going bye bye from other bases (if Memphis gets picked). If Stewart somehow gets picked, 12 of their 13 will go away, then one will go to Memphis to bring the total up to 10. Dover will have 18, Travis 18, Westover 16 (the 52 B/C and M models). Lackland will keep 16. Martinsburg, Stewart and Memphis are up in the air depending on who converts to C-17s.

So the 22 retirements will come from WPAFB (10), and Stewart ANGB (12), with Stewart getting back filled with other C-5s and WP getting C-17s. I agree then the only other basing options for the C-17s would be the choice between the NYANG, TNANG, and WVANG. To me, it makes more miltary sense to put the C-17s at the TNANG at MEM, as the east coast already has C-17s at Charlston, McQuire, and Dover and keeping C-5s at Martinsburgh, Westover, Stewart, and Dover. The C-5s from MEM (9) could be sent to Stewart to bring them up to 10 as there are still another 16 at nearby Westover.
 
cargotanker
Posts: 182
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 4:41 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Mon May 24, 2010 4:57 pm

Quoting CX747 (Reply 37):
Glad to see that McGuire is getting additional tails. Do we know where the additional airframes are going to be based out of? I know that a friend of mine is hoping that Stewart is going to get them. As for looking into a replacement for the C-17, I think that's a little inmature. The aircraft is one of the USAF's most technologically advanced platforms. Let's focus on either fixing the C-5 or buying something that will properly replace it.

The addition of the extra tails is only temporary. These aircraft did not come with addtional aircrew or maintainers, same for the extra jets that have shown up at CHS and TCM. Supposedly once the next bases for the C-17 are decided upon the extra jets will flow to those bases; however, those aircraft may not necessarily be the brand new aircraft. In other words, McGuire can keep the new jets and cough up some of its older (if you consider 2003 old) jets to the Guard/Reserve. Same goes for CHS and TCM.

I get the impression that the dust (C-5s to the boneyard, C-5Ms, C-17 basing) wont settle until the AF gets the final number of C-17s it will have, and the AF probably won't know that until the assembly line has been shut down.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue May 25, 2010 2:59 am

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
So the 22 retirements will come from WPAFB (10), and Stewart ANGB (12), with Stewart getting back filled with other C-5s and WP getting C-17s. I agree then the only other basing options for the C-17s would be the choice between the NYANG, TNANG, and WVANG. To me, it makes more miltary sense to put the C-17s at the TNANG at MEM, as the east coast already has C-17s at Charlston, McQuire, and Dover and keeping C-5s at Martinsburgh, Westover, Stewart, and Dover. The C-5s from MEM (9) could be sent to Stewart to bring them up to 10 as there are still another 16 at nearby Westover.

Okay, you completely lost me dude. I'll try to clairify what I was saying. 10 C-5s will leave WPAFB, and be replaced with 8 C-17s. An ANG unit, most likely Memphis or Stewart, will retire their C-5s and exchange for 10 C-17s. Stewart has 13 C-5s, and Memphis has 9. It was announced a couple weeks ago by the AF that one of the ANG C-5 bases will convert to C-17s. It was rumored that the ANG unit would get 10 C-17s. If Stewart converts, 12 C-5s of the 13 would get retired, and one would go to another ANG base (which Memphis would be in line to get that last jet). If Memphis converts, Then, all 9 jets would get retired, plus 3 extra jets from either Stewart or Martinsburg would get the AMARG ticket. Did that help?

Currently, Dover 18 (13 B, 5 M), Travis 18 (16 B, 2 C), Westover (16 B), Lackland (16 A), Wright-Patterson (10 A), Stewart (13 A), Memphis (9 A), and Martinsburg (11 A).

BTW, the first confirmed C-5A to be retired in this batch (not necessarily the first one by any means) is 69-0015 which is currently based out of Stewart.

Quoting cargotanker (Reply 42):
The addition of the extra tails is only temporary. These aircraft did not come with addtional aircrew or maintainers, same for the extra jets that have shown up at CHS and TCM. Supposedly once the next bases for the C-17 are decided upon the extra jets will flow to those bases; however, those aircraft may not necessarily be the brand new aircraft. In other words, McGuire can keep the new jets and cough up some of its older (if you consider 2003 old) jets to the Guard/Reserve. Same goes for CHS and TCM.

Originally that was the plan, but since the cornballs in congress ordered another 8 ontop of the 10 here in this topic. I think these jets will end up staying where they are.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue May 25, 2010 11:56 am

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 41):
So the 22 retirements will come from WPAFB (10), and Stewart ANGB (12), with Stewart getting back filled with other C-5s and WP getting C-17s. I agree then the only other basing options for the C-17s would be the choice between the NYANG, TNANG, and WVANG. To me, it makes more miltary sense to put the C-17s at the TNANG at MEM, as the east coast already has C-17s at Charlston, McQuire, and Dover and keeping C-5s at Martinsburgh, Westover, Stewart, and Dover. The C-5s from MEM (9) could be sent to Stewart to bring them up to 10 as there are still another 16 at nearby Westover.

Okay, you completely lost me dude. I'll try to clairify what I was saying. 10 C-5s will leave WPAFB, and be replaced with 8 C-17s. An ANG unit, most likely Memphis or Stewart, will retire their C-5s and exchange for 10 C-17s. Stewart has 13 C-5s, and Memphis has 9. It was announced a couple weeks ago by the AF that one of the ANG C-5 bases will convert to C-17s. It was rumored that the ANG unit would get 10 C-17s. If Stewart converts, 12 C-5s of the 13 would get retired, and one would go to another ANG base (which Memphis would be in line to get that last jet). If Memphis converts, Then, all 9 jets would get retired, plus 3 extra jets from either Stewart or Martinsburg would get the AMARG ticket. Did that help?

Currently, Dover 18 (13 B, 5 M), Travis 18 (16 B, 2 C), Westover (16 B), Lackland (16 A), Wright-Patterson (10 A), Stewart (13 A), Memphis (9 A), and Martinsburg (11 A).

BTW, the first confirmed C-5A to be retired in this batch (not necessarily the first one by any means) is 69-0015 which is currently based out of Stewart.

Sorry for the confusion. I was trying to work out the future C-17 basing, not the C-5 retirements.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
Quoting cargotanker (Reply 42):
The addition of the extra tails is only temporary. These aircraft did not come with addtional aircrew or maintainers, same for the extra jets that have shown up at CHS and TCM. Supposedly once the next bases for the C-17 are decided upon the extra jets will flow to those bases; however, those aircraft may not necessarily be the brand new aircraft. In other words, McGuire can keep the new jets and cough up some of its older (if you consider 2003 old) jets to the Guard/Reserve. Same goes for CHS and TCM.

Originally that was the plan, but since the cornballs in congress ordered another 8 ontop of the 10 here in this topic. I think these jets will end up staying where they are.

These 8 new C-17s will only screw things up even more for USAF basing.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue May 25, 2010 5:21 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
These 8 new C-17s will only screw things up even more for USAF basing.

The plan described above includes those 8 C-17s. This thread was started before the 8 were added the following FY. With the remaining 23 C-17s (P-201 through P-223), 18 have been pretty much already determined. Whether WPAFB and the ANG base gets new C-17s or hand me downs are another question that will answer itself when the time comes. That, as I explained above, leaves 5 C-17s without a destination. I would expect Dover to get two or three and Travis to get two or three.
I still don't know the serials for the remaining C-17s. I know the 08s were 08-8191-8204. I'm assuming the 09s will be 09-9205-9214 and then the 8 10s would be 10-0215-0223 (unless they add the 8 to the FY 09 jets).
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 pm

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 45):
That, as I explained above, leaves 5 C-17s without a destination. I would expect Dover to get two or three and Travis to get two or three


Send the 5 to McGuire, they have the ramp space and the assault landing strip at Lakehurst.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11007
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue May 25, 2010 8:23 pm

What about sending some of the new C-17s to McCord, March, Hawaii, or Alaska?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13227
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Tue May 25, 2010 9:36 pm

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 47):
What about sending some of the new C-17s to McCord, March, Hawaii, or Alaska?

McGuire AFB is an OEF hub, they could use the extra lift.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: Usaf Gets 10 New C-17's With Conditions

Wed May 26, 2010 3:08 am

I don't think the AF wants to set up a second squadron at McGuire for one reason or another. McGuire is definately a worthy candidate for the other 5 jets, which would bring their total to 21.
March, Hickam and Elmendorf already got a 9th jet.. McChord already has 50 some C-17s, they don't need anymore!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests