Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
N328KF
Topic Author
Posts: 6019
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 3:50 am

New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:44 am

Anyone know of anything on the radar (remote, I understand) to replace the C-5? Obviously the C-17 is at the low end, but all that is really doing is freeing the C-5 up for larger jobs. We still need something heavy. So what about a new heavy transport with, say, four GE90s?
“In the age of information, ignorance is a choice.”
-Donny Miller
 
flyf15
Posts: 6633
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 11:10 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:01 am

The only new cargo transporters I've heard anything about at all that could fill the job are a streched C-17, or the Lockheed tanker/transport box-wing concept (anybody know whatever happened to this?), or new build C-5s.

[Edited 2004-08-31 23:02:06]
 
USAFHummer
Posts: 10261
Joined: Thu May 18, 2000 12:22 pm

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 7:04 am

Whatever happened to the Pelican...that huge thing that Boeing was planning that was supposed to fly in ground effect over the oceans???

Greg
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 8:03 am

I don't think that the USAF is seriously considering any larger transports at the moment.

NSA (Lockheed box plane) has languished, and ULTRA (Boeing Pelican), the same has happened. The Air Force wants to increase airlift, but it doesn't appear that it's going anywhere at the moment. Perhaps the fighter mafia simply doesn't want to reduce any of the existing programs to pay for it, since it's unlikely that Congress will just give them the money.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
AAR90
Posts: 3140
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2000 11:51 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:26 am

Whatever happened to the Pelican...that huge thing that Boeing was planning that was supposed to fly in ground effect over the oceans???

Nothing... too limited operationally (i.e. can't go many places). Similar problem for any very large transport. The concept for the C5 was that it was supposed to be able to operate from "improved" fields (not necessarily concrete or asphalt). It is actually severely limited in where it can go. The operational flexability the C17 has shown indicates any very large transport proposed will need to guarantee similar capabilities (lots of places it can go).
*NO CARRIER* -- A Naval Aviator's worst nightmare!
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:01 pm

Well one thing I know for an Air Force consideration is a 747-400ERF, possibly even a 747-400ERFIGW...which means it would be a Boeing 747-400 Extended Range Freighter and Increased Gross Weight.
It's a pretty long name but should do the job, and a proven airframe.

BTW, any diff. in terms of fuel economy between a 747 and c-5???
Now you're really flying
 
PPGMD
Posts: 2398
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2001 5:39 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 01, 2004 11:38 pm

They have considered it, but they felt that the limitations would be too great, since it can't fit any of the heavy equipment, and would require ground support to load and unload.
At worst, you screw up and die.
 
greaser
Posts: 1040
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:55 pm

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Fri Sep 03, 2004 5:07 pm

PPGMD, r u sure?? It seems that the forward opening nose is very big and should fit an abrams?? Is the C-5 any wider of taller???
Now you're really flying
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Mon Sep 06, 2004 11:50 am

PPGMD, r u sure?? It seems that the forward opening nose is very big and should fit an abrams?? Is the C-5 any wider of taller???

Yeah the 747-400ER cargo door is about 4 inches narrower than the M1A2 tank. However, I doubt this would totally write the 747 off... look what Boeing is doing to transport 7E7 componets. If the cargo door were to be moved maybe 18 inches back maybe the cabin would be wide enough at that point.

Otherwise, the 744ER has the payload to carry a single M1A2, and about 60 tons of other equipment. All early 747s were built with extremly strong floors and the ability to rapidly install a nose cargo door to augment strategic airlift capability for a return to Europe in the event the Soviets totally ran over our ass. The PanAm 747-100 that was bombed over Lockerbie was one such aircraft, and the super reinforced floor was attributed to keeping the aircraft in one piece for so long after the cabin walls ruptured.

I would venture to say it is possible to use the 747 as a template for an airlift. However, the 747 would require prestine airfields and greater support equipment. The USAF probably needs an unadultered airlift for these roles.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
Pronto
Posts: 318
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 12:43 pm

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:06 am

I doubt anything for now - the avionics replacement is happening and the engine replacement is about to start...
 
beowulf
Posts: 743
Joined: Wed Jul 30, 2003 3:22 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Wed Sep 08, 2004 11:48 pm

Hello,

As far as I remember the Lockheed Starlifter underwent an avionics upgrade a few years ago. And then there is latest Lockheed Hercules series with modern avionics (not sure if it's entirely newly built or "just" upgraded). If the airframe is fine, I think that an upgrade may be doable. Maybe new engines can be fitted, too. Ultimately it all gets down to costs, but with no successor model in sight, an upgrade sounds feasable. Oh, and there are always the Antonovs for charter.  Wink/being sarcastic

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

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Thu Sep 09, 2004 9:11 pm

AAR90
From United States, joined Jan 2000, 1701 posts, RR: 52
Reply: 4
Posted Wed Sep 1 2004 02:26:33 UTC+1 and read 527 times:
Nothing... too limited operationally (i.e. can't go many places). Similar problem for any very large transport. The concept for the C5 was that it was supposed to be able to operate from "improved" fields (not necessarily concrete or asphalt). It is actually severely limited in where it can go. The operational flexability the C17 has shown indicates any very large transport proposed will need to guarantee similar capabilities (lots of places it can go).


Utter BS, the C-5 has a larger foot print than a C-17. it can land on softer less improved ruways than a c-17. Also a C-17 can land on a sorter runway than a C-5 (as long as its dry) when you add snow, rain or whatever the C-5 can take off and land shorter than a C-17m due to the much higher braking capabilities of the C-5. There is no severe limits to where a C-5 can go as opposed to C-17. The biggest problem C-5s have compared to a C-17 is just its size and volume. You can get 2 C-17's in a space were one c-5 fits (just about) yet a C-5 has twice the cargo capacity of a C-17 and more range to boot.



"damn, I didnt know prince could Ball like that" - Charlie Murphy
 
SATL382G
Posts: 2679
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:02 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Thu Sep 09, 2004 10:30 pm

Yeah technically the C-5 has those capabilities. The trouble is though that the C-5 needs it's systems running to get into those fields and probably more importantly to get out again.

No one in his right mind will send a C-5 into a limited airfield with out some consideration of the consequences of it getting stuck there. If you've only got 2 C-17 parking spots and you send in a C-5 and it hard breaks you've just lost operational use of your airfield. BTDT! More than once I've seen the maintainers pull off a coup by getting a C-5 AND an airfield operational at one fell swoop.

The C-5s reliance on it's systems and unreliability of same are it's Achilles heel.

SATL382G
"There’s nothing quite as exhilarating as being shot at and missed" --Winston Churchill
 
KCmike
Posts: 531
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:13 am

RE: New Heavy-lift Transport To Replace The C-5?

Fri Sep 10, 2004 7:13 am

The C17 is the obvious option and thats what the Air Force is doing rolling out plenty of new C17's with more coming. The C17 has almost the same limitations as the C5. The C17 is just a modern aircraft. As far as cargo space how much do you really want. The C17 may have less but can still carry the load as far as deploying heavy equiptment.
Cleared for the option...

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos