Moderators: richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:53 pm

Saw this today. http://aimpoints.hq.af.mil/display.cfm?id=30323

Looks as if the C5's days are getting harder and harder to justify.
Fly fast, live slow
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:35 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Thread starter):
Looks as if the C5's days are getting harder and harder to justify.

Even if Boeing loses the KCX/Y program they will have plenty of work building C-17's and maybe a 747-8 freighter for the USAF with maybe a future RFP for a C-5 like acft with its capacity and the C17's dispatch reliability. I can see with the next administration at least the a number of C-5A's might be gone sooner or later.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 23518
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:40 am

Classic doublespeak:

Quote:
According to current estimates, a new C-17 would cost about $276

million, while complete modernization of a C-5 is priced at $132

million. However, while each new C-17 adds cargo capacity toward

meeting the department's airlift requirement, available capacity does

not increase with each C-5's modernization because the older planes are

already part of the operational force.

"Consequently, according to DoD data, the C-5 modernization

programs only provide a marginal increase of 14 percent in capability

over nonmodernized aircraft," the GAO report states. "We, working in

collaboration with DoD, calculated that DoD would need to fully

modernize seven C-5s to attain the equivalent capability achieved from

acquiring one additional C-17 and the costs would be over three times

more."

Won't we see a 100% loss of the C-5s if they aren't modernized?
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24280
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:15 am

From what gather the best option might be to stick simply with the 52 planned C-5M CERP program while not spending any money on the remaining 59 C-5s, and channel that money into additional C-17 frames.

This way one at least maintains some of the large C-5 lift on airframes that have new avionics and engines and hopefully improved reliability, while back filling with many more new C-17s.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 2:19 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 3):
while back filling with many more new C-17s

They need to look hard at the C-17 v. 748 matrix. Move the palatized cargo to the more efficient 748.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:27 am

You should read up on the C-17C as a C-5 replacement thread. Alot of discussion has gone on in there, and this thread is just repeating stuff thats already been said.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 10:17 am

The only airplane currently available for a possible C-5 replacement is the B-747-8F. Might have well just start making them as new tanker/cargo airplanes (even though I really don't like that idea, takes to many frames from the tanker mission), as well as buy new C-17s. Begin retiring the C-5, and KC-135E, a little later the KC-10, and finally the KC-135R/T. You can also cancel the KC-X, KC-Y, and KC-Z programs.
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:18 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 5):
You should read up on the C-17C as a C-5 replacement thread. Alot of discussion has gone on in there, and this thread is just repeating stuff thats already been said

If this comment is directed at me, I thank you for your suggestions, however, this confirms what has been talked about in other threads and what I was alluding to in my posts which were summarily dismissed by all the "experts" on this board.

Having spent 10 years active duty and another 11 in the Guard, the C5 is one of the biggest POS I have ever seen. That's from friends I have that have been flying it since 1980 and my wife's father who was on the initial cadre. The idea of the C5 is brilliant but the implementation leaves a lot to be desired!
Fly fast, live slow
 
zanl188
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:56 pm



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 7):
If this comment is directed at me, I thank you for your suggestions, however, this confirms what has been talked about in other threads and what I was alluding to in my posts which were summarily dismissed by all the "experts" on this board.

Getting facts straight would help immensely with your overall argument... which I generally agree with by the way - though not as vigorously. Also I would stay from "I have a friend.." anecdotal type statements when you are talking to folks who have direct knowledge of the aircraft and you do not.
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:58 pm

It was directed to the whole thread, not just you.
 
PhilSquares
Topic Author
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:10 pm



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 8):
anecdotal type statements when you are talking to folks who have direct knowledge of the aircraft and you do not.

Please point out any mis-statements I have made! Spending 21 years as a pilot in the USAF and ANG does give one a certain degree of credibility. I can't tell you the number of times I have had deployments delayed because of their reliability issues.
Fly fast, live slow
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:05 am



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
I can't tell you the number of times I have had deployments delayed because of their reliability issues.

The modernization program is designed to resolve a large portion of those issues. My question is this: How many C-5s do we need to meet the outsize cargo requirements our military has? Put another way, for every 10 airlift missions requiring a large airplane like the C-5 or C-17, how many of those have to be flown by the C-5 because the C-17 doesn't have the necessary cargo capacity?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 1:28 am



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 4):
They need to look hard at the C-17 v. 748 matrix. Move the palatized cargo to the more efficient 748.



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
The only airplane currently available for a possible C-5 replacement is the B-747-8F.

Yup, the amounts of money being discussed here would purchase a fine fleet of 748's. It's probably the cheaper option!

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 10):
I can't tell you the number of times I have had deployments delayed because of their reliability issues.

This does not speak well of warfighting equipment. It should be reliable, not just have a pretty spec sheet and pose for glamorous photo ops carrying M1-A1s to the beach of Madagascar or whatnot. It should be able to carry general freight to long, straight runways. Evidently the 748 (or leased 744Fs) would be a lot better for some such missions. Loading issues pale in comparison... again IMHO
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:26 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 12):
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
The only airplane currently available for a possible C-5 replacement is the B-747-8F.

Yup, the amounts of money being discussed here would purchase a fine fleet of 748's.

again, this is being repeated in the C-17C thread....

Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 11):
how many of those have to be flown by the C-5 because the C-17 doesn't have the necessary cargo capacity?

Right now its about 30%, but they prefer to use the C-5, because it takes 2 C-17s to carry 1 C-5 load.
 
texl1649
Posts: 1207
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 3:57 am

No warfighter wants to be scheduled for a C-5. They want a real schedule for deployment/re-deployment, not a figurative hope.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 13788
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:04 am

If money was tight and capasity needed I could imagine reserving a fleet of 60 used 747-400s, converting & standardizing them like Fedex did with MD11's. The low hours required will make them last for at least 25 yrs.

Much, much cheaper and low risk then new 747-8's.

Then what the USAF really wanted was to get the 180 KC45A tankers. Then there is no need anymore for additional pallet / container capasity. A KC45 can carry 26 pallets on main deck alone with reduced reliance to be dragged over oceans. Mainly assigning more pilots to the units.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/1c703184.png

However congress knew better..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:36 am



Quoting Keesje (Reply 15):
If money was tight and capasity needed I could imagine reserving a fleet of 60 used 747-400s, converting & standardizing them like Fedex did with MD11's. The low hours required will make them last for at least 25 yrs.

Much, much cheaper and low risk then new 747-8's.

Then what the USAF really wanted was to get the 180 KC45A tankers. Then there is no need anymore for additional pallet / container capasity. A KC45 can carry 26 pallets on main deck alone with reduced reliance to be dragged over oceans. Mainly assigning more pilots to the units.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a357/thezeke/1c703184.png

However congress knew better..

Good point. However, with a fleet of 60 B-747-400Fs, including some B-747-400ERFs, or B-747-8Fs, there would be no need for the KC-45A, as there wouldn't be that many pallets left, on each scheduled movement.

To bad your photobucket chart isn't accurate, or contain the relevent information. You placed the A-330-200F (which hasn't even started construction of ship #1 yet, much less flight testing) on the chart against older freighters, like the B-707F, DC-8F, DC-10F, and A-300F. The only freighter on your chart that ios in production is the B-767-300ERF, and you didn't add the A-330F direct competitor, the B-777-200LRF (currently in flight testing), or the B-747-8F, which is currently building ship #1, and will fly long before the A-330F, or the A-400M.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:02 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 13):
Right now its about 30%, but they prefer to use the C-5, because it takes 2 C-17s to carry 1 C-5 load.

That takes me back to the question of whether it would be practical to build a stretched C-17. No, you probably couldn't make it carry twice as much cargo, but I'm confident the increase in volume would be a significant improvement over the current C-17. And no, I'm not knocking the C-17 by any means.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Nov 28, 2008 10:20 pm

The USAF explored those options already, and found that upgrading the B models to C-5M Super Galaxies would be the most viable option. They've put so much money into the C-5 AMP and RERP at this point that not going forward with it, would cost them even more money. Yes, the cost over runs have been shown time and time again, and the USAF already reacted to that by saying sorry A models, you don't get new engines. The reliability rates are low on the A models, not so much on the Bs. Keep in mind that there are several B models with more airframe hours than some As. The A models were a mess. They still have alot of problems to this day, which makes sense why the USAF said no to the upgrades. Just to keep the As flying in their current state is a FRED! The B-models have a higher reliability rate when compared to the As. When these news reports come out, the factor the reliability of ALL C-5s, not just a particular model. The main problems with the B-models are mostly related to AMP software problems, engine problems, and the dewar/nitro system. They are in the process working on the AMP software issues, as they have been since they started AMP. The bad part, is they get the AMP problems fixed, and then they slap on new engines, and have another barrage of issues that come up. After RERP, the issues are mainly down to hydraulic leaks, which are a norm for the C-5, and the same nitrogen problems. Them designing a new dewar system would be a good idea post RERP. I doubt that much more money will get spent on upgrades though unless the reliability is matching the earlier figures of 85%.

The C-17 is a great plane, and it took several years to get the design down. Putting money into building another prototype aircraft to see if its a viable replacement for the C-5 is just another waste of money. Everyone on here knows that the KC-135s need replacing ASAP, and the USAF will save money by upgrading the C-5Bs, retiring the majority of the As, Retiring the KC-135Es, and finalizing a freakin tanker contract instead of playing around for a decade, while everyone claims "their plane is better", or "well this plane would be a better tanker, even though its rediculous in size". After the upgrades on the 5, after some retirements, and after we get some new tankers in service, give about 10 years, then come talk about a C-5 replacement. By then, we'll all know how good, or how bad the C-5M performs. So far, its all been good news out of Lockheed. As I said in the other thread, it seems to me that the USAF wants the C-5 to fail, and is releasing these "bad" figures to trick the public into believing its worse than it actually is. And for those who don't depend and complain about the C-5, then, thats just bad luck for you. I know as a former maintainer on the C-5, that its not hard to get off the ground if you can tell the crew to stop being a bunch of babies and do their job.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:13 am



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 18):
it seems to me that the USAF wants the C-5 to fail, and is releasing these "bad" figures to trick the public into believing its worse than it actually is. And for those who don't depend and complain about the C-5, then, thats just bad luck for you. I know as a former maintainer on the C-5, that its not hard to get off the ground if you can tell the crew to stop being a bunch of babies and do their job.

Why would the Air Force want the airplane to fail? There's nothing in the near term or distant future to replace it? The C-17 can't do what the C-5 does and what would the Air Force do without the Galaxy?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:39 am



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 19):
Why would the Air Force want the airplane to fail?

I don't know necessarily why, but it seems (at least at the active duty standpoint) that they ground the planes for stupid reasons alot of the time, or cancel missions for stupid reasons. It seems diliberate at times, and the MX management at Dover seemed to make things worse rather than better. Instead of listening to the maintainers for ideas to improve the MX process, they ignored everyone, put everyone on 12 hour shifts, and brought morale down so low that people were being stupid (DUIs, fights, stealing, etc). Nobody would care because no one cared about the maintainers, so they dragged ass, and then blamed everything on them, reported it to AMC, and AMC sees the low reliability and mission launch rates. Part of it has to be the fact that they are using the C-5 FRED concept for the leverage of getting more C-17s. But all should know that a C-17 (even if stretched), or a 748 is never going to replace the C-5. Thats the whole reason why the upper management of the USAF has been funding the RERP and AMP programs. They don't want an airplane with 80% of its structural life left sit in the desert and blow tens of billions of dollars on a new C-XX aircraft to replace it. It'll all come back and bite them in the butt eventually, but in the meantime, money is constantly being spent on stupid things. I love how they fly 2 C-5s on a local training mission a day, instead of putting them in the 140 million dollar training simulator they have. Give me a break! I can't tell you how many times that a local training mission was more important than a mission to Iraq!

Even when the time does come to replace the C-5, 20-30 years from now, the USAF is more than likely going to want a plane that does what the C-5 does, only more reliable. Having the same design elements with improved reliability, including the gears/kneeling system, forward and aft loading complexes, and a high wing design. Making the plane more friendly to the crew, maintainers and loadmasters would also be a plus.
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 5:11 am



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 20):
It seems diliberate at times, and the MX management at Dover seemed to make things worse rather than better. Instead of listening to the maintainers for ideas to improve the MX process, they ignored everyone, put everyone on 12 hour shifts, and brought morale down so low that people were being stupid (DUIs, fights, stealing, etc). Nobody would care because no one cared about the maintainers, so they dragged ass, and then blamed everything on them, reported it to AMC, and AMC sees the low reliability and mission launch rates.

Do you think it would be better to put mx back under op's again in the AMC world? I work alot with flying crew chiefs alot on C-5's and C-17's doing my TA thing here at KTIK and they seam happy to be doing the mission and keeping their bird up and going. The Aircrews seam to take care of their Chief on the road but at home station they get bent over by their own supervision. I retired after 23 years as Crew Chief, Pro Super MSgt and hated going back to home station to work. Any Mx Officers hear on this thread who know why the USAF mx supv has to make their troops life hell back at home station and eat their young? I was lucky when I was under op's and had a good relationship with my crews but turned to crap when went back under a Mx/Log Grp. Any Officer hear can you tell us why it has to be shitty?
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 1:23 pm

Definitely sounds like maintenance management is one of the biggest issues affecting the C-5.
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 6:09 pm

All you guys have mentioned the problem. The AF has lots of people who think they are management. You manage Walmart and how many pallets go where and when. People in the US military are supposed to be led by LEADERS. The problem is that the USAF that did the airlift in Desert Storm is dead and buried, probably never to return. The "upper management" people that allegedly run the show are more concerned with their next assignment, OER, or what job they can create for themselves with civil service or with a contractor upon retirement. We are in hell of a jam, and digging a deeper hole.... All the issues that turned AMP into s soup sandwich are now in play again. So the M model planes might be a decent piece of hardware, but the AF will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and make it an unworkable mess.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 7:08 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 22):
Definitely sounds like maintenance management is one of the biggest issues affecting the C-5.

Home Station MX MGMT at that. It is a different story when the crews are out flying around the world, and you don't have some jerk off yelling down your throat that you are being unsafe, doing your job wrong, not working fast enough, etc. The TA world is far more relaxed compared to the AMC home station world.

Quoting JohnM (Reply 23):
All the issues that turned AMP into s soup sandwich are now in play again

That was a nightmare. They started that AMP team to just take care of the AMP birds, then they refused to train the legacy people how to run the AMP stuff, so when all the planes got AMPed, you had half the MX group not knowing what to do. Remember Treon, the (reservist guy out of ISO) that put all the red guarded switches up to turn the AMP stuff off, and in turn turned the fuel jettisons on!? Yeah...wonderful plan there. It wasn't just isolated to AMP either. When we did the A-model swaps for Altus, and then for the retirements, it was a giant cluster. I'm sure it'll be the same for the Ms. I can sit here and tell what may be the best way to do things for the M model bed down, but MXG will find some way to screw it up and make it that "AMP Soup" again. What makes things even worse, is AMC decided to bring in some ACC guys to help out. Uh, The C-5 is NOT a fighter! So those ACC guys got all bent out of shape, and the hole got deeper, and there is some concrete at the bottom of everyones feet in there. All I hear is echoes "HELP!"
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Nov 29, 2008 8:16 pm

The problem in the mx world active duty side is that every 2 years we have a new Wing,Gp,Sq leadership take over and they insist on reinventing the wheel everytime so they can stand out and show executive experiance , works that way in the depots too. Unfortunatley that means not listening to old hands who have the corporate experiance on how a C-5 works and doesn't work. This is where I think a experianced cadre of Warrent officers who at one time were experianced Crew Chiefs and specialists who now to make a flightline run instead of just pissing everybody off putting everybody on 12 hours just because they could not lead cub scouts to a McDonalds for happy meals. As you can tell I have no love for the mx officers in my past most of them would be challenged on the proper procedures of putting gas in a lawn mower. Mx has been overun with mgt by Powerpoint and excel. It always amazes me to see MXSQ CC's in their office on a Sunday night just glued to their computer taking care of all that anncillary crap the USAF piles on instead of taking care of the primary mission of his SQ. As a Contractor now I have no problem working the weekends and holidays because I know I don't have to take the crap of a stupid mx officer and I get paid very well and as a contractor I will use best mx or business prinicples to get it done quickly,safely, without having a QA on my back, most of the time the federal QA is just making sure we are doing what is required of our contract and stay the hell out of the way.
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
tf39
Posts: 81
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:43 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:43 am

My  twocents 

Go with extending the C-17 production. Adds capacity, a proved and more modern design, can haul most outsized cargo, etc.

Drop the C-5M program. Quit throwing good money after bad. I love the C-5 but it's time to pull the plug.

For pallets, why not get some of the 747-400s out of the desert and modify them ala BCF? You don't need a brand spanking new 747-8F, especially given the hideous paint job the AF would give it  Wink

I doubt if C-5's are highly utilized (+2000 flight hours per year per aircraft) and why not get the conventional cargo capacity out of a far more reliable aircraft (747). If a 747-400 has at least 20K plus hours left on it's frame plus the cycles to go with it, I think it'd be a better choice.

Then I'd like to see the blended wing come into play  Smile

p.s. seems like MX management is the same as it was decades ago  Wink

Quoting Venus6971 (Reply 25):
As you can tell I have no love for the mx officers in my past most of them would be challenged on the proper procedures of putting gas in a lawn mower

It was always fun getting a fresh 2nd LT out on the line  devil 
 
Venus6971
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 1:55 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:52 pm



Quoting TF39 (Reply 26):
It was always fun getting a fresh 2nd LT out on the line

When it comes to MX zeros,
"it is better to keep ones mouth shut and thought a idiot than open it and remove all doubt"
I would help you but it is not in the contract
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Dec 06, 2008 8:04 pm



Quoting TF39 (Reply 26):
I doubt if C-5's are highly utilized (+2000 flight hours per year per aircraft)

The B-models are over that. Its the As that barely get a 1000 because of the plaguing structural problems.

Quoting TF39 (Reply 26):
Drop the C-5M program. Quit throwing good money after bad.

The C-5M program isn't bad. First, take in consideration that many of the cost over runs are due to inflation, and the way the economy spiked over the last few years. The initial cost estimates were made in 1999 and 2000. A soda cost .99 then, now its a buck 49 for the same 20 oz soda. That as an excuse is just a crock. Yes, I agree to a point that they have run into issues, and have to fix those, but I doubt that it went over that much. Its just another congressional ploy to nix the C-5. Remember that they already pulled the plug on the A models, which is a good thing. Alot of the so called "cost over runs" include the fact that all the structural issues with 9024 were factored in. All the A models have those issues, and have been one by one going through Lockheed to fix each problem one by one, taking 8 months at a time, and not necessarily fixing everything in one shot. Time to send some C-5s to museums for display, and send the rest and mothballed to AMARC. That way, when you lose one to a moron using the shut down engines throttle instead of the running engines throttle, you have a replacement within a year or two.

Quoting TF39 (Reply 26):
Go with extending the C-17 production

Agreed. The C-17 should continue production for another decade or so. The older C-17s need to get a break. Personally, as they do with many other aircraft, they need to send the older ones to the guard and reserve units. Keeping them on active duty is just going to end their "lives" so to say much faster. Want another squadron at March? Give them the oldest or most airframed houred 17s from McChord and Charleston. Give CHS and McChord new 17s (as they are currently). Ramstein could use a set, give them some 94 and 95 models. Wright-Patterson has been complaining about not getting C-17s from day one that 0457 hit their ramp. Shut them up and give them the 88-93 models. They did right with Elmendorf by giving them 99 and 00 models. Keeping a fresh 17 around at all times will be an asset to the USAF. 10 to 12 a year is fine for the USAF, and gives other nations time to "save up" for thier own Globemaster III.
 
JohnM
Posts: 395
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Dec 06, 2008 9:05 pm

2000 hours per year?

I disagree 5007. There isn't a B model out there that is doing 2000 hrs a year, let alone a fleet average. When you throw in very little flying now, Iso, HSC, AMP mod, PDM, and the planes pretty much hating to fly, the average is no where near that. Travis always seems to have more planes out in the system than Dover, but the flying level is what I would at times consider "flyable storage" for lots of planes. The most the airplanes have flown was during Desert Storm, and they flew hours to make a 747 jealous, but that was relatively short lived. However I see an empty C-17 ramp, and lots of those little planes taxing back and forth, they must fly almost twice as much as the C-5s.

As far as RERP, the current TF-39 after the HT-90 TCTO does much better than before, it must have been one of the better TCTO's done to the airplane. I'm not so sure all the C-5M propaganda is to be believed, remember these are the guys who screwed AMP up by the numbers.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sun Dec 07, 2008 2:46 am

There are a few C-5Bs putting out that number. It might not be 2000 now adays, but there are roughly only 35 B models in service at a time. AMP is just about done on the B-models, with 4 to go. Travis has more aircraft out, because of the PDM schedule, and the fact that Dover has so many birds in serial sequence that also go to PDM in that sequence. Back in October, 4061, 5001, 5002, 5004, 5008 were all in PDM, and 5003 was preparing to go. 5008, a Travis bird, actually went in early, and thats another reason why Dover has 7030 and 7032 as "loaner" birds. The new proposed HSC (120), ISO (480) schedule will reduce some of the downtime and stretch out the duration between those maintenance events. PDM is to go to every 8 years for both A and B models (which is a stretch if you ask me). This was all discussed at the C-5 improvement confrences at Robins a couple of years ago. Again, I no longer have access to that info, so I'm unaware of the dealings at this time.

When I first got to Dover in 02, there was 38 jets on the ramp and parked on taxi ways, the X-mas tree, south ramp and on hot cargo. 30 of them were broke from flying in and out so much, the other 8 were in and out back and forth from down range. It was busy like that until late 2005, and it started to slow down, and the C-17s picked up the pace of the C-5s. They also flew around alot like the C-17s do there now. Its becoming rare to see a Dover C-5 flying locals anymore. I see the C-17 in the air all the time up there, and it is the same way here down at Pope. We get Charleston birds in and out flying locals here daily, sometimes more so than the 130s that are assigned here.

I agree that the TCTO on the engines definately improved the reliability of them, but they still aren't as reliable as the new CF6s. They are much better and quieter on the M model. And that thing can climb like a C-17 taking off...I've seen it at Dobbins. The other mods are helpful, but it goes back to the problems with the nitro system and some of the pagued hydraulic issues that are with the thing. The number one problem for hydraulic parts are that most of the parts are simply overhauled, resealed, and re-painted and thrown back in a plane instead of buying a new part after that old part fails 3 times in a year.

Also remember that the majority of the AMP screw ups were software problems and computer problems. RERP deals with the mechanical components of the upgrade, and they had far less problems with doing the post RERP checks over AMP. When they finished AMPing 6013 and 6025, 5003 was in AMP. 25 and 13 flew to Lockheed for RERP, and after 5003 finished, it flew down to Lockheed to get the bugs worked out of AMP for 6 months. Shortly after, we got 5004 (which was a total nightmare) from Travis/Lockheed and spent a year getting that jet back up to "normal". Meanwhile, while all this was going on, the legacy B-models were kicking butt and flying their tails off.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sun Dec 07, 2008 5:48 am

Thanks Galaxy. Everybody can really respect the C-5's capabilities, especially the M. The concept of the M is really exciting. It is cool to hear about how it works. Every new model of aircraft (and software) has bugs. The hope is that after say 3 years, you can get a fleet dialed in. The C-5M program ought to be showing total success in the next few years. Otherwise I will be concerned there is something they forgot about. Take a look at the A380 for example, it had plenty of bugs. But today, we can be confident Airbus can build really good A380s going forward. I wonder if Lockheed will reach that level with the C-5M or not.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sun Dec 07, 2008 7:09 am

The M model will be fine as long as they don't put any software like Windows Vista on the plane, LOL. Any aircraft that has computer controls, or that is being converted with such are going to have issues. The bigger the plane, the more problems you are going to have. When the A380 problems started showing up, I wasn't the least bit surprised after seeing the AMP nightmare on the C-5....and thats just an upgrade to the stuff from the 60s. The A380 was a new plane from the start, and getting everything to work right takes time. Just as the 787 is taking time to get stuff fixed and working right. Now adays, you have to add 25 to 30% extra time to the end of your initial projections, because it will always go over. Technology is wonderful, but it takes time to get it right.
 
A350
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:40 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Dec 25, 2008 9:53 pm

Sorry if I have missed a point, but what's wrong with converting C-5As to C-5Ms? You are discussing the poor reliability of the C-5As, but wouldn't that be solved when they are modernised? And while the C-17 is probably mjoe economic to operate, or the best solution for heavy duty, isn't a C-5A modernisation the most economic way to get capacity on standby just for the case it's needed?

BTW, happy X-mas to everybody!

Cheers

A350
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11172
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:01 pm



Quoting A350 (Reply 33):
Sorry if I have missed a point, but what's wrong with converting C-5As to C-5Ms? You are discussing the poor reliability of the C-5As, but wouldn't that be solved when they are modernised? And while the C-17 is probably mjoe economic to operate, or the best solution for heavy duty, isn't a C-5A modernisation the most economic way to get capacity on standby just for the case it's needed?

Not really. the C-5A/B have never had the reliability the USAF needs in its aircraft (85%), apparently, even with the C-5M configueration, the reliability will only improve from the current 50%-55% to around 75%. There are structural and other problems the reengining and AMP programs don't address.

Some of the structural and stress problems the C-5 has is because of the way it has been used in the past., but nothing can be done about that now. Some problems are repairable, and have been repaired, like the wing center box replacement about 10-12 years ago. Engine struts will be replaced in the "M" program, but there are also tail plane issues that need attention.

Had the C-5M program been canceled, the USAF could have replaced the C-5 with B-747-8Fs, which is a much higher reliable airplane and can do most of what the C-5 can do.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 18):
Everyone on here knows that the KC-135s need replacing ASAP, and the USAF will save money by upgrading the C-5Bs, retiring the majority of the As, Retiring the KC-135Es, and finalizing a freakin tanker contract instead of playing around for a decade, while everyone claims "their plane is better", or "well this plane would be a better tanker, even though its rediculous in size". After the upgrades on the 5, after some retirements, and after we get some new tankers in service, give about 10 years, then come talk about a C-5 replacement.

Incorrewct. there is nothing structually wrong with the KC-135. There are individual KC-135s that have corrosion problems, and that can be repaired on most of them. Reengining the KC-135E is the best and cheapest way to improve the size of the refueling fleet. Buying new KC-30s will acdtually decrease the need for the C-5M program, in the box handeling role (C-5s not usually used for this).
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Thu Dec 25, 2008 11:42 pm

I agree with Galaxy5007.

I expect more notices to come out like this.

If NATO gets the C-17's they want, the world will not need the Large Cargo Aircraft's nearly as much and the USAF can concentrate on refining their fleet.
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Dec 26, 2008 12:45 am

http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022249


Please feel free to email and call the Air Force ( link listed) and Congress/Representatives/Senate and explain to them that info on the C5 program is false.

Tell them that all of the service personal for maintainence is not needed and they are wasting their time on the C5 while they could be doing something useful with their service.

Please tell them everybody has been wrong about the C5 program.

Your Congressperson - Representative - Senator needs to hear it from you.

Happy Holidays
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Dec 26, 2008 5:54 pm



Quoting Seefivein (Reply 36):
explain to them that info on the C5 program is false

What was false about the info in the 6/21/06 article you posted? Remember, when they posted that article, they were accounting for both the A and B/C models to get RERPed. We hear and see some of the flaws of the C-5, but its still a good airplane.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Not really. the C-5A/B have never had the reliability the USAF needs in its aircraft (85%), apparently, even with the C-5M configueration, the reliability will only improve from the current 50%-55% to around 75%. There are structural and other problems the reengining and AMP programs don't address.

I disagree. The USAF does NOT need its aircraft at 85%, it wants it at 85%. The B models are averaging 65-70%, were the A models are operating at the 50-55% range. Take the downed birds for structural issues, it jumps up 10% to 60-65%. I do agree however, that they never had the reliability the USAF wanted. AMP doesn't do anything structurally, only RERP does. Several of the structrual issues are being worked on, but not as a fleet-which in turn is costing the USAF more money than it should.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Some of the structural and stress problems the C-5 has is because of the way it has been used in the past., but nothing can be done about that now. Some problems are repairable, and have been repaired, like the wing center box replacement about 10-12 years ago. Engine struts will be replaced in the "M" program, but there are also tail plane issues that need attention.

Untrue. The structural and stress problems are due to the type of aluminum that was used to build the A models. That aluminum is subject to stress and corrosion cracks and damages. The high stress points are giving way now, but aren't necessarily a safety of flight issue. Since the USAF is so anal however, they make it seem that way. Yes, the problems need to be fixed, but they need to do it in a different manner than this one aircraft at a time thing, and keeping that same jet on the ground for a year, flying it to its home base, only to find another problem that should of been fixed while in depot, and then sit at the back of the line for 9 months because engineering says don't fly it. The tail problem is done and over with. All C-5s have been fixed on that.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Had the C-5M program been canceled, the USAF could have replaced the C-5 with B-747-8Fs, which is a much higher reliable airplane and can do most of what the C-5 can do.

Again, It ain't going to happen. First off, the 747-8F doesn't exist yet, and although boeings reliability rates are usually consistent, its no C-5 replacement. Second, I would love to see the 748 kneel without the inboard engined being crushed on the ground. Not going to happen.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 34):
Incorrewct. there is nothing structually wrong with the KC-135. There are individual KC-135s that have corrosion problems, and that can be repaired on most of them. Reengining the KC-135E is the best and cheapest way to improve the size of the refueling fleet. Buying new KC-30s will acdtually decrease the need for the C-5M program, in the box handeling role (C-5s not usually used for this).

I never said there was anything structurally wrong with the aircraft. However the age isn't a selling point to the GP and congress. Guess what, there are individual C-5As that have corrosion problems, and they can be repaired on most of them. So wouldn't your theory on the 135Es work on the C-5As? Buying new KC-45s as they were designated, will decrease the need for the KC-135....which is the whole point! It will not decrease the need for the C-5M program as it is now. If the A models were involved, maybe, but they are out of it.

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 35):
the USAF can concentrate on refining their fleet.

They already started. What slowed this all down was the election year. Until the new Congress gets in, and the economy is shored up, not a whole lot is going to get done.

Quoting A350 (Reply 33):
but what's wrong with converting C-5As to C-5Ms?

Technically, there is nothing wrong with converting them. However, the reports that are out, and the fact that the As were second in line after the Bs make it a hard case to bother with them. I find it funny that the C-5 age is such a huge deal with the Galaxy, but the KC-135 and B-52 age is irrelevant to everyone.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Dec 26, 2008 6:36 pm



Quoting TF39 (Reply 26):
For pallets, why not get some of the 747-400s out of the desert and modify them ala BCF? You don't need a brand spanking new 747-8F, especially given the hideous paint job the AF would give it

This was formally suggested to the USAF. Congress is reluctant to spend money on used aircraft and Boeing is also against it. They only want to sell new airplanes.

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 36):
Please tell them everybody has been wrong about the C5 program.

Your Congressperson - Representative - Senator needs to hear it from you.

I tend to agree that Congress is spoon fed the wrong information.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
The USAF does NOT need its aircraft at 85%, it wants it at 85%.

They should be getting better than 85%. Even a used 747 will do better than 85%.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
Second, I would love to see the 748 kneel without the inboard engined being crushed on the ground

The C-17 can do those type of missions which require ground loading.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
Quoting A350 (Reply 33):
but what's wrong with converting C-5As to C-5Ms?

The RERP program was well over cost so as a compromise, the Pentagon cut the number of aircraft to be converted. So the "A" models were cut out from that program. As I have said elsewhere, they may still cancel the entire RERP program for more C-17's or possibly some other platform. In my opinion the 748 is the best and most cost effective alternative solution.
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Dec 26, 2008 7:30 pm

I must have missed all the messages that show an Abram loaded on a bottom wing aircraft.

I hope all other programs on upgrades for other aircraft will have the same critics.

All aircraft are aging faster than normal because of the current military tours.

I saw somewhere in the last couple of days that the new freighter from Boeing has rivets poping out.

A Bottom winged cargo plane is not near the solution
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:01 pm



Quoting JohnM (Reply 29):
disagree 5007. There isn't a B model out there that is doing 2000 hrs a year, let alone a fleet average.

There is not a single aircraft in US military service the is operated 2000 hours a year. As for you C-17 fans that think they are over used:

http://www.charleston.net/news/2008/.../02/hard_flying_hard_working63625/

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
I find it funny that the C-5 age is such a huge deal with the Galaxy, but the KC-135 and B-52 age is irrelevant to everyone.

Because their ulitization is less than the C-5.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Fri Dec 26, 2008 8:32 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 38):
Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
The USAF does NOT need its aircraft at 85%, it wants it at 85%.

They should be getting better than 85%. Even a used 747 will do better than 85%.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
Second, I would love to see the 748 kneel without the inboard engined being crushed on the ground

The C-17 can do those type of missions which require ground loading.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 37):
Quoting A350 (Reply 33):
but what's wrong with converting C-5As to C-5Ms?

The RERP program was well over cost so as a compromise, the Pentagon cut the number of aircraft to be converted. So the "A" models were cut out from that program. As I have said elsewhere, they may still cancel the entire RERP program for more C-17's or possibly some other platform. In my opinion the 748 is the best and most cost effective alternative solution

A used 747 wouldn't do the job of a C-5, so thats no comparison. If the world wasn't so against the C-5, the rates wouldn't be as low as they are. If the manning for maintenance for the C-5 was increased, it would be much more productive. Oh and might I mention that all the C-5As belong to the guard and reserve, where they don't have a huge staff of maintenance personnel 24/7 like active units do?

The C-17 can't do everything the C-5 can without making two flights. Second, I wasn't talking about the C-17 in the first place, I was talking about the 748 that hasn't flown yet that all the boeing nuts love so much and think its going to perform miracles.

The As were cancelled due to the cost over runs not because of RERP, but the jacktards factored in the legacy repairs that needed to be made, and didn't account for the huge rise of cost of everything. So they said it was because of the cost over runs from the RERP program, but I go back to my theory that certain politicians and officials in the USAF want the C-5 to fail and get rid of the plane- just like the boeing nuts on here. Your opinon on the 748 is based on the 742 aircraft running around. Until if flies, its not a replacement to anything. Even when it does, its never going to replace the C-5, so get it out of your head. Thats just a fact. C-17s are too expensive to get. You can RERP two C-5Bs for the price of 1 C-17, and have 4x the capacity of a C-17 with a C-5M. Again, just a fact.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:35 am

I suggest those who are in complete favor of the C-5M read the recent GAO report linked below. It basically said that you cannot count one C-5M as more or equal to one new C-17. That is because 100% of the capacity for one new C-17 is counted as such while only 14% is given to the C-5M. Why? Because the 'non-modernized' C-5 is already counted in the total lift capacity (ton miles per day) for the AMC while a new C-17 is not. After undergoing modernization each C-5M gives the AMC an increase of 14% for a cost of $132 million. (see pages 12 & 13 of report)

A used 744 or new 748 can do much of what the C-5 is capable of and in fact can best it in many important ways as listed below.

1) Reliability (over 95% using industry standards for the 747)
2) Payload/Range (295,000 lbs over 4,000 nm for 748)
3) Pax carrying capability (leaving the upper deck extended will allow for at least 100 pax depending on seat pitch)

GAO report 09-50

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0950.pdf

Quoting Seefivein (Reply 39):
I must have missed all the messages that show an Abram loaded on a bottom wing aircraft.

I will reiterate that for the large 'specialized' cargo requirements we have almost 200 C-17's. Also the C-17's were designed specifically to haul the Abrams tanks from the US and land on short gravel runways on the Eastern European front. There are two airlift studies in the works and it should interesting to see just they say.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 41):
The As were canceled due to the cost over runs not because of RERP, but the jacktards factored in the legacy repairs that needed to be made, and didn't account for the huge rise of cost of everything

The cost overruns in the RERP program included the engine portion. These overruns triggered the Nunn-McCurdy Act.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...+Breach+Chided+By+Lockheed+Backers


I think they should continue with the C-5 RERP and not buy anymore C-17's. Instead they should buy the 748. I also tend to agree that the C-5 is not being maintained properly and that is why it is not doing so well.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Sat Dec 27, 2008 12:52 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 42):
I suggest those who are in complete favor of the C-5M read the recent GAO report linked below. It basically said that you cannot count one C-5M as more or equal to one new C-17. That is because 100% of the capacity for one new C-17 is counted as such while only 14% is given to the C-5M. Why? Because the 'non-modernized' C-5 is already counted in the total lift capacity (ton miles per day) for the AMC while a new C-17 is not. After undergoing modernization each C-5M gives the AMC an increase of 14% for a cost of $132 million.

Again, you are missing my point that the GAO report and politicians in charge of the C-5 fate are trying to make it look worse than it is. Alot of that info is way stretched, all because they want congress to approve money for C-17s, instead of supporting the valuable C-5.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 42):
A used 744 or new 748 can do much of what the C-5 is capable of and in fact can best it in many important ways as listed below.

1) Reliability (over 95% using industry standards for the 747)
2) Payload/Range (295,000 lbs over 4,000 nm for 748)
3) Pax carrying capability (leaving the upper deck extended will allow for at least 100 pax depending on seat pitch)

Again, industry standards may be that way for the 747. The military is a lot more anal on maintenance practices though, and again it is never going to replace the C-5. It isn't the C-5, never will be a C-5, and never will replace the C-5.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 42):
The cost overruns in the RERP program included the engine portion. These overruns triggered the Nunn-McCurdy Act.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...+Breach+Chided+By+Lockheed+Backers


I think they should continue with the C-5 RERP and not buy anymore C-17's. Instead they should buy the 748. I also tend to agree that the C-5 is not being maintained properly and that is why it is not doing so well.

If you read my post, I specified what the cost over runs included, but weren't mentioned in the breach. The breach program itself (RERP) which obviously includes the engine portion as you say.

The new tanker can supplement other cargo that needs to be moved when a C-5M, or C-17 isn't available for some reason. There is no need for the military to purchase expensive 748s that aren't proven in any way because the darn jet doesn't exist but on a piece of paper! If the military needs extra help, they contract it out to civillian contractors like World Cargo, Polar, Evergreen, Atlas, Kalitta, etc. They aren't going to spend billions on a new airframe that carries pallets. Give it up already.
The C-5 is maintained fine, its just the upper management of the maintainers slow things down, and then report false things to the people they work for, demoralize the maintenance crews, and in turn reduce the MC rate. Oh, did I mention that sometimes the C-5 crews don't feel like flying, so they wuss out and go to bed instead of doing their job? Oh I did, its in another thread. Go read it.
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Mon Dec 29, 2008 9:06 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
There is no need for the military to purchase expensive 748s

When the industry standard 'discount' is applied by Boeing, a new 747-8 is considerably less expensive than a new C-17.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
the darn jet doesn't exist but on a piece of paper!

The first one is in production and is not a high risk project (Note - the first delivery has been delayed due to the strike and other issues). See link below.

http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/20...3/boeing-747-8f-production-begins/

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
They aren't going to spend billions on a new airframe that carries pallets

It can carry more than just pallets.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
The military is a lot more anal on maintenance practices though

This is the heart of the problem and needs to be corrected. We cannot buy extra airplanes to increase aircraft availability numbers just because of foolish management and cultural problems. Am I to understand that every day many people safely fly on civilian carriers in the US (and worldwide) using maintenance practices that the DoD seems to find too lax?

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 43):
Oh, did I mention that sometimes the C-5 crews don't feel like flying, so they wuss out and go to bed instead of doing their job

Yes you did and maybe the solution is to turn all AMC flying over to civilian companies.
 
zanl188
Posts: 3770
Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:05 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Mon Dec 29, 2008 10:13 pm



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
It can carry more than just pallets.

Please expand on this point. The floor is essentially non-load bearing aside from being able to walk on it - so any cargo of consequence must transfer the load thru the roller system and locks. How does it do that without pallets or containers?
Legal considerations provided by: Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe
 
TropicBird
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:31 am



Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 45):


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
It can carry more than just pallets.

Please expand on this point. The floor is essentially non-load bearing aside from being able to walk on it - so any cargo of consequence must transfer the load through the roller system and locks. How does it do that without pallets or containers?

I have personally watched US Army vehicles loaded onto a 747-200F at Hickam AFB. They were driven through the Nose Cargo Door and onto pallets.

Now concerning the 747-8F or for that matter the formerly proposed USAF C-33 (747-400F). Boeing had proposed to strengthen the floor and widen the Side Cargo Door. They even put out a CG video showing an Army tank being loaded through the wider side door. The floor strengthening adds weight to the aircraft but it also increases its capability. Hope that helps to explain.
 
seefivein
Posts: 130
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2006 12:52 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:42 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 46):
I have personally watched US Army vehicles loaded onto a 747-200F at Hickam AFB. They were driven through the Nose Cargo Door and onto pallets

What do the ramps cost that will raise heavy equipment to that height, how much more personal are needed for that job?

How much ramp equipment needed at each location for load and unload/
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 653
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Tue Dec 30, 2008 3:38 am



Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
When the industry standard 'discount' is applied by Boeing, a new 747-8 is considerably less expensive than a new C-17.

Industry discount! Whatever! Boeing will get their money somehow, another way. By the time you add the cost of the military requirements to the aircraft, it'll be more than a C-17. We aren't talking about C-17s here anyways, we are talking about your precious 748.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
The first one is in production and is not a high risk project

Thats because there is no deadline from the US military. The military has no intention on aquiring the aircraft, which makes this argument useless.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
Yes you did and maybe the solution is to turn all AMC flying over to civilian companies

I'd like to see the money to pay these civillian companies to fly civillian aircraft with no aerial defense systems into baghdad.

Quoting TropicBird (Reply 46):
Quoting ZANL188 (Reply 45):


Quoting TropicBird (Reply 44):
It can carry more than just pallets.

Please expand on this point. The floor is essentially non-load bearing aside from being able to walk on it - so any cargo of consequence must transfer the load through the roller system and locks. How does it do that without pallets or containers?

I have personally watched US Army vehicles loaded onto a 747-200F at Hickam AFB. They were driven through the Nose Cargo Door and onto pallets.

Now concerning the 747-8F or for that matter the formerly proposed USAF C-33 (747-400F). Boeing had proposed to strengthen the floor and widen the Side Cargo Door. They even put out a CG video showing an Army tank being loaded through the wider side door. The floor strengthening adds weight to the aircraft but it also increases its capability. Hope that helps to explain

Yes a 747-200F you watched. Key part of that response is ONTO PALLETS!!! You don't need that on a C-5! Nor a C-130, or C-17!

I have a question for you...Have you ever maintained a C-5? Have you ever helped load a C-5? How about a 742? Lets stretch it to a C-17...Ever maintain or load one of those? Watching and doing are two different things.

Even if they retire ALL of the C-5As, that doesn't mean they are going to jump to the 747 that can't kneel, can't defend itself, and can't be refueled without huge costly modifications. thats why I doubt all the As will get retired anytime soon. Some, probably, and probably wise. All, very doubtful. Chances of the prototype 748 making it in the the USAF fleet, Not a chance in hell.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: GAO: New C-5 Cost Estimates

Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:06 am



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 48):
The military has no intention on aquiring the aircraft, which makes this argument useless.

The military does not have final say on major aircraft procurements, though. It is a political decision with military input. It will be interesting what actually does happen. Clearly, Boeing is glad to sell the profitable C-17.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ARNPEK, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 36 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