+Dave 2,319 Posted March 15, 2010 http://www.daytondailynews.com/business/wright-pattersons-c-5-cargo-planes-to-be-replaced-by-c-17s-596440.html?cxtype=ynews_rss WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE — The Air Force plans to retire the aging, massive C-5 Galaxy cargo aircraft assigned to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and replace them with newer C-17 cargo transport planes sometime between Oct. 1, 2010, and Sept. 30, 2012. The 10 C-5s are to be replaced with eight C-17s, the Air Force said Friday, March 12. Maj. Cynthia Harris, a spokeswoman, said she did not have more precise dates for when the replacements will take place. The 445th Airlift Wing, an Air Force Reserve unit, flies the planes several times a week from Wright-Patterson to carry munitions, weapons, airmen’s belongings and other cargo from the United States to international destinations in support of the global war on terror. Reservists also often fly the planes in the Dayton area during pilot training runs. The Air Force has seen rapidly increasing costs for modernizing its more than 100 C-5 planes system-wide, including replacing or overhauling their engines and navigation systems. The oldest C-5s date to between 1969 and 1980. The C-17s date to the 1980s and 1990s. The noisy C-5s are among the largest aircraft in the world. Their massive cargo interiors can carry up to 270,000 pounds of cargo, including tanks and helicopters. I will be glad to get those C-17's too. Not a moment too soon. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted March 15, 2010 But won't the cargo capacity of the Galaxy be missed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted March 15, 2010 What he said above as the C-17 doesn't match the lifting and range ability of the C-5... So when does Boeing release a stretched version of the C-17 with more power to lift more...??? To be honest surprised they havn't done so already Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted March 15, 2010 The C-17 is more relaible, much more relaible. We have some of the oldest C-5's in the fleet. Maintaining them is a utter nightmare. They are always broke. So I am very very glad we are getting them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted March 15, 2010 Massive capacity doesn't mean squat if you can't get it off the ground. Congrats Dave! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted March 15, 2010 Massive capacity doesn't mean squat if you can't get it off the ground. Congrats Dave! Right on! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted March 15, 2010 Are the C-5M's no good? Well, guess they could always order some russian An-124's, probably cheaper, since Russia is thinking of acquiring some more, and the change of times seems to be upon us, if Russia is planning on buying french ships... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted March 15, 2010 Are the C-5M's no good? Well, guess they could always order some russian An-124's, probably cheaper, since Russia is thinking of acquiring some more, and the change of times seems to be upon us, if Russia is planning on buying french ships... They would have to restart the line for An-124s. The restart cost is so high that any An-124s you get would be more expensive than buying more C-17s. That's why several other countries have bought C-17s for their heavy airlift needs. There isn't a single military type (drive on/drive off, high wing, short field capable) transport in production that has the overall capability (combination of range, payload, short field performance) that the C-17 has. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted March 15, 2010 Are the C-5M's no good? Well, guess they could always order some russian An-124's, probably cheaper, since Russia is thinking of acquiring some more, and the change of times seems to be upon us, if Russia is planning on buying french ships... The C-5M's are great but they aren't using any high time C-5's for the conversion. Which all the ones at my unit are. Really high time. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWCAce 19 Posted March 15, 2010 (edited) Dave, how can they be high time if they're always broken and never fly?! Edited March 15, 2010 by DWCAce Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted March 16, 2010 Dave, how can they be high time if they're always broken and never fly?! That is the great question on everyone's mind. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
serverandenforcer 33 Posted March 16, 2010 That is the great question on everyone's mind. Easy answer... they get more maintenance time than any other aircraft. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TX3RN0BILL 3 Posted March 16, 2010 They would have to restart the line for An-124s. Seems to be in the works... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Typhoid 231 Posted March 16, 2010 Right on! Good deal! If I recall, there is nothing that a C-5 can carry that a C-17 can't. So just a matter of scheduling enough C-17 sorties, that can actually fly, than a C-5, that can't....... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+streakeagle 866 Posted March 16, 2010 Ironically, the loser of the C-5 contract is still in production: the 747. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FastCargo 412 Posted March 16, 2010 Totally different aircraft. FC Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted March 16, 2010 Totally different aircraft. FC Altogether.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SayethWhaaaa 245 Posted March 16, 2010 I thought the C-17s were proving themselves to be less rugged than they were advertised and as a result, their maintenance costs soaring...? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JediMaster 451 Posted March 16, 2010 Those really old C-5A's wouldn't have been cost-effective to upgrade under pretty much any circumstances. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
+Dave 2,319 Posted March 16, 2010 I thought the C-17s were proving themselves to be less rugged than they were advertised and as a result, their maintenance costs soaring...? Maint costs are soaring because we didnt buy more C-17's and they are getting used more. But as it stands right now, most C-17's are FMC (Fully Mission Capable) as opposed to the C-5's that are PMC (Partially Mission Capable) which we fly missions in a C-5 in PMC status. The C-17's are running circles around the C-5 in mission capable rates and on time take offs. The C-5's are tired, they are old and need to be put away. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ezlead 42 Posted March 16, 2010 Cumulus Aluminus in the air. But more so Aluminus Granitus the last few years. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Derk 265 Posted March 23, 2010 Sorry for your brand new C17 Dave........ Hou doe, Derk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Slartibartfast 153 Posted March 23, 2010 Sorry for your brand new C17 Dave........ Hou doe, Derk Thats one way to get into trouble... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
