+Dave Posted March 15, 2010 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. Quote
TX3RN0BILL Posted March 15, 2010 Posted March 15, 2010 But won't the cargo capacity of the Galaxy be missed? Quote
Slartibartfast Posted March 15, 2010 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 Quote
+Dave Posted March 15, 2010 Author 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. Quote
+DWCAce Posted March 15, 2010 Posted March 15, 2010 Massive capacity doesn't mean squat if you can't get it off the ground. Congrats Dave! Quote
+Dave Posted March 15, 2010 Author Posted March 15, 2010 Massive capacity doesn't mean squat if you can't get it off the ground. Congrats Dave! Right on! Quote
TX3RN0BILL Posted March 15, 2010 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... Quote
+FastCargo Posted March 15, 2010 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 Quote
+Dave Posted March 15, 2010 Author 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. Quote
+DWCAce Posted March 15, 2010 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 Quote
+Dave Posted March 16, 2010 Author 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. Quote
serverandenforcer Posted March 16, 2010 Posted March 16, 2010 That is the great question on everyone's mind. Easy answer... they get more maintenance time than any other aircraft. Quote
TX3RN0BILL Posted March 16, 2010 Posted March 16, 2010 They would have to restart the line for An-124s. Seems to be in the works... Quote
+Typhoid Posted March 16, 2010 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....... Quote
+streakeagle Posted March 16, 2010 Posted March 16, 2010 Ironically, the loser of the C-5 contract is still in production: the 747. Quote
+Dave Posted March 16, 2010 Author Posted March 16, 2010 Totally different aircraft. FC Altogether.... Quote
+SayethWhaaaa Posted March 16, 2010 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...? Quote
+JediMaster Posted March 16, 2010 Posted March 16, 2010 Those really old C-5A's wouldn't have been cost-effective to upgrade under pretty much any circumstances. Quote
+Dave Posted March 16, 2010 Author 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. Quote
ezlead Posted March 16, 2010 Posted March 16, 2010 Cumulus Aluminus in the air. But more so Aluminus Granitus the last few years. Quote
Derk Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Sorry for your brand new C17 Dave........ Hou doe, Derk Quote
Slartibartfast Posted March 23, 2010 Posted March 23, 2010 Sorry for your brand new C17 Dave........ Hou doe, Derk Thats one way to get into trouble... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.