OK, so Why IS Congress Scrapping C5's and Buying More C130's?

C-130's are not the replacement for the C-5. The C-17 will be filling the super heavy lifter role.

I spent a month on the ice down at McMurdo a few years back and it is incredible to see those heavy's landing with the ice swelling up in front of them as it takes the weight. Make no mistake, that C-17 is one big AC.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2k1txRHxCE]Dispatches from Antarctica: C-17 Landing Near McMurdo Station - YouTube[/ame]
 

Keith

Moderator
OK. I was just curious following Mike Drew's remarks on the 'Superperformance' Forum in which he says exactly as I posted and I believe he is a Galaxy pilot too?

Dunno....

Be interesting to find out though.

The reason is that for hundreds of years the British Armed Forces have had the shit stick of military procurement. Hugely over cost, hugely under performing equipment and never enough of it, so we always looked at the USA with some envy as to the toys you get.

Mikes post drew me in because what he said seemed to be an unusual reversal of the US norm
 
Nah, unfortunately it's just politics as usual. The military procurement process is desperately corrupt and broken, driven exclusively by politics instead of actual need. I used to fly the C-141 which was a fantastic airplane. We had 247 of them and they were constantly going all over the world.

The C-17 came onto the scene. Not by accident, the manufacturer spread component production across every single congressional district in the nation, so every congressman had a personal stake in this jobs program. When the C-17 program started running into problems and going over budget, there was talk of reducing the number to be purchased and shutting production down. The fix for this was to rapidly accelerate the retirement of the C-141. Almost overnight they were all flown to the boneyard, then to prevent this decision from being reversed, they were all quickly destroyed. This then created a desperate shortage of strategic airlift and the only solution was to buy many more C-17s at enormous cost.

History is repeating itself. We are flying C-5s to the boneyard and cutting them up even though they went through an expensive wing retrofit program to extend their service life until 2040.

Even more infuriating, the c-5 recently went through a massive retrofit program where the entire avionics suite was converted to modern 'glass cockpit' with GPS etc. this was a super-expensive program costing many millions of dollars each. In some cases airplanes went through the retrofit (a process that took 6-8 months or so) and their very first flight was to the boneyard where they were then scrapped!

With respect to c-130s, every year it seems, the Air Force requests to buy ZERO new models as they already have hundreds of them and can use that money better elsewhere. But every year congress sticks more new C-130s in the budget and forces the AF to take them. Needless to say perfectly good existing C-130s are being scrapped at the same time.

Even worse, congress first funded the purchase of the new c-27 and then changed their minds. The contract was funded, so some of the new airplanes were given to the afghan Air Force, but others were flown directly from the manufacturing line to the boneyard!!!!

Grrrr.....
 
I spent a month on the ice down at McMurdo a few years back and it is incredible to see those heavy's landing with the ice swelling up in front of them as it takes the weight. Make no mistake, that C-17 is one big AC.

The C-130 can carry 9 pallets, or a mix of pallets and passengers. The C-141 could carry up to 13 pallets. The C-17 can carry up to 18 pallets, or a mix of passengers and fewer pallets.

The c-5 can carry 36 pallets and also carry 73 passengers. So it can take up to three C-17s to carry what a single C-5 can deliver. The C-17 also had critical range problems due to insufficient fuel capacity although later production airplanes had extended range tanks fitted.

I've always said the C-17 is a great tool to get half a cargo load three quarters of the way across an ocean....but I do admit the c-17 is the worlds best C-130. It's a fantastic tactical airlifter and deserves lots of credit for that.

I got to fly a C-141 to mcmurto back in 1993. Somewhere I have a photo of myself standing on the ice wearing a bathing suit, Hawaiian shirt unbuttoned, and holding a sign that said '-87F'

Unforgettable moment!
 

Keith

Moderator
I got to fly a C-141 to mcmurto back in 1993. Somewhere I have a photo of myself standing on the ice wearing a bathing suit, Hawaiian shirt unbuttoned, and holding a sign that said '-87F'

Unforgettable moment!

For your gonads at very least Mike... :quirk:
 
Seriously, If they do get phased out, I'll miss watching them fly directly over my house, low on approach to Westover AFB :thumbsup:
 

Keith

Moderator
A chum old bean... :)

A kempel is ein mate, but if I were a miner, I would be a kumpel kumpel nein?

You can blame that bloody Fritz Marcus for this. He caused it.
 
Back
Top