Comments on: C-5 Upgrade Costs Climb

By: Roy

Roy — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 01:24:26 +0000

I think the Airforce should take all the C5’s drain the oil and gas and put them in City Parks.
Bad designs are just that bad designs, money does not make a bad design better, just cost more.

By: Al "the camaroman"

Al "the camaroman" — Wed, 24 Sep 2008 01:16:59 +0000

Just want to say that it is very interesting to read about the C5 and the C17 aircraft. When I first saw that the C17 was being built, I thought it was bigger than the C5. I don’t think anything can be much bigger than the C5 (Although my uncle said the DC3 was the biggest that would be built and still fly).
I live in San Antonio Texas and the flight path takes the C5’s literally over my house to land at the old Kelly AFB (now part of Lackland).
Well anyway, I just wanted to say that I enjoyed reading your page.
Al

By: Taylor McKInnon

Taylor McKInnon — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 05:09:49 +0000

Convert only the C-5B.Assign the C-5A to the reserve and Guard.They will have acess to all the TF-39 engine spares. Those old Guard and reserve techniciansa will improve the Mission Capable rate orf the C-5A.

By: Taylor McKInnon

Taylor McKInnon — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 04:50:13 +0000

The reserve and guard have operated the C-5A more sucessfully because of the greater experience of their full time technicians with the C-5A. The airplane spares were never stocked to an adequate level. The solution to our problem is to upgrade only the C-5B with the new engines. Assign these upgraded airframes to the active duty forces. Asibn the unmodified C-5A to the guard and reserve. Since they will have acess to all the C-5A spares, (TF-39 engine spares and avionics spares) with these advantages their mission capable rate should be acceptable if not spectacular! Taylor B. McKinnon, Major USAF retired. Logistian.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:48:56 +0000

an interesting article on the use of the C-5 in spec-ops
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/n19991208_992197.htm
also
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5m.htm
“As of mid-2002 C-5s had carried about 46 percent of the intertheater cargo on only about 29 percent of the missions flown in Operation Enduring Freedom.“
“With modernization, C-5 operators can realize a 34 percent less cost-per-flying-hour and 44 percent less cost per ton-mile of cargo — all at 20 percent of the cost of comparable new aircraft.“
“Modernizing the entire C-5 fleet represents the best fiscal value for the Air Force. The Air Force can’t afford not to modernize the fleet. With almost 35,000 cubic feet of cargo space, some warfighting equipment can only be carried by the C-5. The entire effort to modernize the C-5 will cost about $13 billion. Purchasing additional aircraft to replace the cargo-carrying capability of the C-5 could cost up to $38 billion.“
(some of the financial numbers are dated, but the point remains)

By: irtusk

irtusk — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:19:49 +0000

> It doesn’t have the short field capability
oh really?
the air force and lockheed have a disagreement about the C-5B’s takeoff and landing performance (as the airforce uses more conservative assumptions for the C-5), so here’s both numbers
90F day, sea level, 170000 lb payload, fuel for 500 NM
takeoff length (wartime)
C-17: 3900′
C-5B (AF): 4800′
C-5B (LH): 4100′
landing using brakes and spoilers
C-17: 2600′
C-5B (AF): 2700′
C-5B (LH): 2490′
landing using brakes, spoilers and reverse thrust
C-17: 2370′
C-5B (LH): 2600′
C-5B (LH): 2370′
even using the more conservative figures the C-5 is very comparable to the C-17 in landing performance. The gap is a little bigger in takeoff performance, BUT WAIT! The RERP will improve takeoff performance approximately 30%
what does that do to takeoff roll?
takeoff length (wartime)
C-17: 3900′
C-5B (AF): 4800′
C-5B (AF) (RERP): 3360′
C-5B (LH): 4100′
C-5B (LH) (RERP): 2870′
what is that? the C-5 has better short field performance? that’s unpossible!
regardless, most C-17 flights today are NOT into austere runways, they’re landing at major bases that handle C-5s too. Yes it’s good to have some austere capability, but there’s no reason for the entire fleet to have it.
> Airlines are a good example: they don’t fly 747s for every route, even though they cn carry more passengers.
yes, that’s why we have smaller aircraft like the C-17 and C-130 and C-27J
> Except that the C-5 is only more capable than the C-17 in terms of total payload weight and payload volume
well those are pretty key features for a cargo plane wouldn’t you agree?
The C-17 is a fine aircraft for what it is, i’m not saying get rid of it at all. But don’t become so enamored with certain rarely used features that you lose sight of the big picures. Sometimes you simply need to push a lot of cargo, and nothing gets it done like a C-5.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 03:49:12 +0000

Except that the C-5 is only more capable than the C-17 in terms of total payload weight and payload volume. It doesn’t have the short field capability, it isn’t employed for air dropping troops, and doesn’t have the same on-board cargo handling equipment.
I’m sure that the Air Force considered the impact of the upgrade program on reliability in terms of their C-5 fleet requirements — there’s more to planning a cargo fleet than simply aircraft size. Airlines are a good example: they don’t fly 747s for every route, even though they cn carry more passengers. This also wouldn’t be the first time that the Air Force has wanted to cut fleet size of a type and Congress has interfered. The B-1 comes to mind, as does the mandate to restore a few SR-71s to service.
You should also do some more reading into the history of the C-5 program — not a pretty story by any stretch.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:44:12 +0000

> just that this upgrade program sounds like a congressional pork barrel project.
i would say the pork is more likely from the other side
if this works as claimed we’ll have practically new aircraft that are substantially more capable than C-17’s for a fraction of the cost of a C-17
to me that sounds like an efficient use of money
both sides (Lockheed and Boeing) have substantial lobbying arms and influence in Congress so to call one side pork while completely ignoring the other, well …
> as is indicated by Air Force desire to reduce the size of the C-5 fleet (stymied by congress.)
maybe because the current fleet is so unreliable and costly to maintain?

By: Tsgt Takeo

Tsgt Takeo — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 22:33:51 +0000

Speaking as an Aerial Porter, people who advocate an "all C-17" force have their heads on wrong. The primary use of the C-5 is as an outsize cargo hauler. In fact, it's not very often used for ordinary pallet transport anymore (A 747-200 will easily hold 42 pallets to the C-5's 36, they just have to be sized appropriately). And the main issue no one talks about is the C-17's comparitively short legs. In it's military form it can't be FAA certified because it has a fuel tank in the passenger cabin. (Look up, it's right over your head if you stand near the lav door). Most of the loads I've seen on C-5's are things that just don't easily fit on a C-17, or any other plane. No C-17 has the cargo capacity to carry 6 black hawk helicopters, a Chinook, or the president's limo+entourage. The argument has always been circular: The C-5 isn't worth re-engining because it's not reliable when the re-engining is what IS going to make it reliable. We should have a mixed fleet: C-27, C-130, C-17, C-5 + Commercial contract, which is exactly what we have now.

By: George Skinner

George Skinner — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 21:15:30 +0000

You can't always upgrade a design that's unreliable. For example, a hydraulic actuator itself might be a good component, but its installation might lead to an ongoing reliability issue. The "significantly increased cargo load" also isn't going to help airframe life at all. Load it more, and it wears out faster. Part of the reason the airframes are relatively young is also because the reliability issues meant that they didn't fly very often. And the utilization of the extended capabilities of the C-5 should be an issue in determining whether to go forward with this program: if the capability is only being used 10% of the time, it shouldn't be necessary to upgrade as many airframes. If you just need the capability, keep some existing C-5Bs around and forget the upgrade entirely. Use the savings to buy more C-17s that can do the bulk of the work more cheaply and without the hassle of the upgrade.