Pardon me guys for coming over but I have a question. I've read a few things on this subject but does anyone of you know what is being done about the re-engine program for the C-5's. I mean all I hear about are C-17's. What was the big draw back of the C-5 anyway. Has the Air Force decided to make the C-17 it's primary transport for outsized equipment. It seems the Air Force is doing the samething with the 17's as the Marine Corps wants to do with the MV-22, and that is to put all their eggs in one basket.....

Semper Fi

The C-5 (A model?) has among the longest "down" times of any aircraft in the inventory. Last time I checked, the F-117 was the longest.

Hey, I'm a GAC troop here at Travis, and while us peons don't know everything, the answer to both your questions is yes (sorta). This only applies to this base, I have no idea what's going on at Dover & other bases.
The C-17 is a new bird, and as such it gets used a lot to show it off. The generals are playing with their new toy, so to speak. It has some advantages over the C-5 , ie shorter takeoffs & landings, shorter downtime, easier to maintain, etc. But it's obvious just by looking that the C-5 is still the big boyt on the block. Both planes have their own roles to fill, but a C-5 can just plain move a lot of sh**!
So, the AF is upgrading all the C-5 B models here at Travis with all new engines & cockpits (avionics). The A models are going out the window, and for every A model that leaves we're going to acquire a C-17. So, as far as I know, this will be the only base with C-5s, KC-10s, and C-17s. (Not to mention our detachment of F-16s and TACAMO). I think they're going to give the A models to reserve bases, but I'm not to sure on that. All this is supposed to happen in the next 5 years.

Thanks guys. But doesn't that make you a little uneasy that our heavy lift long haul capabilities will be going down. There was an article today about how our air mobility will be strained if we have to go into Iraq. I can already see it, a stretched C-17. They did it to the 141's and 130's and they'll do it again once they decide they need an aircraft like the C-5's....But what do I know...I was just a Marine

They're not getting rid of the C-5. They're just not going to have so many here at Travis. They're moving the A models to different bases. We're actually increasing our airlift capabilities be upgrading the C-5 and buying a lot more C-17s.

Tim what outfit are you in? If you've read very many of my posts you know I was at Travis in '65 &'66 in the 602 OMS. We had 141 As. My wife and I liked the base (we lived in an apartment just inside the front gate ) and we liked Fairfield .Don't speak Spanish so we didn't go to SuiSun City . What's going on there now ?

I'm in the 60 AGS, from what I understand we used to be OMS (or AMS?). If you were here back then maybe you knew Mike Mays? He just retired a few months ago, taught me a helluva lot. The base is real nice, we live not far from were you used to, in the pet housing area right by the front gate. Suisun is a good-size town now, still a lot of Spanish people. Fairfield is pretty much getto, the only reason we go there is to go to the mall. Some dangerous neighborhoods there now. Most people who live off base live in Vacaville, which is as big as Fairfield now but a lot cleaner and safer. We like it here, except for the fact the 60th has been on 12 hour shifts for over a year now. They keep promising us we'll go back to 8 hour shifts, but FRED is an old plane...That and it's too close to home. I put worldwide and my dreamsheet & they sent me back to California! Arrrggghhh!!! But, it's a nice place, plenty to do.

Affirmative on the C-5. None are being retired. All are being re-engined, and the electronics in the A's are being upgrade to the B standard.

Supposedly this will alleviate the lack of mission readiness issues that plague the C-5. The AF did just order 16 more C-17s, and plans to do it again next year. . .

I guess it just seems to me that we need more C-5s as well. But I do like the the C-17 replacing the 141s. That is a great inprovement in itself. Insider, I just saw your post and all that sounds good. I thought they were letting the C-5 run their life cycles and going with C-17's. These upgrades will keep the big boys going for many years to come. Thanks guys

Semper Fi

Tim that name isn't familiar . Do you mean he just retired as a civilian or AF ? I got discharged in 1966 ,so I doubt any AF types would still be in now . I was in the inspection docks on the 141 A ,and there was one hanger between ours and the terminal . I did go to Yuma, AZ the winter of '65 ,'66 as a crew chief for a coupla weeks . I'm sorry to hear that about F'field . We always liked it because it was so clean . Alot of things change in 36 years tho.

All A-Model C-5's have been upgraded to B-Model specifications except for certain engine bearings. That's pending right now. Wanna hear the truth about the whole thing? If not, don't read any further.

Lockheed offered a C-5 C model and 2 C-130J's for the same price America paid for one C-17. A great deal for airplanes that were already tried and true but the pentagon likes to take chances; or play favorites.

During the maiden flight of the C-17 in front of members of the Senate, there was an identical C-17 with the SAME TAIL NUMBER painted on it in case the number 1 plane had problems. It was flying just over a mountain range near the base and could take the place of the primary should it fail.

This is the worst part. During the time that the C-17 was being tested it couldn't take a full cargo load from the East coast to Europe as advertised. The C-5 and C-141 could do it easily.

What was the Pentagon's response? Make ALL airplanes stop in the Azores to refuel. We NEVER had to refuel nor did we have cargo for Portugal normally, but because the C-17 could'nt make it, we had to pretend that we couldn't make it either. It was the biggest charade in the non-cold-war world. We were trying to fool our own taxpayers.

I plan to write a tell-all book about it because the American taxpayers are so uninformed about EVERYTHING. I just think it's the right thing to do.

Duke

Duke, in a weird way it's kind of a relief to hear someone else say that, I've been doing a lot of bit**ing about the C-17 aquisitions, but no one seems to know what I'm talking about. I also asked guys at work why we couldn't buy new C-5s instead of C-17s, its nice to here someone else thought of it well before I did. Guys at work just tell me I worry about it too much for an A1C. I've long suspected that military acquisitions had much more to do with politics then military need and readiness. For instance, some politicians have Lockeed or Boeing plants on their home turf, and vote for every new aircraft so they'll be jobs in their county and they'll get reelected. They give little or no thought to it beyond counting votes. Write the book, I'll buy it!

OMS - crew chiefs
AMS - Avionic weenies
FMS - engine folks

Good points being made here.

odo...

The C-17 is at least in part to keep Boeing in the airlift business. . . Keep in mind there are only Lockheed and Boeing left, so a conscious effort was being made in the 80s to keep both viable. With the F-22 and the F-35 both going to Lockmart, future fighters may only be bid on by that one source, though Boeing is way ahead on UCAV technology.

The reason we have the C17s obviously isnt for the size of it, its cause its much more moblile than a C5 or C141, because of the fact that it can land on very short, unprepared runways.

built another C-5,?? like C-5C or D heavier capacity and short take off....

hi_ju66

I believe that's what Duke was talking about a few posts up, that Lockheed offered us a new C-5 but we opted for the C-17 instead. There are two C-5 C models, by the way. They are just A models with the troop compartment ripped out. Carry around ICBMs for NASA.

F100, Mike was enlisted for 20, civilian for 30. He'd been here at Travis for almost his whole career. Thought there was an off chance you might know him, no biggie.

Tim, I can't place the name ,but if I saw him I might remember . I wanted to stay and get a job there or go back to Sacto, but my wife wanted to come home (SC).Now she says she wishes we HAD stayed ! Go figure . There was an active t/sgt there who started a company "turning around "civilian airliners and doing light maintenance on them . He was always begging for help,he was so busy . This was during Vietnam, too ,which helped his business .

Size WAS important for the C-17. Specifically width. It had to be wide enough to carry an M-1 Abrahms I believe, something the C-141 and C-130 could not do, but the C-5 could.

A quote from Gen. Handy on the airlift for Afghanistan:

Because Afghanistan is a landlocked country, almost everything that the war fighters initially needed went in “almost exclusively” by air, he said. During the first six months of the war, (Please take note of this fact Navy1234)

U.S. transports:
-Flew more than 2,900 airlift missions, exceeding 70,000 hours in the air.
-Moved more than 46,000 troops and 90,000 tons of cargo.
-Delivered 2.5 million humanitarian daily rations, 816 tons of wheat and 73,000 blankets to Afghanistan.

During that same period, tankers flew 1,500 refueling missions to help U.S.-based aircraft reach their destinations in Central Asia.

The heavy lifting, he noted, was done by the Air Force’s newest transports, the massive C-17 Globemaster IIIs, which flew 47 percent of all airlift missions into the theater. The C-5B Galaxies—which are bigger, but more than three decades old—accounted for 29 percent of missions into the region. Once in-theater, C-5 cargo was transferred to C-17s and C-130s, which could land on the short, austere runways of Afghanistan.

Allies—including British, Belgian, Canadian, Dutch, French, Norwegians and Spanish—also flew air-transport missions, using C-130s primarily, Handy said. The British, he noted, have leased four C-17s.

Commercial air cargo, including Soviet-designed An-124 Condors, conducted 8 percent of the flights, he said. The An-124s, even larger than U.S. C-5s, are operated now by Russian and Ukrainian companies, Handy pointed out.

I found it interesting that the design for the Army Crusaders had to be re-done to fit into the 40 ton limit of the C-17. Which explains why half of the support vehicles are wheeled and not tracked. Of course, if you really want me to critique the C-17 just ask me about its 'airdrop capability' (and I mean soldiers in parachutes!).

Were the computer fuel problems ever worked out, or are they still a major factor in the down time of the airplane?

My brother is Airborne infantry and he was telling me that one of the C-17s original missions was to airdrop. Seems a couple guys got killed trying to jump from that bird. Don't know the full story, please fill us in.