 |
| The C-5M Super Galaxy aircraft is a game changer to the warfighter and America’s premier global direct delivery weapons system. It is also the Air Force’s only true strategic airlifter. While setting 43 world records in airlift, the C-5M established new benchmarks in carrying more cargo faster and farther than any other airlifter. |
Consider this another post in response to some comments made on a previous post.
Everyone talks about the A400M in comparison to the C-130 (while I think that it should more properly be compared to the C-17) but the plane everyone forgets is the C-5M.
The US will have a large number of these heavy lifters (over 50...hard to nail down the exact number) that outperform any lifter found in any other air force.
Oh and about rough ground capability. Are you gonna risk a 100 million dollar airplane, along with its crew and cargo landing on rough ground? Doubtful. C-5's give strategic lift at airliner speed.
Its a forgotten heavy lifter with unmatched capability.
Sidenote: Spare me the obvious howls of protests about the Ukrainian AN-124/225. The AN-124 is hardly ever seen in active service and most are thought to be in storage. The AN-225 is a one off originally designed for the Space Program and now used strictly for commercial cargo. Its a pay for play airplane and is used mostly by Western corporations and European military to make up for a shortfall in heavy lift.
You are true in your assessment, the C-5 is an unrivaled king int the mode of military strategic lift. I spent YEARS on flight lines onloading and offloading these aircraft (C-17, AN-124, C-130.....) with Marine Corps equipment and a C-5 has a nasty habit of breaking at the most inopportune times.
ReplyDeleteII MEF was deploying to Norway for an annual exercise (Strong Resolve) one of the first cargo missions carrying critical comm gear broke down in Germany. Then the reservist crew left and the Air Force took a week and a half to get another crew to complete the mission. Did I mention the 9 Marines that were stranded there (senior one a Corporal that was meritoriously promoted to Sergeant by the II MEF Commanding General upon arrival for his actions taking care of his men where the Air Force wouldn't)
Or when we sent an HMM from Okinawa to Iraq for its first combat deployment since Vietnam. We were using a mix of C-5 and AN-124 aircraft to get the helos and other equipement into theater, roughly every other one. Well, three AN-124s maintained schedule where no C-5s came in. I had to stop the "Follow ME" truck from posting a sign "RUSSIA 3 USAF 1" on the back of the truck (we were at Futenma)!
Not to mention the load masters on the aircraft. I understand they know their aircraft better than we do but why are we forced to send folks to an aircraft loading class to be able do load plans only to have them change them all and refuse to load their aircraft until we make the changes they dictated to us? And then make us sign the darn things so we are "responsible" if something happens in flight?
The M mods are new. And well worth it (performance). We do need to make a new roll-on, roll-off heavy air-lifter with its ability. Even if, DOD is so overwhelmed with other spending priorities. New long range giga-dollar, stealth, long range bomber? Would rather have a new-build C-5.
ReplyDeleteIn the end commercial AN124 operators are still the no1 players in the game so much for a superior aircraft.
ReplyDeletethere are no civilian operators of AN124 from what i could find. only one AN225. so wtf are you talking about.
DeleteWho do you think is supplying troops in Afghanistan? Russian Military
DeleteSALIS GmbH, Antonov Airlines,Volga-Dnepr ,Polet Airlines,Maximus Air Cargo etc
Then lot more operators of smaller Antonov and Iljushin freighters that do much of NATOs heavy lifitng if you add all the rotorcraft operators operating (Mil 8-26 types)you kinda wonder where is NATO air lift capability
i never said there were no civilian operations of antov or ilushun aircraft. i said there were no operators of the AN124. if that's what you're saying then provide evidence.
DeleteVolga Dneper airline alone can airlift more than whole C5M fleet combined and opterates at least 10x An124 planes in addtion to some Il76
DeleteProof
http://www.aicgs.org/issue/natoeu-cooperation-with-russia-on-military-airlift/
that's just stupid. ok, you're right on the AN124. you're smoking communist crack on them having more airlift than the C-5 fleet.
DeleteI said C5M fleet which is only 16 strong and not all are operational
DeleteLike Coffe Man said C-5 was unreliable from get go, availabilty is rarely above 50%, in high stress and frequency operations like afghanistan its even harder to maintain so C-17 is much better bet. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/saving-the-galaxy-the-c-5-amprerp-program-03938/
Delete21 C-5M's delivered of 52.
DeleteCival AN-124's 20 in use, 22 if the 2 owned by Libyan Arab Air Cargo are returned to service:
https://d1fmezig7cekam.cloudfront.net/VPP/Global/WorldAirlinerCensus2014.pdf
numbers wise it should be clear. 71 C5's are in service plans were for by 2017 only 52 C5M to remain. The Troubled C5's were the A models dating from the Disco Era. of the originally planned 140 C17's the USAF has procured 223... yes thats right more than originally ordered. C5 has a Cargo load of maybe 120 tons that's impressive but the numbers favor the C17's 85 tons making it albeit a medium weight the backbone of the American Air mobility.
ReplyDeleteNow Sol commented that he feels A400m Should be compared to C17 rather than C130J. Numerically thats a poor Choice in My opinion. C17 wins hands down in that comparison. but A400M is a tactical lifter. It was designed not to be a Strategic transport like C5 or C17 but a Replacement for the C130 and Transall C-160, it's foot print compares well in scale being just a little bigger then the 130 but dwarfed by the C17. Mission wise other then the Specialized Attack and EW roles it falls in line with the 130. and for airborne forces the A400M class means a transport capable of bringing more modern vehicles. A400M could load a single M2A3 Bradley IFV or one of the heavy Strykers.
well the C-17 was pitched as a tactical airlifter having been borne of the aborted YC-15 and YC-14 contestants. the fact that it is being used more in the C-141 role has more to do with its capability more than how it was billed. C-130's are still being built and despite Airbus attempting to compare the A400M with that airplane its price tells the real story. capability wise its fits neatly in Airbus' usual role of finding out whats on the market and building an airplane that's slightly larger and then crowing about it being a better buy. its a tougher sale when the A400M is damn near the price of the MUCH more capable C-17.
Deletefanboys can continue to talk about the A400M outperforming the C-130 but until that plane goes out of production and no one is doing upgrades to existing models....and they're finally worn out, the real question for air forces world wide will be what do you want to buy. C-17's or A400M's.
And in that C17 has a chink. the production line is slated to end in The next two months with Unit #279
Deletehttp://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-sitting-on-eight-unsold-c-17s-with-more-orders-407176/
that's going to be it unless the Republican Congress has some prevision in the new Budget.
As to the C17 as a tactical lifter it could be, but three point hit it. first sacrifices. Although based on the YC15 they did not just scale it up by 2 time. the wings and engines under went major changes optimizing for speed more then straight short take of wings, Boeing offered a Tactical lifter version the C17B With double slotted flaps, a added landing gear and uprated engines these would have made it better for very very short field. The Air force in it's wisdom has shown no interest.
now let me clarify, I am not a fan boy. It's a neat system and will sell well, but it's got its issues and limitations. I like it's payload class though. I like that it can carry a full modern IFV and APC fully geared and land short field. I like C130, But I like A//E/H/K/M/R/P/W C130 f it's variants not C130 it's transporter. I might Like C130XL if Lockheed builds it with a 60,000+ lb payload. I like Speed Agile would like it even more if it's built.
"what do you want to buy. C-17's or A400M"
DeleteHonestly, European jobs aside.. there is no comparison ( yet). The C-17 is an amazing plane, with capabilities that seem to defy physics at times, but most of al its a proven plane with a long successful record of doing what it needs to do, wile the price difference is not that big.
So: anyone choosing NOW and without some secondary agenda will want the C17.
Its possible that the A400 matures in a great contender. Prices can go down, operational costs might turn out to be quite a lot less thanks to prop engines and it might also have a stellar career, but that is all speculative and unproven.
Ps. The US Airforce is very smart to upgrade the C5's They may ( I read the experiences posted above) be prone to breakage, which hopefully can be fixed. But they still provide unique capabilities that you do not want to lose. Comparing with an Antonov makes no sense because it would be ridiculous to scrap A5's and buy westernized A124's
Deletethats assuming there nis an Antonov to buy. Its a Ukrainian state owed builder and Ukraine is not exactly stable.
Delete