In this Air Force photograph, a C-5 gets a new
General Electric CF6 engine at the Lockheed
Martin plant in Marietta. The C-5 airlift fleet is
undergoing major modifications that could result
in major guidance, navigation and engine upgrades.
Posted on 11/23/2005 8:21:14 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE - To about 1,000 Warner Robins Air Logistics Center workers, the vision of the future includes 112 C-5 aircraft bristling with state-of-the-art guidance, navigation and communications systems, new engines and more than 70 modifications to the airframe and subcomponents.
That possibility seemed more like a pipe dream a few years ago as airlift advocates called for mothballing at least 60 C-5s - the older "A" models - in favor of buying more C-17s, the newest of the Air Force transports. But the vision seems a little less murky today, although major hurdles remain before it becomes crystal clear.
One possible obstacle is a Quadrennial Defense Review, due early next year, that will define the mix of forces the Defense Department needs for the future.
Another is a Mobility Capability Study - completed but not released - that may indicate how many C-5s should be retained.
Another question mark is the almost $13 billion price tag for the updates, a hefty figure as new and seasoned weapon systems compete for limited defense dollars.
Col. Darrell Holcomb says the strategy is to press on with the upgrades, realizing that the brakes could be applied from a variety of directions.
That's good news for jobs and workload at Robins, where those 1,000 workers provide worldwide management, maintenance and sustainment for the Lockheed jet. Much of that workload - including many of the jobs - could go away if the C-5s, particularly the C-5As, are not included in future force planning.
"The strategy we've embraced is to AMP and RERP the entire fleet," said Holcomb, commander of the 330th Strategic Airlift Sustainment Group at Robins. AMP, or avionics modernization program, calls for new guidance, navigation and communications systems, an all-weather autopilot and new liquid crystal displays for the cockpit. RERP stands for reliability enhancement and re-engining, a broad-scale program that will fit the C-5 with new General Electric CF6-80 engines and fix a number of nagging structural and subsystem problems.
Eight aircraft have received the AMP update, and funding is available to outfit about half the fleet. "We have funding for 57 AMP kits and installs," Holcomb said, "and we won't need additional funding until 2008. Air Mobility Command is working to get the needed funding in the 2008 budget."
AMC is the Air Force command that owns and operates most of the C-5s. Contract field teams are accomplishing the AMP work at the two major C-5 operational bases: Travis Air Force Base, Calif., and Dover Air Force Base, Del.
RERP is another story, particularly since it accounts for $11 billion of the overall upgrade cost. Although RERP will address many of the C-5's nagging shortcomings affecting reliability and mission availability, the cost likely will drive the final decision.
Three C-5s - two "B" models and one "A" - are undergoing RERP at Lockheed's Marietta plant near Atlanta. One aircraft is 80 percent complete. Another is about 40 percent done. Work on the third aircraft, a C-5A, began in September.
Support for upgrading all 112 C-5s rests on a number of factors:
• Recent analyses show the C-5 airframe has at least 35 years of life remaining.
• The C-5 has significantly greater cargo capacity than the C-17 and can handle much more of the Army's oversized cargo.
• It has performed magnificently during the war on terror, forming an indispensable air bridge from the United States to the combat zone.
• The upgrades will enable the C-5 fleet to meet and likely exceed AMC's reliability goal of 75 percent. C-5 reliability now rests at slightly more than 60 percent.
• The time required at the Warner Robins ALC for C-5 programmed depot maintenance - reduced from 350 days two years ago to 171 days for an aircraft completed earlier this month - has removed some of the "unwieldy" mystique surrounding the huge transport.
• The avionics modernization and re-engining work are less costly than replacing mothballed C-5s with new C-17s at more than $200 million per aircraft.
Holcomb is excited about the comparative "race car" performance the new CF6 engines will bring. The CF6 is a proven power plant with more than 70 million flight hours on a number of commercial aircraft.
"The new engines will decrease the takeoff roll, time to climb and fuel consumption," he said. "It will provide a ten-fold increase in time on wing. It's a big factor in getting us to the mission capable rates we want."
Holcomb said C-5 flight crews are very excited about the AMPed aircraft. "But what they really want is to get their hands on the RERPed airplanes with the new engines," he said. "The reliability and performance of the new engines are going to be great."
Scott Vandersall, 330th Group's chief engineer, is equally excited about the structural and subsystem upgrades. The C-5 - with many of the "A" models almost 40 years old - is the largest in the Air Force inventory and a rich seedbed for upgrades and repair.
If it were parked at the football stadium used by Warner Robins high schools, its length would span virtually from goal line to goal line. Its wings would protrude into the stands. And the aircrew sitting in the second deck cockpit would be eyeball to eyeball with the press box.
"The RERP includes a number of sustainment mods we've known about for a long time but weren't able to fund through normal channels," said Vandersall. "We've been tackling the reliability issues and a lot of those will be handled in this program."
Holcomb is not sure how the pending studies will turn out, although previous analyses concluded that more airlift is needed.
"So we're pressing on with AMP and RERP for the entire fleet," he said. "It will make the C-5 much more reliable and take some of the pressure off the C-17. It will bring us to the performance we know the C-5 is capable of. We're excited, but of course it will be a fiscal decision.
In this Air Force photograph, a C-5 gets a new
General Electric CF6 engine at the Lockheed
Martin plant in Marietta. The C-5 airlift fleet is
undergoing major modifications that could result
in major guidance, navigation and engine upgrades.
http://www.noticias.info/asp/aspComunicados.asp?nid=119136&src=0
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/local/states/georgia/counties/houston_peach/13056699.htm
Here's a link to the GlobalSecurity.com webpage about the C-5 RERP.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5-serv.htm
Below is a link to a thread with lots of great pictures of the first C-5M. I don't know about the copyright status of them so I'm not posting the images on this thread.
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/military/read.main/38635/
If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.
C-5 is a damn good plane. Better than the C-17.
From the prototype Lockheed YC-130 going wheels up on 23 Aug 1954 to the final C-130H deleivered to Japan in Sept. 1997. 43 years and 2,271 Herc's in 4 major variants and sub-types, including civil L-100's.
A great a/c. I kinda like 'em...lol.
I bet that will take a big chunk out of orders for the A400M.
The history channel did a story about the C-5 recently, and it was just amazing. I watched it twice.
When my brother-in-law (ret AF) moved to New Zealand, he and his family hitched a ride on a C-5. My nephew has never stopped talking about it. A few years ago, at Edwards, my nephew gave me a tour of the C-5. It is the most awesome airplane I've ever seen.
It's still amazes me to see it take off - it's so huge.
The Pentagon is going to cut the new C17s.....
I agree that the C5 is a fabulous aircraft, but there are things the C17 can do that the C5 is incapable of.
Can a C-5 land on an aircraft carrier? 
Great article, though I had to chuckle at the guy describing the reengined C-5's as "race cars". ;)
The Corpus Christi Naval Air Station usually gets a C-5 once a week on Fridays. Those engines make the most awful aircraft engine noise I'v ever heard. It's not that it's loud just that they sound like they want to tear themselves apart.
When I was under their pattern they would do brief rev-downs, I guess for noise-abatement, and it would sound like the damn things were gonna land in the back yard.
Race car is a stretch, but 4 new CF6's would have the same thrust as 6 of the old TF39's. Heck, the C-17 has more real world thrust than a C-5.
But they won't be used at full thrust. They will be derated to about 53,000 pounds of thrust. Supposedly this is related to the time on wing guarantees by GE. Still that is almost like putting 5 of the old engines on.
Give me a few minutes with Photoshop and I can make a C-5 carrier-landing capable too. ;)
Canada is probably getting ready to buy a batch of new 130-Js.
C-130 can actually take off and land on a carrier. The Navy tried it when they were looking for a replacement COD aircraft.
http://www.theaviationzone.com/factsheets/c130_forrestal.asp
"C-130 can actually take off and land on a carrier. The Navy tried it when they were looking for a replacement COD aircraft. "
Fascinating. I did not know that.
Isn't most versions of the CF6-80 engine rated at under 56,000 lb. of thrust? I believe the engine they're using on the C-5M upgrade program is the same F103-GE-100 engines used on the E-4B command post and VC-25A Presidential transport, essentially a military-certified version of CF6-50 used on the 747-200B and DC-10-30 models.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.