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.
The CF6-80 used on the 747-400 is rated at 63,300 pounds. The CF6-80 engines used on the C-5M will be a derated version of the more modern and efficient model used on the 747-400 and the VC-25 (Airforce One). The VC-25 is nominally a 747-200, but has much of the 747-400's system improvements. It has the more powerful and efficent engines of the 747-400 while also having the twin seat 747-400 glass cockpit. With a light fuel and cargo load it can take off from much shorter runways than most 747's.
L-3 Spar Aerospace is doing the upgrade/conversion work on Canada's C-130's and 2 L-100's. L-3 srock has been berry berry good to me. Thru good management and very smart acquisitions they have positioned themselves smartly around the world in the aviation business.
no way!
I won't go negative on Airbus. They are a solid player. Major concerns I have heard about them is a)supply chain on parts 2)field and depot maintenance training for staff. (Bottom line - Boeing, Lockheed, McD. have been the main game and mechanics know them) 3)Entry costs of switch overs. Its not just introducing a new model - this would be an entire new system. Big money and time when hostilities are on everyones mind and they need a/c now.
Last C5 I saw was leaving Phoenix after the Presidential debate.
But I would go to the end of Lagoone drive at Honolulu airport and watch them take off.
Nice big planes.
I don't mean to be negative. It's just that the A400M is behind schedule, and it's a lot cheaper to upgrade existing C-130's now and defer making a decision on a C-130 replacement for a couple of decades when technology will be even better. The RAF is leasing 4 C-17's now for its special forces due to the unavailability of the A400M. They seem to be interested in converting the C-17 leases to purchases and adding another one to their fleet.
The TF-39 engines in the C-5A puts out only 41,000 pounds of thrust. The TF-39's in the C-5B are a little better with 43,000 pounds. I can't understand why Lockheed didn't put more modern CF6 engines in the C-5B when they originally manufactured them. The availability of spare engines for the C-5's that have not yet been upgraded should improve as more C-5's get converted to C-5M's.
I think it was the original 747-100 that had around 47K of thrust per engine. Maybe the high wing of the C-5 helps with lift and obviates the need for more powerful engines??
For those who want to hear (and see) a C-5 take off.
http://www.flightlevel350.com/viewer.php?id=333
Hmmmm ... that's quite a bit of dust for a landing on a flat top. Are you sure about that photo(shop)?
Those engines should be in museums. They were a great advance in the 1960's, but they are more primitive than any engine used on any 747 or DC-10. The new CF6-80's will allow engines to stay on the wings for at least 10,000 hours between overhauls. The current engines are lucky to get 2,000 hours. The range, maximum takeoff weight, runway performance, and time to climb to cruising altitude will all improve drastically.
Bottom line...she's BIG and she's BAD!
The C-5 has been a great airplane, but it has been plagued by the TF-39 engine, lousy thrust reversers, and an overall mission reliability that hovered in the mid 60% to maybe 70% range, while the C-141 and C-130 were usually 85% or better. Aircraft like the C-17 average around 94% mission reliability.
This upgrade is a good decision. It would cost hundreds of billions to manufacture over 100 C-5s from scratch today, and with a "small" investment, we will have that airlift capability for many years to come. You just don't send 60 airframes like the C-5 to the bone yard. It would be akin to throwing away 60 Stradivarius violins worth millions because their strings are broken.
Now that this nation is finally getting more C-17s, the addition of a much improved C-5 will give our nation the outsize and oversized cargo capability we need. In a crisis like Katrina, everyone wants airlift---NOW! Unless we have these airframes on hand, the media, Congress, and critics can go to the microphones all they want and bitch. It was aircraft like the C-5 and C-17 that delivered the huge pumps from Germany and the Netherlands that started pumping out massive quantities of water in the first days of the crisis. If we didn't have these aircraft, then no pumps. Does the lame media and the sheeple get that?
It was C-5s and C-17s that rescued elderly people by the hundreds from nursing homes in Beaumont TX and Lake Charles LA, while hurricane Rita was literally minutes from making landfall. The last aircraft took off from Lake Charles just at the hurricane approached. This news release does not even begin to mention the danger--the winds were out of limits and the aircraft barely made it out. Those people would have died without these 9-11 emergency aircraft on alert.
Yup and the pilot got a medal for even trying it! He did like 20 cycles. - not just once!
Why not retrofit the C-5 with the F117 engine (P & W 2040) that the C-17 uses to reduce your spare parts inventory?
Granted a little less thrust, perhaps an upgrade/push would benefit both airframes.
Now if it was a hybrid pylon down upgrade and used the C-17's Nacelles and reverser's that may be sweet.
Ahhh - memories of aluminum overcast. But it's still nothing more than a really big, slow target.
In other news....
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.