C-5 upgrades a bit more clear for Robins visionaries (Links to photos)

Macon.com ^ | Wed, Nov. 16, 2005 | Gene Rector

[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.

[RayChuang88]

If I remember correctly, the first versions of the CF6-80 engines were rated around 50,000 lb. of thrust and was used on the 767-200/300 and some later A300B/A310 models.

The F103-GE-100 used on the E-4 and VC-25A are rated at around 53,000 lb. thrust, and I believe that's more or less the same engine that will be used on the C-5M. Gawd, it will be so strange to hear a C-5 fly over sounding more like a 747, given that you won't hear the very distinct loud whine of the old TF39 engines.

[Paleo Conservative]

Why not retrofit the C-5 with the F117 engine (P & W 2040) that the C-17 uses to reduce your spare parts inventory?

Probably because the TF-39 used on the C-5 was the ancestor of the CF6-80C2. The engines are similar enough to not require major redesigns of other subsystems on the C-5. They are also similar to the engines used on Airforce One and the E-4B's.

[taildragger]

Paleo, thanks, Happy T-Day.

I can't hide my bias towards P & W being a former employee. Your knowledge of GE engines makes me think you have some experience with them.

My then girlfriend (my wife of over 10 yrs now!) did C-17 Flight Test, great bird.

[Paleo Conservative]

Interesting -at one point the C-5 took 50 man hours of maintenance for every hour in the air. I have been told that the C-17 takes about 10. Does this retrofit remove a lot of the heavy maintenance items?

Most of the mechanical systems are being upgraded with off the shelf commercial technology. The APU's are also being replaced. All the aircraft have to first go through the AMP to upgrade the cockpit and avionics before getting the RERP. The cockpit upgrades especially will help improve maintainability due to commonality of the computers with the 777 and other commercial aircraft. Instead of having lots of obsolete mechanical gages manufactured by companies that no longer exist requiring the skills of a Swiss watch maker to repair, it will have several identical LCD screens that can easily replaced if one fails. Even if one screen fails in flight, the instrument displays can be moved to another screen. The whole idea is to use commercially available parts to cut down on costs and take advantage of technical advances available to the airlines.

Lockheed is guarantying a 75% mission capability rate, but some think the reliability might get as high as 85%. Effectively even with the retirement of 14 C-5A's it would be like having and additional 20 C-5's available. The increase in thrust will allow an increase in the maximum takeoff weight and effectively increasing the amount of lift available without increasing the number of planes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5-serv.htm

[mad_as_he$$]

Nice, thanks for the answer. Good point about supporting obsolete mechanical stuff with no vendor making new parts.

Years ago I worked with a retired Air Force Sargent that was a crew chief on some of the first C-5's. He claimed that when there was a fly off between Lockheed and Boeing that Boeing loaded a 747 up to the spec'ed weight (I think 150,000 pounds) with sandbags. It took most of the runway at Edwards to get off the ground and then did one lap around Edwards and landed. The story goes that the frame a bent and Boeing scrapped it in place. Good story but smells of urban legend.

[Dilbert56]

Off topic but related: Does anyone know if we're re-engining the B-52s? Supposedly 4 turbofans replace the 8 turbojets with all the benefits of modernization. Last thing I heard was the numbers flipped when you factored in the elimination of in-flight refuelings at $165K each.

[Jackknife]

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.

I live about a five minute drive from the tarmac in Marietta, right in the flightline. Having lived in this area since I was born (40 years), I have grown up watching these beautiful giants fly over. I saw one of these 3 C-5's just a couple of days ago on a test flight. A few times, they have come right over the house so low that I could see the wings flexing!

What a bird!!

[VOA]

bump

[Paleo Conservative]

There have been proposals to reengine the B-52's either with four engines using Rolls Royce RB211 engines used on the 757 or eight Rolls Royce BR 715 engines used on the 717. The problem with 4 engines is the assymetrical thrust if one engine is lost. The rudder and vertical tailplane weren't designed for the loss of two of its eight engines on one side.

[yawningotter]

Very distinctive sound. You know when a C-5 is in the area long before you actually see it. And when you do see it, it looks like it is going so slow(especially on takeoff) that you wonder how it is staying in the air.

[taildragger]

Paleo,

Heck when I was back at Pratt ten years ago they were rumors floated of a re-engine then. PW 2000 I believe. This idea has been kicked around more than a ball at soccer practice.

The one I want to know about in terms of status is the B-1 upgrade that was proposed a while back.

All new avionics suite like the C-5 and the F-119 engines off the F-22 which would bring it back to supersonic and potentially super-cruise. If my memory is correct some B-1 drivers here on the Freep chimed in and they were absolutely drooling...

[hattend]

Back from Thanksgiving vacation BTTT