C-5 VS C-17 Globemaster.

I checked stats about these 2 planes and I wonder why US goverment is buying C-17 instead of C-5. C-5B has MUCH larger payload (130 000kg compared to 76 000 kg) and it is CHEAPER 179 mil.$ compared to 236 mil$ (FY98 dollars). The speed is the same 0.77 mach.
SO WHY Globemaster ?????

Source - www.globalaircraft.org.

I think it's because the C-17, much like the C-130, can get into smaller airfields, so it has more versitility. C-5s are huge, as you well know.

[edit on 26-10-2004 by Der Kapitan]

The C-17 is cheaper to operate and requires less maintenance time.

In addition it was built with a somewhat modular concept for the third crew station.

The C-5 is getting old and it was determined that it would not be cost effective to undertake either a rebuild or new build program for it.

Actually the C-5 is in the mist of a major upgrade.

Its cockpit is going glass.
The engines are being replaced with the General Electric CF6-80C2. Its been derated from 62000 to 50000 as the airframe cannot handle the loads. However, its 8000 lbs more per engine than the existing one. The derated engine will inprove durability dramaticaly and improve fuel consumption not to mention improve performance.

It looks like the USAF will keep both

The effort to upgrade the fleet of C-5A and B models is gaining steam with completion earlier this month of the first C-5 to receive a new avionics system. The aircraft has just entered into a reengine program.

The U.S. Air Force wants to install new avionics on the flight decks of 112 C-5 A and Bs over the next four years, but the production schedules have not been set yet for the Reliability Enhancement Reengining Program (RERP). The first "production" aircraft with a new cockpit recently installed at Dover AFB, Del., is now in RERP at Marietta, Ga. It is expected to make a first flight with the General Electric CF6-80C2 in the third-quarter 2005.

Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. could earn $5-9 billion on the two upgrades with RERP accounting for the bulk of the potential revenue and avionics bringing in $600 million of the total. The avionics upgrade will put the C-5 on par with many of today's commercial flight decks.
[url=http://www.aviationnow.com/awin/awin_awst/awin_awst_story.jsp?issueDate=2004-10-25&story=xml/awst_xml/2004/10/25/AW_10_25_2004_p39-01.xml]C-5[/ur l]

The new Cockpit:

2 different planes completely when you are looking at logistics

C-17 is a Short Field Take Off and Landing Aircraft can operate from a dirt field. Has average payload capability, can do low level drops and open the cargo doors in flight. Good overall range and can be refueled in flight.

C-5 is huge, takes alot of runway to operate on, must be paved due to gross weight. High payload but high cost per hour operation, lots of fuel burn, limited in flight cargo door operation. I dont believe most models have in flight refueling capability.

Current warfare dictates the need to tacticaly drop a smaller number of men and materials quickly. So the need to drop to a long concrete runway is reduced and the need to operate on shorter "dirt" prepared patches is increased, thus the need to buy more C-17 is required.

Please read this announcement:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


THREAD CLOSED