Obama wants to zero out C-17 funding..

[ddeclue]

not a good thing. We really don't have enough airlift capacity and we have plenty of old Vietnam era C141's and C5's that are going to reach the end of their useful life very soon.

[enlightenment]

1. Isn't it just the final six aircraft of the initial order that are being

shelved? That's how I read it.

Given a choice between funding cargo aircraft and funding another killing machine, I'd much prefer the cargo - and I agree that the fleet is starting to age (C-130's, however, will trundle on forever, seems like . . .).

[PacerLJ35]

3. No, the C-130s won't trundle on forever...

Most of the fleet has wing box cracking issues. Many of the older C-130s have flight restrictions that essentially makes them useless to actually carry anything, so they are used in training roles. Recently the WH/DoD decided to retire more C-5s and not invest in upgrading many of them to the new C-5M standard...if that's the case, they need more C-17s. The US has never had "too much" airlift capacity.

[Captain Hilts]

10. Airlift capacity was something the Soviets had all over us in the Cold War. We still don't have

enough. Replace the 5's with the 17s.

[ddeclue]

15. I would still keep the 5's around for heavy jobs a 17 can't do.

If we get rid of one of them it should be the 141's but I certainly wouldn't get rid of any of them unless you plan to build a whole shitload of C17's to replace them.

[Captain Hilts]

17. Well, yes. In an ideal world. Cargo just isn't 'sexy' enough to some AF brass. nt

[PacerLJ35]

21. 141's are already retired

Last one went to the boneyard in 2006.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Really!

[PacerLJ35]

24. Yep...really

Last unit to operate them was the 445th out of Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio.

[Captain Hilts]

25. I did not know that!

[ddeclue]

33. really? I hadn't heard that..

[enlightenment]

32. I was really just kidding about the 130s.

I was a loadie on those, back in the day, and still have a fondness for them. I'd like to think they'll wobble down runways forever, rotating away with all their lack of grace . . . but I know they won't.

[Captain Hilts]

2. They really need to continue the C-17 until the last of the Fat Alberts has been retired. nt

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

5. C-130Js are still in production

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-130J_Super_Hercules

[PacerLJ35]

7. Not in any real quantity to replace the rest of the C-130 fleet

C-130J orders for the USAF may start to taper off in the next few years, with most of the orders going to special ops and rescue forces (who also need to replace their worn C-130s). Here's the breakdown of C-130s in the active USAF:

Years in parentheses are the model years of the aircraft in the squadron.

2nd Airlift Squadron (Pope AAF, NC): C-130H2 (1985-1986); reverse-associate unit, AF Reserve owns the airplanes but flown by both Reserve and Active crews
30th Airlift Squadron (Cheyenne IAP, WY): C-130H3 (1995-1996); reverse-associate unit, WYANG owns the airplanes but both ANG and Active crews fly them
36th Airlift Squadron (Yokota AB, JP): C-130H1 (1974); some proposals to receive C-130J, but no funding
37th Airlift Squadron (Ramstein, GE): C-130J (2008-2010)
39th Airlift Squadron (Dyess AFB, TX): C-130H1 (1974); programmed to receive C-130J starting FY2012
40th Airlift Squadron (Dyess AFB, TX): C-130H1 (1974); programmed to receive C-130J starting FY2010
41st Airlift Squadron (Little Rock AFB, AR): C-130J (2006-2008)
48th Airlift Squadron (Little Rock AFB, AR): C-130J (2003-2006); Formal Training Unit, not flying operational missions
50th Airlift Squadron (Little Rock AFB, AR): C-130H3 (1992-1993)
52nd Airlift Squadron (Peterson AFB, CO): C-130H3 (1994-1995); reverse-associate unit, AF Reserves owns the airplanes, but flown by both Reserve and Active crews
53rd Airlift Squadron (Little Rock AFB, AR): C-130E (1962-1964)
61st Airlift Squadron (Little Rock AFB, AR): C-130E (1962-1964)
62nd Airlift Squadron (Little Rock AFB, AR): C-130E (1961-1964); Formal Training Unit, not flying operational missions
TBD Airlift Squadron (Keesler AFB, MS): C-130J (1999-2001); reverse-associate unit, AF Reserves owns the airplanes but flown by Reserve and active crews; standing up FY2010

[Captain Hilts]

8. Yes, but the C-5s and C-17s are more redundant. nt

[jmowreader]

4. The government seems to have forgotten the most important lesson of Desert Storm

"We don't have enough transport capacity." If we would have had to hold that war in September rather than January, we probably would have gotten our butts kicked--the Iraqis were ready, we were not.

[Pullya Pudov]

6. IF MEMORY SERVES,

I recall an ol' sayin' from our Army brethren...victory goes to the one who gets there the firstest with the mostest. An adequate airlift capability fills these two needs neatly, with the added benefit of being able to respond more quickly to natural disasters and other humanitarian issues. And from what I understand, the C-17 is a neat hybrid of all my beloved trash haulers (Ol' AF euphemism for any flying object other than fighters) having the rugged charm and good looks of the Herky Cannonball (C-130) combined with large capacity, survivability under adverse conditions, and the ability to make use of unimproved facilities for takeoff, load/unload and landing. After all, the 'Aluminum Cloud' (C-5) won't last forever, and the 130's have been in service since gawd know when.

[ddeclue]

11. C17 is really a C5 replacement although it doesn't have quite the lift capacity.

It fits inbetween the 141s and 5's liftwise but because of a lot of advanced high lift devices it has a very short takeoff and landing roll compared to these earlier planes but it still can't land in places a 130 can land. We need to keep building 17's, we need to upgrade the 5's and we need to replace the older 130's with new model 130's.

There's nothing really wrong with any of the designs of the existing cargo planes, 130's, 5's, 141's or 17's and there's no real reason they couldn't keep on building them ad nauseum. They don't face the same kinds of Darwinian competitive forces that air superiority fighters do - they just haul stuff. The biggest Darwinian drivers of cargo design are essentially the same as commercial airliners: fuel efficiency, lift capacity, speed (within reason), minimum runway lengths and maintenance costs.

We can never really have enough lift capacity. At one point the government was subsidizing the airlines to buy planes on the theory that they could commandeer then in times of national emergency to perform airlift but the reality has been that this has never really been done even when it would have made sense like during Hurricane Katrina to perform a large scale evacuation of New Orleans before the storm.

Airliners and the commercial cargo fleets of companies like UPS and Fedex can be used to augment the AMC's cargo fleet but there are many places they can't go and many things they can't haul that a military cargo plane can.

[PacerLJ35]

16. The C-5 can haul a metric shit-ton of cargo

The C-17 has a pretty good payload, but the C-5 is simply a monster when it comes to clearing out a cargo yard. I say retire all the C-5As, upgrade the remaining C-5Bs to the C-5M (improved engines, much better fuel efficiency, better climb performance). That leaves us with two active C-5M squadrons, one on the east coast, one on the west coast....to specialize in carrying outsized stuff. The ANG/AFRC C-5A squadrons should get C-17s.

Any active squadron still flying C-130Es or C-130H1s (the oldest H-model Herks) should get C-130Js. All the C-130H2s and C-130H3s should be AMP'd since those airframes are relatively new.

The CRAF can carry cargo, but it's not really optimized for military-style airlift...ie, UPS/FedEx aircraft require specialized loading equipment, and aren't compatible with the standard 463L pallet...and none of them are capable of doing airdrops. In the past the CRAF has primarily been used to haul people, not bulky cargo.

[Captain Hilts]

9. C-130, C-141, C-5, C-17. The C-5s should be retired as they and the 17s are similar. nt

[ddeclue]

13. The C5 is still the king kong of American lifters and can lift more than a 17.

The Russian Antonovs (262s) can outlift even a C5 though.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Can the 17 turn on a dime like the C5? Same take off distance?

I lived outside the AFB in Charleston when the C5s flew daily and spent some time at the MAC terminal at NAS Norfolk where the C5s taxi right up to the door and turned on a dime.

[PacerLJ35]

20. The C-17 versus C-5

Apples and oranges, IMO. The C-5 is designed to be a bulk transport...a true strategic airlifter. The C-17 is a hybrid of sorts. I can lift outsized cargo like the C-5, but it still falls far short of the C-5's capacity. The C-17 has a short takeoff/landing roll, while the C-5 requires more runway (although it can get in and out of some relatively short runways...). The C-17 as a limited unprepared surface capability, and while the C-5 can supposedly land in dirt, no one has tried it since testing. Either way, if you routinely try landing an airplane the size of the C-17 (500,000+ lbs) and the C-5 (800,000+ lbs), you render the runway unusable pretty quick, which is why the much smaller C-130 (155,000-175,000 lb) is king of the dirt airstrips.

[Ex Lurker]

23. something else the C 130 can do

land on an aircraft carrier
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4015390308129405896#

[PacerLJ35]

26. Not in any useful capacity

The aircraft was a KC-130F and weighed less than modern C-130H and C-130J aircraft...the airplane is so big it uses quite a bit of deck space.

[Captain Hilts]

28. The C-130 is the modern day DC3/C47/Dakota. GREAT LINK HERE

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/NonCombatants/Transport/index.html

[PacerLJ35]

30. Yeah, I'm pretty familiar with the C-130

I used to be a C-130E evaluator pilot and C-130H instructor pilot, and I'm currently upgrading to instructor in the C-130J.

[Captain Hilts]

31. Great plane. nt

[ddeclue]

34. Russian C130ski (Anatov 12 Cub) - Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery

:rofl:

[PacerLJ35]

35. A few things about the An-12

Perhaps it's best attribute is its ability to take a beating (and poor maintenance practices) and still work ok...

But a few negatives:

Glazed nose was designed for an old-school navigator who would navigate via chart...but all that adds a lot of weight.

The An-12 was designed to have a tail gun. That would have been fine in World War II, but in today's day and age with beyond-visual-range targeting, it's useless and adds weight. Most have had the guns removed, but the structure for the gunner and weaponry still exists...again, making it heavier.

The An-12's cargo floor is quite a bit higher than the C-130's. They don't have a truly roll-on, roll-off capability like the Herk.

The wing is a fairly narrow-chord airfoil, resulting in substantially higher approach and departure speeds. Thus, the An-12 doesn't have quite the short-field capabilities of the Herk...but it does have a higher cruise speed than the four-fan trashcan (C-130).

Finally...even newer An-12s can only be fairly described as "ancient" when it comes to their instrumentation...making a C-130E (which is very old, with some WWII-era equipment on board) looking "modern".

Compare the An-12 to the C-130J and it's not even a close call...the J far outperforms the An-12 in nearly all categories except perhaps toughness. That's one thing that Russian aircraft are famous for...the ability to absorb abuse and neglect and still keep on working.

[ddeclue]

36. Yeah I know, I'm an aerospace engineer (and a private pilot)

The Russians copy our ideas but they are usually years behind and they don't copy them completely, just what they can copy and then they fill in the gaps - there's also an F22ski now.. :rofl:

The Russians avionics lag decades behind ours and is probably their worst lag.

[Captain Hilts]

37. First Aeroflot civilian plane I flew on Lenin-Helskinki - had a bombadier's nose. nt

[bik0]

12. C-17's were not ordered by the Pentagon yet congress approved and funded

because they provided jobs. Parts for the C-17 are made in 47 states.


Obama...

We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe. One example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport aircraft. Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested -- 180. Yet every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need. It's waste, pure and simple.

[ddeclue]

14. Just because the Pentagon claims they don't want them doesn't mean that we don't need them.

The Pentagon thinks we should get rid of A10's and replace them with F35's (and before that they claimed F16's were better than A10's for CAS). The Pentagon often backs bad systems and fails to back things it actually needs like LIFT CAPACITY.

[PacerLJ35]

18. Anybody working at AMC/TRANSCOM would second that notion

We need more C-17s and more C-130Js. The problem is we just can't afford to fund all of that stuff while also trying to replace 30-something year old fighters and 50 year old tankers at the same time.

Bottom line, the past three administrations starting with Bush Sr failed the Air Force by basically shutting down any meaningful acquisition of new aircraft. Aside from the C-17 and a handful of F-22s and C-130Js, the only other new aircraft the USAF has received were trainers (T-1s and T-6s). What that means is the fleet essentially remained unchanged for the past 20 years.

[Captain Hilts]

27. The USN and AF have been decimated by the Iraq War. And the C-5s

worn out by doing all the short hop deliveries there at low altitudes with the all the sand.

[PacerLJ35]

29. C-5s haven't really been doing much short hop stuff, but that's true for the C-17s and Herks

Most C-5 missions into the AOR originate from places like ETAR (Ramstein) or LERT (Rota, Spain). The C-17s have been doing quite a bit of short-hop stuff, and of course the Herks get hit the worst with the short-hop missions. One standard routing is affectionately called the "Pain Train" by the Herk crews based in Iraq (their callsign is "Train"), and is essentially multiple stops between Baghdad and the surrounding airfields...in a given day you spend more time sitting on the ground with the engines running than you do actually in the air.

[bik0]

38. Obama says we don't need them.

The Pentagon says we don't need them. Who - other than you, says we need them?

[PacerLJ35]

39. AMC/TRANSCOM

You know, the guys who actually do the airlift mission?

The phrase "the Pentagon says we don't need them" is misleading. We do need them, it's just that the Pentagon wants to fund other projects it deems important, so they're willing to say "ok, we have enough...we'd like more but if we get more we can't fund Project X".

Obama, while the CINC, is not a subject matter expert on airlift capacity. He's going to probably side with the Pentagon brass on this (which he did).