Posted on 02/15/2008 11:00:11 AM PST by Freeport
Re-engining of the US Air Force's oldest Lockheed C-5 Galaxy strategic airlifters has been cancelled by the US Department of Defense after a steep increase in the project cost of the programme.
The USAF's 62 C-5As will no longer be modernised under the reliability enhancement and re-engining programme (RERP), which replaces the TF39 engines with General Electric CF6-80C2s and upgrades other systems.
Lockheed will still re-engine 47 newer C-5Bs and two C-5Cs operated for NASA. Including three that have already undergone avionics upgrades and re-engining to become C-5M test aircraft, this will give the USAF a total of 52 modernised Galaxys.
Cancelling work on the older C-5s will cut the estimated cost of the RERP from $17.5 billion to $7.7 billion, saving $9.8 billion. The projected cost when the 115-aircraft programme started in November 2001 was $11.1 billion.
The US Air Force has been lobbying Congress to permit it to retire the C-5As, which is prohibited by legislation, so that it can buy more Boeing C-17 airlifters. The USAF has not requested any C-17s in its fiscal year 2009 budget, but Congress is expected to add aircraft.
Flight testing of the re-engined C-5B began in June 2006. Designated the F138-100 by the military, the commercial CF6-80C2 turbofan increases the Galaxy's payload and range, reduces its take-off distance and increases its climb rate.
I just love it when congress forces new aircraft on the airforce.
We can probably use all the airlift we can handle, in any case.
With no need to tote M1 Abrams tanks around the world, the C-5s days are numbered. C-17 is the better deal.
That assumes we have working air tankers for refueling in route.....
After all, can’t we just rent a Antonov 225 for the really big parts?
(ducks and runs for it)
Not to worry. Obama or Hitlery will make our military their top priority.-NOT
C-17’s also tote M1 Abrams tanks around the world, and we DO need that capability...witness the Turkish refusal to allow us to deploy tanks at the beginning of the war.
We did it anyway with C-17’s.
They did get the job done, thanks in part, to total air dominance and the associated CAS support.
I hope I'm wrong, but someday we may regret not having those C-5s a whole lot more than we regret not having a few $billion.
You might recall that one of the aircraft forced upon the Air Force was the A-10. The Air Force was very much against it, and was on the verge of retiring those they had when the Gulf War made it clear just how valuable they were.
Oh, no. Oh, no. They will make the military their top priority, believe it. The number one thing on the list to gut to pay for social programs.
That’s what I meant. The 12-14 year olds had better prepare to get Drafted in a few years too because enlistments and re-enlistments will go to hell.
January 16, 2008
AFA members and Congressional Staffers, many of you have commented favorably on the “elevator speech numbers” I sent you.
It’s January ... so here are some revealing data on the “State of the Air Force.”
Fighter Aircraft - average age: 20 years; average flight hours 5400+
Bomber Aircraft - average age: 32 years; average flight hours 11,400+
Tanker aircraft - average age: 44 years; average flight hours 18,900+
C2 Fleet - average age: 22 years old; average flight hours 32,000
ISR Fleet (excluding UAV) - average age: 30 years old; average flight hours 18,000
Key Groundings/Restrictions
F-15A-D - 163 of 441 are grounded for structural issues
B-52 - 6 are grounded - past due PDM grounding date - authorized a one-time flight to the bone-yard.
EC-130 - 2 of 14 are grounded due to center wing box cracks
C-130E - 3 are grounded and 13 are restricted due to Service life and wing cracks
KC-135Es - 26 of 86 are grounded due to engine strut corrosion.
AC-130U - 4 of 17 are restricted due to lack of 30MM weapons
B-2 - entire fleet is restricted due to windshield bolt hole cracks
C-5s - 39 of 108 are restricted due to crown skin restrictions (weight limiting)
Additionally:
219 of 223 F-15Es have training restrictions due to vertical stab structural issues
Majority of Block 25/30/32, block 40/42, and block 50/52 F-16s need structural modifications
All 356 A-10s will need new wings and new aircraft skin - many have landing gear issues ... and all need new engines.
C-130Hs have Center Wing Box issues
C-32As have bulkhead structural issues.
Looking across the FYDP - between 2008-2013 - the Air Force will divest itself of 749 aircraft and procure only 698 aircraft (260 of which are UAVs).
To give you the idea of the scale of all of this:
When the AF grounded its 600+ F-15 fleet, it grounded more aircraft than the entire F/A Navy. The F-15s it presently has grounded equate to a bit more than 3 aircraft carriers of aircraft.
The 356 A-10s that need renovations equates to more aircraft than the fixed wing USMC
The Air Force has about 5800 aircraft ... and presently about one-third are either grounded or restricted in one way or another
The central important part of this data is that this is not a third-world Air Force ... And the question we should ask ourselves, why don’t we fund it to ensure our children and grandchildren are safe and secure?
2nd Subject -
Chief of Staff White Paper - Gen Moseley published an exceptional White Paper ... which lays out the strategic foundations for the Air Force of the future. If you haven’t seen it, you can find it on the AFA website: http://dailyreport.afa.org/NR/rdonlyres/868196FC-AABB-4230-84EA-F5358B0C4B34/0/CSAF_white_paper.pdf
My favorite quotes in it are:
“No modern war has been won without air superiority. No future war will be won without air, space and cyberspace superiority.” Page 2.
“With the oldest inventory in history, battered by 17 years of continuous combat, the Air Force’s ability to fulfill its missions is already being tested.” Page 2
“... our reliance on assured access to space will increase exponentially.” Page 8
“The Air Force is smaller in December 2007 than it was in December 1941.” Page 10
For your consideration.
Mike
Michael M. Dunn, Lt Gen (Ret)
AFA President/CEO
Scary information. That such could be allowed to occur in an era of $500 billion defense budgets is beyond comprehension. The amount needed for proper maintenance and procurement of adequate spare parts is probably far less than $50 billion/year...but Boeing, Lockheed, etc. probably don’t want this money spent, as buying new aircraft is more profitable for them (and damn the taxpayers).
This is utterly shameful.
The only worthwhile question at this point is: which of the Presidential candidates has even a snowball’s chance in Hell of caring about this issue, let alone attempting to fix it?
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.