Pentagon cancels re-engining of USAF's older Lockheed C-5s

Flightglobal.com ^ | 15/02/2008 | Graham Warwick

[Paleo Conservative]

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.

[Seaplaner]

Hmm, that not good.

Quite an education, though. Thanks B4!

Changing topic a bit.

Question, sort of related to re-engining. (And, actually, I've asked it here before.)

Why doesn't the BUFF-52 get new engines? It just seems like a natural to upgrade the engines to four big efficient ones, replacing the eight Pratts on the A/C now.

[Yo-Yo]

And what makes the C-5A such a hanger queen? Engines, avionics, or airframe?

[rottndog]

Just out of curiosity, why isn’t the manufacturer required to guarantee a certain amount of reliability and pay for repairs when the planes don’t meet it?

BTW, does this mean the C-5As will keep their signature sound?

[Old Student]

“I am too logical, I would never survive in the beltway, this makes to much sense.....”

NRTZ. It wouldn’t be worth doing. Take my word for it, it just wouldn’t.

(Actually, I haven’t a clue, having last bent a wrench on F-111D’s in 1975, but I’m absolutely certain I’ve just quoted one or more of the beltway bandits...

I mean, there are still C-47’s flying, why NOT fix the C-5A, and the BUFF’s. I bet we could have great-grandkids of the original pilots in them before too very long.)

[roaddog727]

“So either Congress was too dumb to know this or it was protecting some C-5a wing in someone’s district.”

Likely a 50/50 split on both.

[Old Student]

“Likely a 50/50 split on both.”

I think you’re giving them too much credit.

[DesScorp]

I want to know why in the hell its costing so much to simply buy off the shelf commercial airliner engines?

[mad_as_he$$]

C-5’s in all versions are a maintenance nightmare. 50 manhours of maint for every air hour. The C17 is like 20.

[B4Ranch]

Myself, I am glad that they don’t change. I kinda like the idea that they can ask for and receive 5000 well trained engine mechanics ......... out of the civilian side of society.

The BUFF requires a steady hand and a clear mind, not fuel efficiency. Beside the Russians know every sound that’s ever been made by one. It would cost them a lot if we made an engine change.

[B4Ranch]

Are you kidding?

[SkyPilot]

And what makes the C-5A such a hanger queen? Engines, avionics, or airframe?

Boy, you asked the $64,000 question. You should have been an Air Force general.

We did several studies when I was with Air Mobility Command, and added up dozens and dozens of maintenance problems that caused the C-5 reliability rate to be so low.

We also factored in thousands of delay codes that were the primary or secondary factor for why the C-5 had late takeoffs.

The "bad actors" were engines (whole bunch of problems with these), the thrust reversers (technically part of the engine but a problem all their own), avionics, hydraulics, and electrical problems. The basic airframe was not usually a problem.

When I worked in the requirements section of the Pentagon for the Air Force, the RERP program was still in its concept stages. The Air Force figured the C-5 still had years of service life on the airframe, so this made sense to invest in it.

The problem was, the RERP and the AMP (Avionics Modernization Program) ends up costing a whole lot more than when first forecast in the late 90's. Compile that with us flying the wings off of everything in the last 10 years, and hence aging the aircraft prematurely before its time, and the equation of "benefit" vs. cost didn't add up to such a rosy number.

[SkyPilot]

Just out of curiosity, why isn’t the manufacturer required to guarantee a certain amount of reliability and pay for repairs when the planes don’t meet it?

They do, to an extent. It isn't exactly a "warranty." Maintenance is now part of the procurement contract when we buy them, and this can be QUITE a lucrative deal for a company long after the aircraft is delivered.

It all depends on how the contract was written. The C-5As were delivered to the Air Force waaaaaaaay back when.

New aircraft like the F-22 can count on contract mods that if found to be a manufacturing or design flaw, will probably be eaten at least partially by the company. But, I have been through "Equitable Adjustment" negotiations. No company worth its salt will just allow itself to be raped by cost overruns. They will usually work this out with the government through intense negotiations involving engineers, contracting officers, and lawyers.

[Paleo Conservative]

I want to know why in the hell its costing so much to simply buy off the shelf commercial airliner engines?

The RERP program isn't just putting new engines on these planes. It involves replacing lots components that have been identified as requiring excessive maintenance and replacing them with newer parts. Quite a bit of the hydraulics system and other mechanical systems are involved. The auxillary power units will be replaced with new off the shelf APU's, and there will be upgrades to the landing gear to allow higher landing weights. Even though the engines are off the shelf, they will be attached to the wings on new pylons with a new design that improves aerodynamics. The big problem was the C-5A fleet needed a lot more work and more money to bring up to the targeted level of reliability. Considering that lots of parts on the C-5B's are no longer going to be used for C-5B's, there will be a much larger pool of spares that could be used to maintain the remaining C-5A's. This will improve their reliability and make it possible to keep more C-5A's flight ready.

[phantomworker]

Very interesting thread. Thanks!

[RayChuang88]

Actually, the USAF should retire the older C-5A’s, mostly because the airframe life—even with several rebuilds—is too high for an economic rebuild program. They would be better served by buying maybe 30-35 new-production C-17’s, which not only can carry most of the cargoes the C-5A can carry but also can operate out of shorter, unprepared runways near combat zones.

[grey_whiskers]

I can't tell you how happy that makes me.

Yes, I know it doesn't really affect "Neutron" Jack (who gave his wife "lifetime marriageability" in order to hook up with Suzy W. of Harvard Business Review), but still...
it's nice to see his old company take it on the chin.

Do you know if he is still getting his $2 million/year 'pension'? (What is the business value-added for that anyway?)

Cheers!

[skeptoid]

. . . . W H O A ! ! . . . .

.

. tell s'more, please, sir

[Paleo Conservative]

Actually, the USAF should retire the older C-5A’s, mostly because the airframe life—even with several rebuilds—is too high for an economic rebuild program.

According to the studies I read, the C-5A airframes had up to 70% of their life left. Still I can't understand why the C-5B's were built with the TF-39 engines when newer more modern ones were available.

[SkyPilot]

According to the studies I read, the C-5A airframes had up to 70% of their life left.

Exactly, and that is what the studies just a few years ago showed. With the "Never Ending Surge" since 911, and other problems, that number has decreased. How low? Depends on who you ask.

Still I can't understand why the C-5B's were built with the TF-39 engines when newer more modern ones were available.

Some really great points are being raised in this thread.

I often wondered the same thing, and why Lockheed didn't use the CF6, which was being incorporated into the 747 series at the same time.

For more than 30 years, the GE CF6 family of engines has been the cornerstone of the widebody, high bypass ratio turbofan engine market. The CF6 traces its beginnings to the early 1960's and the GE TF39 engine. In 1965, GE was awarded the contract to develop the engines for the USAF's Lockheed C-5A "Galaxy" transport. The technology and design philosophy incorporated into this powerplant launched GE into the high bypass commercial market.

It was probably a production decision based on competing with the commercial line for the CF6, and cost! The C-5A was way over budget anyway.