C-5 Replacement or modernization

Big surprise there...it's all good except the Army hates the idea of C-17s taking the C-5s role.

Since they decided NOT to retire the A models, the school house is getting killed. When you plan on having to crew 50 odd planes and then have to crew 100 plus planes, it adds a *slight* kink in your plan.

Not getting on my soap box...could be there for hours.
 
I wouldn't mind getting on with a c5 guard or reserve unit.

Breaking down wherever the AC sees fit must be pretttty sweet!

:sarcasm:



THE KNEEL OF DEATH
 
Why do you think it's called the "Per Diem Machine?" Besides, you DON'T break when in undesirable areas of our great world!
 
The C-5 can carry some hub to hub weight that the C-17 couldn't dream of! Those A-Models need to go, though. They're maintenance hogs of an airplane that is a maintenance hog.
 
The C-5 can carry some hub to hub weight that the C-17 couldn't dream of! Those A-Models need to go, though. They're maintenance hogs of an airplane that is a maintenance hog.

We don't "dream" of trying to carry as much as a C-5 because we don't place value on how much can be carried in comparison to the C-5 (half as much). We're just out hacking the mission like everyone else. 2 missions..Strategic Airlift vs. Direct Delivery.

Greetings...first post. Good website and discussion.
 
We don't "dream" of trying to carry as much as a C-5 because we don't place value on how much can be carried in comparison to the C-5 (half as much). We're just out hacking the mission like everyone else. 2 missions..Strategic Airlift vs. Direct Delivery.

Greetings...first post. Good website and discussion.

It would be nice if the C-5 could do what you guys do and as fast and without breaking, but it can't. The C-17 was a great addition, but can't replace the C-5. We still need a larger, transport catagory aircraft. Maybe not as many as we have, with AEF and all, but we still need something.
 
Back
Top