irtuskLets go through the numbers from the Air Force fact file.
that’s for the C-5, not the C-5M
2225 tons is not going to make that much of a difference in a general war
that’s per sortie (of all 50 aircraft), run 1 sortie a day and it adds up very quickly
but regardless, 80 C-17s carry more tonnage farther than 50 C-5s.
just for reference
80 C-17s: 6760 tons
50 C-5Ms: 6750 tons
so yes, you would have to buy 80 C-17s to replace 50 C-5Ms
now the question is: is that a wise decision?
50 C-5M: 50 * $148 million = $7.4 billion
80 C-17: 80 * $276 million = $22.08 billion
what else could we buy with $14.6 billion?
108 Raptors
5 Virginia class subs
2 Nimitz class carriers
even if you prefer 80 C-17s to 50 C-5Ms (and I don’t), would you prefer 80 C-17s to 50 C-5Ms + 2 Nimitz class carriers?
Will it have the service life of the C-17.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL34264.pdf
Aircraft Flying Hours Remaining
C-5M: 26,000 hours
C-17: 30,000 hours
Will it be cheaper to operate, don’t think so.
actually yes
and they cannot go where the C-17 can.
1. i’m not saying get rid of the 200 C-17s we have, which is more than enough to service any podunk airport situation we may have
2. but it’s simply not as big a problem as you may think
http://fas.org/man/gao/gao94225.htm
Although the Air Face claims that the C-17’s ability to land
at small, austere airfields during wartime is a significant military
advantage, the Defense Department has identified only three such
airfields that the C-17 would use in major regional contingency
scenarios; two are in Korea and one is in Saudi Arabia.
irtuskOnly special operations and some specialised C-130 variants can be refueled in the air. All standard US C-130 transport lack this provision.
well, there’s your problem!
just start ordering all C-130Js with refuelling probes, and voila! we can shut down that pesky C-17 line
irtuskI would argue that there really is no difference between 50 more C-5s and 50 – 75 less C-17s for real world scenarios.
1. 50 C-5Ms are cheaper than 50 C-17s
2. 50 C-5Ms are more capable than 50 C-17s
irtuskThe C-5 has become a “speciality” carrier used in rare situations…….
not true . . . yet
you aren’t going to move an armored division (vehicles, personnel, arms, supplies, etc.) with a fleet of C-5s in any reasonable amount of time to an amenable zone. Not gonna happen.
the C-5 isn’t (just) about oversized loads, it’s about quantity and distance
trying to transport everything that’s needed via C-17 is trying to run a fire hydrant through a straw
As with the An-124, outsized transport is a rare and contractable thing for certain situations. Is it nice to have? Yeah. Is it necessary for 97& of military ops? No.
look, you can make the exact same argument against the C-17
yeah, the outsized capability of the C-17 is nice to have for certain situations, but 97% of the time you can do the same mission with a C-130.
C-130s have true rough field capability and go where the C-17 won’t plus it has intercontinental range with aerial refuelling
spending money on more C-17s is silly when the C-130 is so much more practical and can do most of the missions anyways
do any of you see a problem with this line of reasoning? can you make cogent argument against it?
that’s actually a good thought experiment: why don’t we kill the C-17 and just buy more C-130Js?
i don’t know, maybe we should . . . hmm
irtuskYou have got to love the disingenuousness of people like irtusk.
Seriously, where has anybody said the C-17 is a C-5 replacement &/or as good or better than the C-5 at what the C-5 does?
well let’s see
On the way to 300 C-17 plus 50 C-5. Good!
What is it in the real world that you would have a C-5 do that a C-17 cannot do? There is still going to be at least 50 and possibly 80 modernised C-5s in inventory. Where is the need for more?
arguing for just 50 C-5s is arguing for a ‘silver bullet’ fleet that is just useful for outsized loads, increase that to 100 and it starts to become a strategically relevant means of transport
It is one thing to debate/question the proper mix of C-5s & C-17s in the fleet, it is something else to fault the C-17 for not being a C-5. Obviously the C-5 does what it does better than the C-17 but the C-17 does what it does better than the C-5 as well – that’s why we have both C-5s & C-17s. They are complimentary aircraft.
i’m glad you see it that way, but i feel too many others fail to appreciate the value of the C-5 with all the comments here (including in the past) along the lines of ‘well, the C-5 is really only useful for the mobile scissors bridge, everything else can be done by the C-17″
irtuskBoth have intercontinental range with aerial refueling.
no, the C-5 has intercontinental range WITHOUT aerial refueling
if you want to include aerial refueling, the C-130 has intercontinental range, and realistically, 99% of military cargo flights COULD be performed by a C-130
yet no one suggests just having a small ‘silver bullet’ fleet of 50 C-17s for outsized cargo and buying hundreds more C-130s
why? because it’s silly
and it’s silly in the same way that saying that buying more C-17s is an adequate replacement for the C-5. They are different aircraft for different missions
and no that comparison isn’t as extreme as you might think
C-130J-30: 8 pallets
C-17: 18 pallets
C-5: 36 pallets
so the C-17 carries 125% more pallets than the C-130 and the C-5 carries 100% more pallets than the C-17
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-5-ops.htm
C-5s flew about 900 fewer sorties than the Globemasters, but hauled about 11,500 more tons and 5,300 more passengers
On tyhe other side of the coin the C-5As are hangar queens.
which is the point (or one of them anyways) of the C-5M program
if the C-5s were no longer hangar queens, then suddenly their appeal jumps dramatically
All C-5s cost much more to operate.
after C-5M, not so much
and ESPECIALLY in cases where it can do it without aerial refuelling and the C-17 can’t
The C-5 needs a 6000 foot runway, whereas the C-17 needs a 3500 foot runway.
dishonest comparison to begin with as that’s comparing them with the C-5 carrying an extra 100,000 of cargo. If the C-5 was carrying the same as the C-17 they’re pretty similar
also:
http://fas.org/man/gao/gao94225.htm
Although the Air Face claims that the C-17’s ability to land
at small, austere airfields during wartime is a significant military
advantage, the Defense Department has identified only three such
airfields that the C-17 would use in major regional contingency
scenarios; two are in Korea and one is in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/04/airforce_c5m_dover_042909/
Now, a C-5M with 50,000 pounds of fuel needs only 1,500 feet to get airborne, while the older C-5s need 3,000 to 4,000 feet.
If you really need to move a lot of stuff long distances you use these:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/54/540287.htm
that’s great if you have the time
in emergencies you don’t have the time
stuff like operation nickel grass
having the surge capacity of the full C-5 fleet could be quite a difference maker
irtuskWhat is it in the real world that you would have a C-5 do that a C-17 cannot do?
efficiently transport large quantities of stuff long distance
the C-17 can barely hop across the atlantic and is wholely inadequate for the pacific theater
sure they they have ‘unlimited’ range with AAR, but that puts a tremendous strain on the tanker fleet that may be needed elsewhere
if you need to move a lot of stuff a long ways, the C-5 simply trounces the C-17
something that takes 1 flight in a C-5 could easily take 4 flights with C-17s (two C-17s + two tankers)
irtuskYes airframe life will increase but thats to be expected with most MLUs (including the baaz upg).
earlier you said it was solely an avionics upgrade
As far as payload/range increase – it is due to increase in number of hps (6 to 9) iirc.
what are hps?
irtuskIf there was money for more C-17s they’d be buying them. There isn’t so they aren’t.
but they are, every year they keep buying more with nary an end in sight, it simply cannot be killed
and retiring the C-5As gives them the political cover to make those orders more ‘legit’
hence my prediction that the end won’t come until AT LEAST another 80 C-17s have been ordered
irtuskWhats so difficult? all newsreports point to the M2k being upgraded to dash5 standards (purely avionics). The MiG-29 upgrade is far more extensive, everything from avionics, airframe, engines, IRST, you name it.
that is not true, as the Mirage is supposed to get a longer life and longer unrefuelled range, that implies airframe and engine changes
it is also getting a new radar
but if i had to guess, the main cost driver is the MICA missile, which is hella expensive, even by western standards
irtuskHint: it’s also called the MiG-29K. the 35 is based on this a/c, which are being produced as we speak, do you want to see pics?
i repeat, the F-16 block 60 is closer to the F-16IN than the MiG-35 is to the MiG-29K
the MiG-35 will not be built at the same factory as MiG is moving their factory to a new location
(a very expensive decision)
Yes, oh look an AESA that has not even been decided
the AESA in the F-16IN has been decided
not just that, an AESA that awaits permission from the USG.
if they can’t get permission, it won’t be selected
Otoh, you have current production of an a/c that shares massive commonality with the 35 in its OLS, engines, airframe, EW suite, radar etc.
yes, all 16 of them :rolleyes:
(ps the radar is not the same)
its called upfront fees. Even if indians do the work, while their labor stands constant, the OEM supplier will charge a fee.
if you get full tech transfer will all (as specified in the bid) there is no fee
BTw, AM Ahluwalia points to the F-16 as having a terrible crash record in response to the Mig-21 fiasco in india.
when i said MiG-35 would be at the lower end, i was also considering F-16 as part of the lower end (even though i didn’t explicitly say so)
the MKI @ 8.5 billion. 126 Mig-21s at $ 350 million
ancient history that’s no longer relevant
16 MiG-29Ks at 750 million.
the bait
Moscow, which once offered to sell India additional MiG-29Ks for about $46 million apiece, now wants about 60 percent more for each multirole combat jet
the switch
(now there’s been some question as to the authenticity of that report, but i haven’t seen anything officially denying it either)
Only the Gorky stands out as a sore issue, but guess what even that is settled at mutually satisfactory prices
i don’t think ‘mutually satisfactory’ is correct. russia had india over a barrel so india bent over and then tried to pretend that’s how it likes it to save face
$ 2 billion including a/c i think.
no, 29K was separate
Plus, rumors abound that the Gorky includes a LOT more than just the carrier (akulas and so on).
there might be agreements to do those deals in the future, but the money for those deals would be separate (ie extra)
i can’t find it now, but i seem to recall something else russia bailed on after signing a contract. i want to say it was IL-76s, and then they offer to let india save face by getting the more expensive IL-76MF, but maybe it was helicopters or something else
*EDIT* found that this deal was with China, but still Russia’s practice of signing a contract at a low price and then forcing a renegotiation is troubling
irtuskThe development of the 35 is nowhere as far behind as some suggest.
there is only a demonstrator and the factory that would build it (in russia for the initial batch) doesn’t even exist
It is definitely further ahead of the gripen NG or an F-16 IN (that does not even exist).
Gripen-NG maybe
F-16IN no way. the specific configuration might not exist, but the currently in production F-16 block 60 is a heck of a lot closer to the F-16IN than the MiG-29 to the MiG-35 (oh look, operational AESA)
There will be a degree of development cost involved with all the MRCA candidates, only any development/customization is a LOT more expensive with the eurobirds or american a/c.
if you have the same people doing the same work, there is no inherent reason one would be cheaper than the other
Take the Su-30 for example, it had to be developed far more than the current 35 requires to reach MKI levels (everything from airframe, avionics, engines etc). Despite this, the entire MKI program including acquisition cost india a mere 8.5 billion $$s. So no, the development for radar, upgrades, or an EW suite will hardly cost india much more.
in case you haven’t noticed, russia has changed
initial MiG-29K were dirt cheap, new ones were hella expensive
the work you were able to get Russia to do for MKI for that price will NEVER happen again
As far as attrition rates go, the 29 has a pretty solid record with the IAF. this will only improve with the newer, safer version. Look at the MKI.
sure the 29 has been safer relatively speaking than other IAF planes (*cough*MiG-21*cough*), but again, relatively speaking, i believe most of the other MRCA contenders are EVEN SAFER
not saying 35 would be bad, just not as good
In terms of fuel costs, the RDs are pretty economical in the first place, where is the problem? Can you put some figures?
i never said it was a problem, i said it was average (probably above the single-engine candidates and below the dual-engine candidates except maybe rafale)
The last I checked, the SMT (NOT the M, K or 35) was estimated to cost $ 5500 per flying hour (2000 estimate, pibu artilce – flug revue). the f-16 was about $ 7500 from what i read.
which airforce runs both f-16 and MiG-29 in large enough quantities to be credible?
you cannot compare flying costs across different air forces
Also, keep in mind upgrade costs, again take a gander at the IAF mirage 2000 upg VS the IAF mig-29 upgrade, the costs don’t even compare.
1. french are notoriously expensive
2. you have to compare what exactly each upgrade involved, which is difficult
190 fulcrums for $ 10.2 billion will make the MOD drool. Russkis have traditionally scuttled deals with such bargain prices.
er yes exactly, they reel you in with superb price and then jack it once you’re hooked, bait and switch
irtuskSure there is not much commonality between the original fulcrums and the 35. But there can be considerable commonality with the upgraded iAF baaz, which is having a serious upgrade. ditto with the IN Ks.
Austin has an excellent point, much of the infrastructure for inducting 35s is already with the IAF. No other MRCA contender offers this, period. It is a huge advantage and the article by Shiv Aroor (despite some flawas) also suggests the same.
well if you want to argue costs there are several different costs to consider
an advantage in ONE of them is nice, but you have to look at the TOTAL
1. acquisition
2. development now
3. development for the next 40 years
4. flying costs – fuel
5. flying costs – maintenance
6. attrition rates
being able to share existing infrastructure helps with (1) so MiG-35 is probably tops or near tops in this category
but losses in (2) and (3) can easily overwhelm any savings in (1)
(4) and (5) are probably average, and just guessing (6) will be on the lower end
irtuskthis is to beef up numbers till the real engine Kaveri sees the light of day.
i thought the kaveri was dead?
irtuskOn the way to 300 C-17 plus 50 C-5. Good!
upgrading all the C-5As to C-5Ms would be both cheaper and give greater capability
Sign In
