nhamptonarguing 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
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″
Again, no one is saying the C-5 does not have it’s uses. No one is saying that it can carry more further. The question is can you justify 50 older C-5s that would need to be upgraded and modernized over 50-75 new C-17s? I would argue that there really is no difference between 50 more C-5s and 50 – 75 less C-17s for real world scenarios. If I need to bring in one of the few items a C-17 cannot accommodate I have the C-5. If I need to fly a larger load I have a C-5. For everything else I have the C-17. they both have their places and 50 more C-5s is not going to make a difference. When you have to move lots of stuff fast you go by sea.
Someone talked about pallets above: That’s what KC-330 will be really good in.
I disagree. I want my tankers available to carry fuel. The CRAF is for carrying pallets to the rear and the C-130s carry the pallets to the front.
KC-Z (which is the true KC-10 replacement) is now needed to provide forward deployed tanking for the USN. It will need the range and fuel offload to the F-18s. The KC-30 would be a good choice, but the KC-777 would be an even better choice due to increased range and offload.
nhamptonefficiently 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)
I am having a hard time applying this to real life. Sure there is a need for the C-5but I don’t really think it is as acute as you make it out to be. The reality is that at 2150 nm the C-5 can carry 270,000lbs and at 2400 nm the C-17 can carry 169,000lbs. Both have intercontinental range with aerial refueling. Both can carry an M-1. The C-5 can carry any air mobile item in the army’s inventory and the C-17 can carry just about everything as well. On tyhe other side of the coin the C-5As are hangar queens. All C-5s cost much more to operate. The C-5 needs a 6000 foot runway, whereas the C-17 needs a 3500 foot runway.
This could turn out quite well if the Air Force upgrades the C-5Bs to C-5M standard and buys another 50 or so C-17s. That is well worth the pricxe of consigning the C-5As to the bone yard. They are both very capable and bring different capabilities to the table.
If you really need to move a lot of stuff long distances you use these:
http://www.navsource.org/archives/09/54/540287.htm
Seven of them can move a full Mechanized division with supplies.
nhamptonMate, hard as you doubtless find this to believe, this is not about the ‘nationality’ of the aircraft, it’s all about capability.
Give the KC-767 to BAE to build, and it’s still the third best tanker.
If you’re procuring the best fighter in the world, you’d buy F-22.
If you’re procuring the best attack helicopter in the world, you’d buy AH-64 (though the European engines improve it).
If you’re procuring the best strategic transport in the world, you’d buy C-17.
If you’re procuring the best heavylift helicopter in the world, you’d buy CH-47.
If you’re procuring the best AEW aircraft in the world, you’d buy E-3. Or maybe Wedgetail ……American is very often best.
But occasionally, the best answer comes from elsewhere. And so, if you want the best tanker in the world, at the moment its the A330 MRTT, and second comes the A310 MRTT, with the 767 a distant third.
(and if you want the best medium helicopter for CSAR or VIP, you’d buy AW101).
You keep missing the point mate. The Air Force defines its needs via the RFP. It was clear that if the two entries where evaluated properly the Boeing entry fit the Air Forces needs better and at lower cost. The GAO makes that abundantly clear.
If the Air Force’s needs change then they change the RFP and the vendors resubmit proposals. It will be interesting to see what the updated RFP looks like but one thing is certain. Boeing had a stroke of brilliance when they decided to submit both a 767 and 777 based tanker. If bigger is better (which is the A330’s main advantage over the 767), then the 777 is even better.
A Honda Fit may be the “best” car for you but my situation dictates that a Chrysler Minivan is the “best” car for me. The same applies to tankers. What works for the UK and other regional air forces does not necessarily work for the USAF. Get over it.
nhamptonAh! Time to dig up our old threads about that topic …
On the way to 300 C-17 plus 50 C-5. Good!
Military airlift will have to make do with what there is, and the heavy strategic stuff will sealift. As it should be.
I agree.
C-17 is great cargo aircraft, but still it is not (can’t be) a C-5.
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? The C-17 is in many ways more advanced and survivable.
nhamptonWhat Jacko and the rest of the EADS cheerleaders keep forgetting is that according to the RFP the Boeing entry is the better choice. I suspect they would be singing a different tune if the entire plane was license built in the US with all US components.
we find that the agency’s selection of Northrop Grumman’s proposal as reflecting the best value to the government was undermined by a number of prejudicial errors that call into question the Air Force’s decision that Northrop Grumman’s proposal was technically acceptable and its judgment concerning the comparative technical advantages accorded Northrop Grumman’s proposal. In addition, we find a number of errors in the agency’s cost evaluation that result in Boeing displacing Northrop Grumman as the offeror with the lowest evaluated most probable life cycle costs to the government. We sustain Boeing’s protest on grounds related to these errors
we sustain the protest, because we find that (1) the Air Force did not evaluate the offerors’ technical proposals under the key system requirements subfactor of the mission capability factor in accordance with the weighting established in the RFP’s evaluation criteria; (2) a key technical discriminator relied upon in the selection decision in favor of Northrop Grumman relating to the aerial refueling area of the key system requirements subfactor, was contrary to the RFP; (3) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate the capability of Northrop Grumman’s proposed aircraft to refuel all current Air Force fixed-wing, tanker‑compatible aircraft using current Air Force procedures, as required by the RFP; (4) the Air Force conducted misleading and unequal discussions with Boeing with respect to whether it had satisfied an RFP objective under the operational utility area of the key system requirements subfactor; (5) Northrop Grumman’s proposal took exception to a material solicitation requirement related to the product support subfactor; (6) the Air Force did not reasonably evaluate military construction (MILCON) costs associated with the offerors’ proposed aircraft consistent with the RFP; and (7) the Air Force unreasonably evaluated Boeing’s estimated non‑recurring engineering costs associated with its proposed system development and demonstration (SDD).
nhamptonThere are about 59 C-5As in active inventory. Only 50 may be retired. There are no plans to retire the C-5Bs. I agree there will be more C-17s but where do you come up with 130 for the Air Force?
nhamptonThe KC-767AT meets the KC-X fuel offload requirement from a 7,000′ runway – which is what matters.
So the 767 can lift a 135 load of fuel from a 7,000 ft runway, but can’t lift anything like its maximum fuel load from 10,000 ft, while the A330 can lift 111 tonnes from that runway. You may not see any advantage there. I do.
I have given the general conditions which exist in the real world which make it so & Boeing identified over 400 airfields (that permit tanker operations) which fall into those conditions.
But you (and Boeing) have failed to name one single real world tanker base where ACN or footprint would permit a 767 to operate, but not a KC-45.
Boeing say they’ve found some, but won’t name them, isn’t exactly persuasive. It’s easy to name lots of real world tanker bases that will take a fully laden KC-45, but which won’t take a 767 unless it reduces its fuel load to less than that of an A310 MRTT.
And all three main tanker bases in the UK fall under that description.
Jack you really need to stop making requirements up. In fact I would strongly reccomend you read the GAO’s analysis of the evaluation of the aircraft based on the RFP that the Air Force wrote. You see Jack the Air Force, not you is the experts here and their needs in the way of a tanker are summed up in the RFP. I know you take it personal but they did not appear to consult with you before they wrote the RFP.
The GAO concluded that the Air Force procurement team did not properly evaluate the entries based on the requirements of the RFP. In fact the EADS entry failed to meet two minimum thresholds when compared against the requirements in the RFP. In light of the fact that the KC-767 met or exceeded all minimum thresholds, EADS should count their lucky stars that the GAO did not recommend that the Air Force pick the Boeing entry.
That said, if the Air Force has had a change of requirements that will be reflected in the new RFP then it appears Boeing has a ready counter to the EADS proposal in the KC-777. Which if you go by all the reasons by which the EADS fans claim make the A330 a better choice than the 767 is going to be a far superior platform as a tanker than the A330.
I would urge you to read the GAO report in it’s entirety before you continue with your often false half truths and mostly irrelevant arguments. The report is here:
http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/311344.htm
nhamptonThere are a few unique/professional boards that seem to avoid that for the most part but they are few and far between.
Agreed, and this is not one of them.
nhamptonPfcem can you please stop writing “BS” everytime you don’t agree with someone, its just rude and shows a lack of respect to your fellow forumers!:mad:
Jack has made some good points as have you on this matter if you can’t be bothered to stay polite I’m just going to start flagging all your replys to the mods.
I can understand Pfcem’s frustration with Jacko’s ability to pull BS out of thin air and have it taken for fact by the fan boys on this site. In fact Jacks BS has been thoroughly debunked by people far more knowledgeable than most of those that contribute here.
Just a few threads amongst several on the subject. Pay particular attention to KC135TopBoom’s replies as he and not Jack has actual tanking experience.
The chances of the USAF buying the A330 for a tanker are somewhere between slim and none. With Boeing pitching both the 767 and 777 as tankers the A330 is toast. Jacko can talk about balanced fields all he wants but if it’s not in the requirements it wont matter whether it’s Jacko BS or not.
nhamptonPerhaps you should sign the anti-Typhoon petition then
I did. I was number 622.
The Eurofighter Typhoon Tranche 3 is an expensive piece of machinery that’s not fit for purpose. The treasury wanted to cancel these Eurofighter orders, but were overruled by the prime minister. The PM preferring instead to waste yet more money on something that should never have been bought in the first place. Money that could have been spent protecting our troops.
Cheers!
N. Hampton
nhamptonWhat, you googled, for example; “Advantages of Rafale over F-15SE”…? That’ll work… :rolleyes:
Why not just look up a particular aeroplane individually and compare that with the F-15SE? Go to eurofighter.com for example, and look at what that has to offer. Its called “research”, its quite an interesting concept.
So, you want me to elaborate? Ok, fair enough, I’ll keep it short and simple as possible. Do I think Typhoon (example) is better than an F-15SE? Yes! Why? Because of its avionics, air frame/layout design, performance-at subsonic AND supersonic speeds, maneuverability, supercruise, growth potential. There you go.
So how come Singapore and S Korea bought F-15s when they could have had Tiffies. Do they know something you don’t? I am sure they researched the aircraft first hand.
What about Typhoons avionics make it better than an AESA equipped F-15? What does the Typhoon have to offer to counter the F-15’s ability to use its radar without being detected by Typhoon. That is what an AESA radar can do if it has LPI capability. Tell me about this performance at subsonic an supersonic speeds. What does it do better? All published performance parameters are pretty similar. Same approximate ceiling, pretty much the same rate of climb. F-15 has a bit higher t/w ratio and the Tiffy has a bit better wing loading. Nothing here that is earth shattering.
I am really interested in the growth potential part. Care to fill me in on how you think Typhoon has greater growth potential?
nhamptonWe can’t really punish the platform for the Treasury and anti-defence mindset of the government.
That is where I have to disagree. You are not getting VLO, you are not getting internal carriage, you are not getting tactically significant super cruise, and you are not getting an AESA unless it gets funded with additional money.
Hopefully in a couple of years the budget pressure will alleviate slightly and the upgrades will start being purchased properly.
If the upgrades don’t get done then what? You have lots of half developed fighters that will in no way be suitable for front line combat in the coming years.
but the problem is that we are now procuring the decent multi-role versions that we actually need for current ops and I doubt that if we stopped buying them that the govt. would go back and properly upgrade the older craft to the same standard, so at this point i think the procurement should continue.
Hmmm see above….. But I agree they are not going to fund upgrades because they will not have money to do so after they buy T3. What should have happened (again like what is planned for the Raptor) is to take some of the money saved by not buying T3 and use it to develop and fund the procurement (yes I know the development has been partially funded) of an AESA radar, accelerate Meteor missile integration and bring all the T1 and T2 Tiffies up to T3 standard.
Both R&D and projected Tranche 3 costs were included in the UK Unit Program Cost that I gave, which was just below $150 m.
We where discussing the German contract and the price they paid Jack. Do try to keep up.
nhamptonWhat, do you want me to google them for you? Look up the likes of Rafale, F-35, Typhoon etc. They already have distinctive advatages over the F-15 Silent eagle. Look them up.
So I gooled advantages of (fill in the blank fighter) over the F-15SE and came up with nothing. So again since you are the one making the claim would you care to elaborate? Pick any or all three. Why not throw in Gripen NG, and Super Hornet while you are at it.
nhamptonWell, M2.5 speed, right, how often will an F-15 go that fast? Or any other fighter for that matter. Top is not the most important thing. Extreme maneuverability? In what sense? Supersonic speeds? I wish it the very best of luck at that one. All the rest you mentioned, well like I said, theres other, better options. And about $100 million a pop you say?…Hmmm…They can keep it.
So tell me about these other options? Tell me what these other options bring to the table that are of real use or a distinct advantage over an updated F-15 liek the SE?
nhamptonAnd why is it yesterdays fighter? Because it’s not stealth? There are certainly things which might be more important at the moment, but you have to take into account that the Typhoon is at the beginning of its service life
Stealth, lack of an AESA radar, external weapons carriage, not yet fully developed, future development prospects uncertain. Pretty much a one trick pony. Most do not have laser designators, IRST, and a host of other highly touted systems and they probably never will get them due to lack of funds. Why? Because you keep buying more than you need instead of developing the airframes you have to their full potential.
In short, it is nothing more than any other 4.5th gen fighter with its own set of strengths and weaknesses. Many of those weaknesses need to be addressed if it is to remain competitive against second tier air threats in the next 20 years. Will the funding be there? Sure it’s at the beginning of its service life and it’s already starting behind the eight ball.
Which begs the question, why is the Raptor being purchased?
Again this is not about the Raptor but I will point out to you that the Air Force wisely terminated it this year. Choosing instead to spend the money on a much more relevant, and flexible system.
I never said the Typhoon was unneeded I just think it’s not needed in the numbers being forced upon their customers.
Sign In
