Actually I would replace the C-5 by a mixture of additional C-17 and shared civil/military B747 freighters. The concept of the C-5 is outdated. There is no need of bringing huge military forces over a distance of 3000nm (US East Coast to Western Europe) any more. Galaxys fly palettes most of the time from one 3000m airfield to another 3000m airfield, other aircraft can that much better and more efficient.
In a few years the market will be flooded with used B747-400 (there are still hundreds in operation). The USAF of Europe might catch a few and have them as cheap palette carrier. For vehicles and outsized cargo, it has to use C-17, Antonov or A400M. But how often are these outsized cargo capabilities needed?

Just one big problem…..you make too much sense. This basic proposal has been kicked around for more than 20 years….buy 747’s off the civil market. The spoiled brat USAF leadership has always demanded a purpose built military airlifter, though they haven’t ever really used all those exotic capabilites the C-5 possesses.

The more I think about it, the more license-built A400’s make sense. The turboprops would save a significant amount of fuel/money, perhaps enough to defray a huge portion of the acquisition costs.

Did Boeing design its recent new aircraft (B777, B787) with conventional controls or FBW? What might that tell us?

I’m not sure what it tells us. I would think that any weight savings on FBW would be greater for a bigger airplane and operational savings would be greater over longer ranges.

I don’t think you have shown that the A320 has an efficiency gain over the NG because B chose FBW on 777/787.

That is a very cheap and senseless dig, mate. Could as well argue that the americans are economically minded, and that one would think that they would use the clearly superior A320 family over the B737, the NG not even being FBW .

Sorry, I didn’t intend to be cheap or senseless.

I would buy your argument if you could show me a performance benefit to the FBW. Is the A320 clearly superior in terms of fuel burn per seat/operating cost? I believe the performance of the airplanes are very similar, almost the same, nothing like the efficiency advantage that the twin 777 has over the quad A340 (before you even count that the 777 diverts almost exactly half as often as the A340, according to Boeing figures). I’m a believer that technology has to pay its way onto the airplane.

The J model was too little, too late and too expensive.

The USAF will have to go for something larger to help out the older herks and the C-17s in the tactical airlift area. No US company is designing anything that is realistic in this area…so, the USAF unfortunately might have to go outside to find what it needs.

They have bought the J model, but that was kicking and screaming. The masses wanted more C-130H3s.

This is the crux of my argument….and imho if EADS performs well on the KC-45, they may have a leg up on the C-130 replacement, since they now “have their foot in the door.”

There probably won’t be any large J buys in the next 3-4 years because of the costs of the latest gulf war, but the existing 130’s are gonna need to be replaced, and the larger A400 is an intriguing product.

A340 offers great expereince , one of the most quitest cabins and very modern interior . The 767 cannot be compared to it really . The 777 is more comparable to the 340 and is also very comfortable . Comfort depends on a lot of factors like airline , class of seating and age of aircraft. The A380 ( flew SQ buisness class) is amazing in that respect.

I was not and would not directly compare the 767 with the A340/777. I would compare the 767 to the A300/310, which I believe it soundly trounced. Compared to the larger airplanes, the smaller 767 is very useful in the fragmented market that now exists.

Everyone has their definition of “better.” I try not to compare comfort because that is largely dependent upon airline decisions (interior config, vendors, etc.) I believe that the 777 carries more payload further, more reliably, on less fuel, than the 330/340, and the same can be said for the 767 versus the A300/310.

The efficiency piece is huge for the obvious cost reasons, but also for environmental reasons. One would think the Europeans, who claim to be so environmentally conscious, would want to use the most efficient airplanes (767/777).