Royal Australian Air Force [RAAF] News, Discussions and Updates

[vonnoobie]

If we had wanted a super heavy lift capability then we should have purchased some of the US C-5 galaxies when they still had spare low hour ones that could have been updated (they didn't update every low hour C-5 to C-5M but they did scrap the remainder).

All birds in that area are old, out of production and heavily used so unless we are willing to pay huge $$ for a hand full of new builds it's a none starter.

If antanov decides to restart production then we can look at it but they are constantly announcing things that go no where so let's not hold our breath.

Not mentioning the fact that the sole production site is in Russia and they aren't on good terms with Ukraine let alone are we on good terms with Russia so do we really want an asset which might rely on Russian supply chain?

 

[ngatimozart]

If we had wanted a super heavy lift capability then we should have purchased some of the US C-5 galaxies when they still had spare low hour ones that could have been updated (they didn't update every low hour C-5 to C-5M but they did scrap the remainder).

All birds in that area are old, out of production and heavily used so unless we are willing to pay huge $$ for a hand full of new builds it's a none starter.

If antanov decides to restart production then we can look at it but they are constantly announcing things that go no where so let's not hold our breath.

Not mentioning the fact that the sole production site is in Russia and they aren't on good terms with Ukraine let alone are we on good terms with Russia so do we really want an asset which might rely on Russian supply chain?

I have just downloaded the latest Boneyard inventory and there are a heap of the C-5As in the Boneyard. The inventory date is June 2021. So theoretically you could reactivate some but you would have to re-engine them, so civilian engines would be the most cost effective option. A significant amount of expensive work would still have to be undertaken to refurbish and upgrade them. Would it be value for money? Depends upon how badly you require the capability and what value that you place upon it.

 

[t68]

I have just downloaded the latest Boneyard inventory and there are a heap of the C-5As in the Boneyard. The inventory date is June 2021. So theoretically you could reactivate some but you would have to re-engine them, so civilian engines would be the most cost effective option. A significant amount of expensive work would still have to be undertaken to refurbish and upgrade them. Would it be value for money? Depends upon how badly you require the capability and what value that you place upon it.

Yep seems like quite a few 57 to be exact, quite an interesting list too still got the Boeing YC-14 i see

 

[ngatimozart]

Yep seems like quite a few 57 to be exact, quite an interesting list too still got the Boeing YC-14 i see

Yes. I thought that might have ended up in a museum.

 

[vonnoobie]

I have just downloaded the latest Boneyard inventory and there are a heap of the C-5As in the Boneyard. The inventory date is June 2021. So theoretically you could reactivate some but you would have to re-engine them, so civilian engines would be the most cost effective option. A significant amount of expensive work would still have to be undertaken to refurbish and upgrade them. Would it be value for money? Depends upon how badly you require the capability and what value that you place upon it.

Apologies on that, though question remains how much service life is on those
airframes?

To the best of my knowledge and could be wrong but it was the C-5B's and C's that where converted while the A's only received minor work before retirement. Not saying impossible but won't be easy.

 

[ngatimozart]

Apologies on that, though question remains how much service life is on those
airframes?

To the best of my knowledge and could be wrong but it was the C-5B's and C's that where converted while the A's only received minor work before retirement. Not saying impossible but won't be easy.

I am unsure what's what with the C-5As so am unable to be of assistance there. TBH if it was easy every man and his dog would be doing it.

 

[oldsig127]

I am unsure what's what with the C-5As so am unable to be of assistance there. TBH if it was easy every man and his dog would be doing it.

I'm unsure where this entire heavy lift / C-5 discussion began. It's about as likely as a passing fairy pulling three new C-17s out of her fundament and gifting them and 20 years sustainment to the RAAF. Don't we have something even remotely likely to discuss or should we all head off to APA for a lesson in fantasy?

oldsig

 

[John Fedup]

Apologies on that, though question remains how much service life is on those
airframes?

To the best of my knowledge and could be wrong but it was the C-5B's and C's that where converted while the A's only received minor work before retirement. Not saying impossible but won't be easy.

I vaguely recall that C-5As were not deemed suitable for upgrading to Ms, only the Bs. The 2 Cs were upgraded to Ms.

 

[Redlands18]

I am unsure what's what with the C-5As so am unable to be of assistance there. TBH if it was easy every man and his dog would be doing it.

Boeing lost the CX-HLS competition to Lockheed with the C-5 and have been laughing ever sense, they turned their Aircraft into the 747.

 

[vonnoobie]

I'm unsure where this entire heavy lift / C-5 discussion began. It's about as likely as a passing fairy pulling three new C-17s out of her fundament and gifting them and 20 years sustainment to the RAAF. Don't we have something even remotely likely to discuss or should we all head off to APA for a lesson in fantasy?

oldsig

Join the club, one minute reading expected posts next minute people want us to get C-5's?!

Hell at this point in time it would be no more costly or risky to skip the C-5 fantasy and go after one of those cargo airships that have been developed on and off since late 90's. At least some of those designs are good for 1,000+ tons cargo and longer ranges. Lol

Be happy with what we have got, not a fantasy fleet.

 

[FormerDirtDart]

Boeing lost the CX-HLS competition to Lockheed with the C-5 and have been laughing ever sense, they turned their Aircraft into the 747.

The Boeing CX-HLS did not become the 747. The only aspect related to both programs was the high-bypass engines.
The Legendary Men Behind the Historic Boeing 747

"... The design of the 747 has always been surrounded by a big rumor, in that when Boeing lost the Air Force CX-HLS competition, that ultimately led to the Lockheed C-5, they took their design and converted it to the 747.

“The Boeing CX-HLS proposal would have made a very lousy airliner,” Sutter said. “We started with a clean slate. Pretty much the only thing that survived from the Air Force competition were the high-bypass engines.”

“We went from engine technology that was roughly 1.5:1 on the JT3D, to 5:1 on the JT9D. The engine technology was really the major stumbling point on the aircraft,” said Wygle. ..."

 

[Pusser01]

I'm unsure where this entire heavy lift / C-5 discussion began. It's about as likely as a passing fairy pulling three new C-17s out of her fundament and gifting them and 20 years sustainment to the RAAF. Don't we have something even remotely likely to discuss or should we all head off to APA for a lesson in fantasy?

oldsig

NZ could always ask the USAF Museum for their C-17 that was retired there a couple of years ago.

 

[t68]

Join the club, one minute reading expected posts next minute people want us to get C-5's?!

Hell at this point in time it would be no more costly or risky to skip the C-5 fantasy and go after one of those cargo airships that have been developed on and off since late 90's. At least some of those designs are good for 1,000+ tons cargo and longer ranges. Lol

Be happy with what we have got, not a fantasy fleet.

crikey 1000+ ton of cargo didn't even know they made such things in the modern era

 

[John Fedup]

The Boeing CX-HLS did not become the 747. The only aspect related to both programs was the high-bypass engines.
The Legendary Men Behind the Historic Boeing 747

I forgot Boeing also had another big project underway deemed more important than the 747 at the time, until the issue of noise killed it.

 

[Bob53]

A

Join the club, one minute reading expected posts next minute people want us to get C-5's?!

Hell at this point in time it would be no more costly or risky to skip the C-5 fantasy and go after one of those cargo airships that have been developed on and off since late 90's. At least some of those designs are good for 1,000+ tons cargo and longer ranges. Lol

Be happy with what we have got, not a fantasy fleet.

And apparently the most expensive planes to support in the US Airforce. Saving the Galaxy: The C-5 AMP/RERP Program

 

[John Fedup]

A

And apparently the most expensive planes to support in the US Airforce. Saving the Galaxy: The C-5 AMP/RERP Program

So the F-35 isn’t the most expensive piece of kit to support. It’s another product from LM.

 

[ASSAIL]

Can we please get back to the RAAF!

 

[vonnoobie]

crikey 1000+ ton of cargo didn't even know they made such things in the modern era

Not yet, as said stop start development, according to the numbers they can do it and they would stand up to AA better with anything short of a larger missile allowing them to have a controlled descent if not still remain airborne for several hours. In past development programs they have talked about getting them up to 2,000 tons of payload even for use in civil markets but some one always gets cold feet and doesn't want to put money to it even though program costs have been a fraction of others.

And yes @ASSAIL we can get back to the RAAF.

If people want to discuss cargo aircraft then one that should be discussed is the C-130 as that is next one to be replaced. If memory serves we are looking at going a bit larger so unless the US comes out with something would be down to the A400M or the C-2. The C-390 is a possibility if we are looking to replace the C-130 with a like for like capability.

 

[Redlands18]

The 2020 Update reads
”An expanded replacement fleet for the C-130J Hercules to improve the lift capacity of the ADF in response to growing demand for these assets”
Sounds more like going to a larger Fleet then necessarily larger Aircraft. If you were to start this program right now there are 4 probable choices A400M, KC-390, C-2 and new C-130J and there is no sign there will be any new choices between now and 2035 and actually no guarantee that all 4 of these will be available in that time frame. In theory there should be a very strong market for a C-130 replacement but no one has really seized that opportunity and Air Forces keep going back to the Herc.
The possibility of the RAAF celebrating 100 years of continuous Hercules service in 2058 still exists.

 

[Takao]

The 2020 Update reads
”An expanded replacement fleet for the C-130J Hercules to improve the lift capacity of the ADF in response to growing demand for these assets”
Sounds more like going to a larger Fleet then necessarily larger Aircraft. If you were to start this program right now there are 4 probable choices A400M, KC-390, C-2 and new C-130J and there is no sign there will be any new choices between now and 2035 and actually no guarantee that all 4 of these will be available in that time frame. In theory there should be a very strong market for a C-130 replacement but no one has really seized that opportunity and Air Forces keep going back to the Herc.
The possibility of the RAAF celebrating 100 years of continuous Hercules service in 2058 still exists.

We couldn't get another C-17. That was so high on the list of priorities, but there just wasn't one available.

The next best thing was what can we get to maximise the use of the C-17. For good or for ill, the answer was boost the medium air fleet to take as many jobs as possible of the C-17s. Expanding the C-130 replacement offered that.