Military Aviation News and Discussion

[John Fedup]

I would certainly have liked Canada to purchase another 3-5 C-17s while line was still open. The five we have now are worked pretty hard. Reopening the C-17 production line, not happening as per Terran's reasons but there is a need for a replacement IMHO. I just hope the USAF doesn't opt for some kind of exotic and expensive replacement.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The C-5Ms are planned to stay in the fleet beyond 2040, but developing a new large transporter takes at least a decade. So maybe the US can combine these two replacement programs (C-5 + C-17). If the two programs share same engines, instruments and other systems, it will be more cost efficient.

 

[John Fedup]

The C-5Ms are planned to stay in the fleet beyond 2040, but developing a new large transporter takes at least a decade. So maybe the US can combine these two replacement programs (C-5 + C-17). If the two programs share same engines, instruments and other systems, it will be more cost efficient.

WRT a potential C-5M replacement, perhaps some kind of licensing arrangement between a Western aerospace company and Antonov might work. Otherwise a C-17 replacement only is likely the only affordable option.

 

[Terran]

WRT a potential C-5M replacement, perhaps some kind of licensing arrangement between a Western aerospace company and Antonov might work. Otherwise a C-17 replacement only is likely the only affordable option.

I am not sure what could be gained with that. Antonov hasn’t delivered a new AN125 in over 20 years. Yes they have ambitions to restore an AN225 but have yet to do so. We have no idea the conditions of their tooling and documentation for such.

 

[John Fedup]

I am not sure what could be gained with that. Antonov hasn’t delivered a new AN125 in over 20 years. Yes they have ambitions to restore an AN225 but have yet to do so. We have no idea the conditions of their tooling and documentation for such.

True, but a Westernized An124 might be faster and cheaper than a C-5M replacement. As for the An225, too big and really no market...nevertheless an impressive beast! What's the best solution for backing up the C-17 fleet? I think this will be needed based on the demands being placed on American, Canadian, UK, and Australian operators (perhaps others as well).

 

[Terran]

Again given the 21 years since the line closure and the fact the facility used to build them has been at the front lines I am not sure Antonov is in a position to build them not without major assistance. Yet I don’t think Boeing, LM or NG would be the best partners. LM and Boeing should have everything it would need for a C5M replacement yet there is a question of justification. Time I don’t think sides with a need for a C5M replacement in the mid term.

 

[John Fedup]

Again given the 21 years since the line closure and the fact the facility used to build them has been at the front lines I am not sure Antonov is in a position to build them not without major assistance. Yet I don’t think Boeing, LM or NG would be the best partners. LM and Boeing should have everything it would need for a C5M replacement yet there is a question of justification. Time I don’t think sides with a need for a C5M replacement in the mid term.

Agree, a C-5M replacement isn't a priority but the current fleet is 20+% strategic lift. The C-17 fleet usage rate, that is a concern, which would have been best addressed by USAF and allies placing orders to prolong the production line...water under the bridge now. WRT the An-124, perhaps an Airbus relationship makes more sense from a EU doing more perspective. As you say though, is Antonov in a position to really assist?


The future USAF tanker seems to be on the back burner and a future lifter, not even on the stove. The Pacific pivot needs both IMO.

 

[Terran]

The future USAF tanker seems to be on the back burner and a future lifter, not even on the stove. The Pacific pivot needs both IMO.

Even if the Tooling and facilities of the C17 had been preserved, the biggest problem for it is the Engines. The C17A uses F117 (not to be confused with the Stealth bomber) engines. Derived from the P&W 2000 series. That series also powered the 757. It’s out of production. So a C17R would be needing new engines. This is a sticking point on an NMA too as well as a modern An124

 

[John Fedup]

Even if the Tooling and facilities of the C17 had been preserved, the biggest problem for it is the Engines. The C17A uses F117 (not to be confused with the Stealth bomber) engines. Derived from the P&W 2000 series. That series also powered the 757. It’s out of production. So a C17R would be needing new engines. This is a sticking point on an NMA too as well as a modern An124

Yes again, another hurdle, as the RR engine replacement for the B-52J.

 

[Terran]

Yes again, another hurdle, as the RR engine replacement for the B-52J.

In the RR F130 they have an engine that is close to the original TF33 in terms of diameter and thrust. In the case of the F117/P&W2000 it was a unique class of engines. The only equals being the RB211 and the PS90. The closest in size would be a step down in power to the CFM LEAP or P&W1100. Unless they transition to a twin engine. Which isn’t a hurdle it’s a complete redesign.