The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - January 7, 2009

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest
Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Air Transportation Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Here it comes the C-5M Super Galaxy
Professor Fickle    5/18/2006 2:40:10 PM
link
Lockheed reports the C-5M "Super Galaxy", a modernized version of the venerable C-5, features new engines and new avionics. Its GE CF-6 engines -- developed in the commercial sector -- are capable of 22-percent more thrust, resulting in a 30-percent shorter takeoff roll and a 38-percent faster climb to initial altitude. Perhaps even more importantly... the Super Galaxy can carry a LOT more cargo.

The C-5 Avionics Modernization Program also adds an all-new pit, featuring a full glass-panel designed for all weather capabilities, and to take some of the workload off the flight crew.
-=-
what took so lonG?
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2
Librarian    RE:Here it comes the C-5M Super Galaxy   5/18/2006 7:50:18 PM
The same reason that they haven't replace every two engines with one modern turbofan on the B-52 and put newer engines in the A-10s: money follows sexiness. C-5, B-52 and A-10 lack the sexiness of fighters or stealth to attract the proper funding.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:Here it comes the C-5M Super Galaxy   5/20/2006 8:12:07 AM
Why does the A-10 need new engines might I ask?
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas3    AussieEngineer    5/20/2006 9:28:16 AM
Because it lacks the acceleration to seriously reduce MANPAD engagement envelope with the weight it is carrying. What is really needed is a new CAS aircraft build on the A-10 concept. But: Fighters are specified according to what you think the opponent might have - and with no single clear opponent fantasy/caution has a greater leeway. Transports are bulid to fullfil a specific task depending on your internal parameters: supply a btn at distance x .. all figures you know. If you build a new transport you need a changed ambition level. Patrol aircraft are somewhere in between: Fuselage like transport - electronics like a fighter.
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:AussieEngineer    6/28/2006 3:11:18 AM
I see, but it would be replacing them with new high bypass turbofans right.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:more importantly... the Super Galaxy can carry a LOT more cargo.   6/28/2006 3:17:04 AM
Is that like, two M1 tanks vs. one as before?
 
Quote    Reply

AussieEngineer    RE:more importantly... the Super Galaxy can carry a LOT more cargo.   6/28/2006 4:35:13 AM
I think they already can carry 2 M1s, C-17s are the ones that can only carry one IIRC.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:more importantly... M1s   6/28/2006 11:09:49 AM
I had understood that, perhaps due to floor loading or some such, C-5 can also carry only one M1 tank.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:AussieEngineer    6/28/2006 3:55:49 PM
I think a clean sheet is better: 1. You have a new engine - that is the purpose of the excersise. 2. You have a radically changed CAS scenario: PGM has radically changed the probability of a hit. 3. You have very different possibilities for air ground cooperation, where the FAC has other possibilities to guide the fighter in: They will today be able to let the CAS plane come in at radically lower altitude: The pilots aquisation of target should be much quicker.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:more importantly... M1s   6/28/2006 3:58:42 PM
Strategic air transport is not a good way to transport armoured formations and reinforcements. The trick about strategic transport is the ability to keep light forces supplied on a much larger scale.
 
Quote    Reply

Griffin    RE:more importantly... M1s   6/28/2006 11:53:58 PM
"Strategic air transport is not a good way to transport armoured formations and reinforcements. The trick about strategic transport is the ability to keep light forces supplied on a much larger scale." That works until armoured forces use 'light forces' as a 'speed bump' to use Storm'n Norman's analogy. While it is ideal if one can move light troops, their equipment and supplies to a landlocked area and not rely on the medium and heavy forces, the reality this is not always going to be the case.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    Griffin    6/29/2006 7:26:31 AM
I agree with you. The strength of light forces is their ability to deploy fast and hold ground till the heavies arrive. This means if you have a landlocked situation with no hope of shiptransport - and the enemy has heavy forces, then you are getting into a loosing situation. Heavy forces deal with light forces by driving through them untill they run out of gas. Medium forces will bypass the light forces. Strategic transport will allow deployment of more light forces and faster to make that avoidance easier. The problem is that everybody talks about the importance of transport of heavy armour by air - true you might get a btn in as the corps-commanders ultimate reserve: But don't fool yourself. It will be difficult - not to say impossible -to keep a significant armoured force supplied by air! WWas it Da Nang that was supplied by air? But that was a stationary marine division!
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:Griffin    6/29/2006 11:35:36 AM
They didn't need *lots* of M1s. Once we had a platoon of M1 tanks flown into Northern Iraq, we owned Northern Iraq. There was no force in the region that could have hindered them. A larger number of Strykers could not have said the same. Heavy armor is like a tux: when you need it, there is no substitute.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    Nichevo    6/30/2006 3:37:16 PM
True; but could you truthfully say there was an organised enemy? The problem with lifted tanks is, that the idea making a tank is that it thing is meant to drive, and the further it drives the further it gets from the airport and the flown in supplies. I agree that a blow with a sledge hammer cannot always be substituted by a rain of blow by a pincer. But lets make one thing perfectly clear: You cannot base the build up of a strategic force on the basis of what might happen in Kirkuk. There was in this instance a such special circumstances that an absolute minimum of tanks could be decisive - this freak opportunity was used by someone who knew his tactics; but that doesn't mean his adviced based on this exception can count as a guideline.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    RE:Thomas   6/30/2006 3:59:48 PM
And the tux is only worn to weddings or certain balls. But when a wedding rolls around, even your best Armani suit will really not do. Seize opportunities where they show themselves. In Kirkuk, there may not even have been so very much for them to do - good thing they did not have to be heavily resupplied, aside from fuel which they should have been able to get locally - but as you say it made us master of the place insofar as we asserted it. Obviously, what we wanted was to roll in from Turkey. This was the best we could do, and to some extent it did the job. Sometimes, you just need to get there first.
 
Quote    Reply

buyer    RE:Why it took so long?   7/4/2006 5:41:24 PM
As with everything in US DoD decisions, politics was the reason. The C-5 vs the C-17 has been a dog fight since the original CX proposal. The unsolicited proposal to build 50 C-5Bs resulted in a significant delay in the C-17. Many feared that a modernized C-5 could jepordize the C-17 in some way. Therefore it was better to keep an old unreliable competitor vs the C-5M. Regarding tanks, yes it can carry two M-1 tanks and has had that original design capability since the wings on all of the C-5a's were replaced in the early 80's. Not the best way to move a bunch of them but when you need a few somewhere in a real big hurry, it works. C-5s did fly with two tanks in support of Isreal during one of their wars, 8 Day War I think.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy