Thread: Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet

Who said anything about building a whole new aircraft, the C-17 has already proven itself it does however need upgrades. We can argue all day about this but the strain on the C-17 is not good. It needs a more powerful engine with the capabilities that it has, such as short takeoffs, para trooping and what ever else its used for.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

Who said anything about building a whole new aircraft,

Originally Posted by Rossiman

We need something that can airlift 200+ tons or 2 MBT's. Imagine how much greater are capability would be..... don't the Russian's have a heavy transport that can lift in excess of 250 tons.... we need something like that lol.

Either the USAF buys An-124s, An-225s - obviously not an option - more C-5s, a very old and stressed design, or...

Oh hang on, are you suggesting we upgrade the C-17 to lift 200+ tons? From its current capacity or ~75?

Damn, I wish highsea and jgetti were around.

The C-5's with a little work could be the perfect plane for the job. OK so we would alter the planes a "LITTLE" not that much =) LOL.

What is so wrong with the C-5 look at the B-52 bomer it is old as hell. But with upgrades its gonna be in service for a lot longer. Why not do this to the C-5 or upgrade a few C-17s to be able to do these tasks.

You're still doubling its capacity. And you haven't really commented on exactly why these super-large airlifters are needed considering their disadvantages.

Or, we could bring 50 C-5's that are upgraded to be larger, and then keep the C-17 fleet as is. The C-5s main goal would be to transport heavy loads in excess of 100 tons. The C-17 would be for Transporting Medium Tanks, APC'S, and if need be a MBT.

A C-5 surrounded by F-22s would be a very hard plane to be shot down, the C-5 would be able to bring in A LOT MORE,flying less sorties than the C-17 but providing fast support for ground troops.

And yes you are right sure it will cost more, but we will have a specific aircraft for (A specific task in mind) to transport HEAVY loads reliably.

To upgrade 50 C-5s wouldn't cost that much, to maintain them is a diffrent story. But i am sure congress would find a way to deal with this.

First off, the C-5 is currently undergoing its most intensive upgrade program yet. New engines, new cockpit, internal modifications. Its happening.

But these kinds of changes are made to extend the life and improve maintenance and "user-friendliness." But bumping its max cargo from about 135 tons to roughly 200 is not a modification. That would require a complete redesign of the airframe itself, not to mention wings and engines. So basically a new aircraft. That's not a priority, because its not necessary.

Yes, we're burning up the C-17 pretty damn fast, and the C-130 obviously. But 200-ton hauler isnt necessarily the answer to that. There arent many situations where we'd NEED to fly 2 MBTs out to anywhere.

The problem isnt the ability to move massive quantities of *stuff* around the world. We can do that just fine, using ships (the military doesnt quick-deploy heavy armored divisions and the like, so a massive airlift isnt really necessary). Something like a C-5 can only operate from certain locations anyway. So what if we can fly 2 tanks in from Germany? That plane cant deliver it where its actually NEEDED, it has to fly into Crackistan Airbase, where those 2 tanks are unloaded, then loaded onto 2 C-17s who can deliver it close to the lines. The real heavy-lifters dont interact with the ground troops hardly at all, unless its flying a bunch of them overseas (which doesnt really require such a huge aircraft). They dont directly resupply anybody except large air force bases.

Did u see my thread on congress pushing for us to buy the C-130J, this would seem like a more logical way to deal with this situation.

And I hate to argue with you about this, but i am afraid that it is indeed needed. The capacity to lift and bring heavy tanks, anywhere on the globe overnight. That is needed.

Using ships to transport MBT'S takes days to weeks, if we need to have a battalion of M1A2 SEP Abrams, and we need it fast, heavy airlift is the only way to go. What if we need a whole armored division do you think that sea transport is the logical answer... NO

We need the ability to Air transport heavy cargo like this in a moments notice.

So be it maybe we would have to redesign or even build a new aircraft for this job. But if that is what we have to do, then we have to do it.

Originally Posted by Rossiman

Using ships to transport MBT'S takes days to weeks, if we need to have a battalion of M1A2 SEP Abrams, and we need it fast, heavy airlift is the only way to go. What if we need a whole armored division do you think that sea transport is the logical answer... NO

It's been working out quite fine for us, actually.