Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
CARST wrote:Your data is incorrect. According to the following article the USAF is currently down to 56 C-5s, but they were at 112 just a few years ago and now want to refurbish birds in the desert to C-5M Standard to bring that number back to 100.
CARST wrote:scbriml wrote:CARST wrote:So acquiring 30-50 of the C-5Ms seems like a smart move for the European NATO armes as a shared transport fleet.
Why on Earth would European NATO members need up to 50 C-5Ms? USAF operates less than that and I wouldn't be surprised if there are nowhere near enough suitable feedstock frames for a fleet half that size.
Your data is incorrect. According to the following article the USAF is currently down to 56 C-5s, but they were at 112 just a few years ago and now want to refurbish birds in the desert to C-5M Standard to bring that number back to 100.
http://www.businessinsider.com/air-forc ... aft-2017-6
All NATO armies together (minus USA) sure could use 50 aircraft. Perhaps 30 or 40. Just think of all that UN missions beside Afghanistan. 14 currently, have a look here:
https://peacekeeping.un.org/en/where-we-operate
And no matter what number, they should at least do it. The A400M is too small, has too many flaws and gets produced too slow. The price for C5s from the desert, even including the C5M modification is unbeatable. And we must get away from relying on Russian birds, Cold War is back on and in full swing...
Aesma wrote:European spending in defense will not increase significantly as long as the US is there to cover any shortcoming. Should the US close its countless European bases, then that would change.
Aesma wrote:European spending in defense will not increase significantly as long as the US is there to cover any shortcoming. Should the US close its countless European bases, then that would change.
CARST wrote:And we must get away from relying on Russian birds, Cold War is back on and in full swing...
VSMUT wrote:30-50 C-5s would be a colossal waste of money that would be better spent on (much cheaper) flatbed-trucks to get the tanks and other equipment to the frontline. For the price of one C-5M, you could probably buy enough trucks to carry 50 C-5s worth of cargo.
WIederling wrote:VSMUT wrote:30-50 C-5s would be a colossal waste of money that would be better spent on (much cheaper) flatbed-trucks to get the tanks and other equipment to the frontline. For the price of one C-5M, you could probably buy enough trucks to carry 50 C-5s worth of cargo.
Railway.
Rail transport is the preferred method to move large numbers of heavy equipment through Europe.
Aesma wrote:Ah, bless.European spending in defense will not increase significantly as long as the US is there to cover any shortcoming. Should the US close its countless European bases, then that would change.
Aesma wrote:Yes I do. In fact I started counting them and stopped because there were too many.
st21 wrote:Few units stationned with no heavy tanks or IFVs at their disposal (only Stryker wheeled APCs) and a limited number of artillery and attack helicopters. It is almost a token force nowadays...
VSMUT wrote:For airbases, you forgot:
Lajes
Thule
Seriously, anybody who has flown in Europe will know that the US military presence here is massive.
VSMUT wrote:st21 wrote:Few units stationned with no heavy tanks or IFVs at their disposal (only Stryker wheeled APCs) and a limited number of artillery and attack helicopters. It is almost a token force nowadays...
They have tanks, APCs and SPGs in the Netherlands, and the Marines have thousands of vehicles in Norway, several hundred tanks included.
For airbases, you forgot:
Thule
Sigonella
Pisa
Lajes
Moron
Stuttgart
With a nearly constant presence in Köln too. Then the big base at Grafenwöhr. Seriously, anybody who has flown in Europe will know that the US military presence here is massive. They have 36 bases just for their army in Germany. They even want to build a big base up in Northern Germany now.
WIederling wrote:VSMUT wrote:30-50 C-5s would be a colossal waste of money that would be better spent on (much cheaper) flatbed-trucks to get the tanks and other equipment to the frontline. For the price of one C-5M, you could probably buy enough trucks to carry 50 C-5s worth of cargo.
Railway.
Rail transport is the preferred method to move large numbers of heavy equipment through Europe.
Aesma wrote:I didn't talk about USAF bases, just US bases. According to my quick search there are 100 000 US servicemen in Europe.
spudh wrote:WIederling wrote:VSMUT wrote:30-50 C-5s would be a colossal waste of money that would be better spent on (much cheaper) flatbed-trucks to get the tanks and other equipment to the frontline. For the price of one C-5M, you could probably buy enough trucks to carry 50 C-5s worth of cargo.
Railway.
Rail transport is the preferred method to move large numbers of heavy equipment through Europe.
That is true in peacetime but I am not sure how many strategic rail bridges would still be standing in Germany by day 3 of a conflict with Russia. Hopefully we never find out but I would imagine that each side has their interdiction strikes pre-planned with supply routes, including replacement crossings ready to go.
Road is so much more flexible than rail and so much more resistant to damage and so quickly repairable that it has to be the mainstay of any supply plan.
st21 wrote:Aesma wrote:Yes I do. In fact I started counting them and stopped because there were too many.
Really? Count again.
The USAF has only five (soon four) major bases in Europe nowadays:
RAF Lakenheath
RAF Mildenhall (due to close in 2023)
Spangdahlem AB
Ramstein AB
Aviano AB
Only three of those bases host combat aircraft (F-15C/E or F-16C). Hardly "countless". It is a far cry from the Cold War days when there was a massive USAF presence on the continent. The same is true for US army bases in Europe btw. Few units stationned with no heavy tanks or IFVs at their disposal (only Stryker wheeled APCs) and a limited number of artillery and attack helicopters. It is almost a token force nowadays...
wedgetail737 wrote:DarthLobster wrote:JackMeahoff wrote:It will be impossible to lift our Chinooks off remote mountains in Afghanistan without the venerable Mi-26.
It will also be impossible to put Americans back in space without the generosity of the Russians and their Soyuz rockets.
Hell, the stage-1 booster on the American SpaceX rocket is also made in Russia.
1. There is no Russian "generosity" in regards to spaceflight. NASA/US Gov't pays for each and every Soyuz seat, over $70M a seat last I heard.
2. You're thinking of the Atlas V rocket, which uses the Russian RD-180 engine. SpaceX engines and rockets are built in the US.
I completely blame Former President Obama for screwing up our Celestial endeavors and for not persuing our own means of getting to the Space Station.
GalaxyFlyer wrote:Lockheed Georgia delivers the last C-5M later this year’s, if they get a contract, the As could be done. They were in good enough shape for the conversion.
GF
st21 wrote:Steep maintenance costs and poor reliabilty have always been the Achilles' heels of the Galaxy, especially the older C-5A version.
stephanwintner wrote:Do you really think either Lockheed, Congress, or GE viewed that as a weakness ?
WIederling wrote:stephanwintner wrote:Do you really think either Lockheed, Congress, or GE viewed that as a weakness ?
No.
You reference a bunch of buddies running the hamster wheel "Military Industrial Complex".
No intention to be efficient beyond funneling public money into private coffers.
For commercial use the C5 wouldn't cut it though. The C5 wouldn't take the abuse an AN-124 allows.