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:

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.

Sorry, but my data is spot on. The USAF currently operates 44 C-5M (they also have one C-5C and six or seven C-5B). That's what they have. What they want and what they get might be two entirely different things.

C-5As at Davis Monthan are already being broken up.


You still haven't explained exactly why NATO needs up to 50 C-5s to replace the handful of An-124s that get leased from time to time.

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...

Um hate to burst your bubble, but I work at Lockheed Marietta, I work with people who just left the C-5M program (Mechanic's, Engineers, Managers). There are no plan's to do any more C-5's. I wish there was but there isn't. The little bit of C-5 work that might pop up will certainly go to Greenville where the topout pay after 10 plus years is less than the pay here after only 2 years. And they don't have the facilities to do anything crazy with something that big.

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.

There are a couple of groups in Europe coming up for a resurgence in military power projection.
Brits, France, some brown minds in Germany. ( Dumb idea imho.)

And note the US is not spending vast amounts of money on "defence".
It is strongly dominated by "Ministry of War" outlay.
And profitability of that "investment" is shrinking every year.
More money, more effort, less success to force US foreign policy plans.

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...

These airlifters are useful for expeditionary warfare in far flung places like Africa or the Middle East, not for a cold war in Europe. The Russian border is less than 24 hours on a truck away from most of Europe, you would not airlift equipment over such a short distance. The US has a large force of heavy airlifters because they are separated from everyone else by the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

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.

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.

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.

True, forgot that one.

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.

Ah, bless.
You still think they have "countless" bases now?
I remember when you could go to RAF Mildenhall (RAF in name only), watch a pair of F-4s slide into nearby LN (Lakenheath) and drive across to see if they were from...
AR (Alconbury), BR (Bitburg 1970-72), BT (Bitburg), CR (Soesterburg), HR (Hahn), HS (? another early code that disappeared from use - Hahn again?), RS (Ramstein), SP (Spangdahlem), TJ (Torrejon), WR (Woodbridge/Bentwaters), ZR (Zweibrucken)
(have I missed any? I'm only counting F-4 bases; there were others. And why do they mostly feature the letter "R")
So, how many of those USAFE bases are still active today. Very few.

{also I haven't included the comparatively rare (uncoded) 57 FIS F-4s that occasionally came down from Keflavik, or UH (Upper Heyford) because they were always F-111s}

Here are some examples of those tail codes (from the days when runways were somehow wide enough for TWO fighters to take-off or land side by side, as they often did. Happy days....)



And these are included just to show that the RAF could land in pairs too, and because the final pic is such a fantastic shot. I guess the Royal Navy were keen that the Russians could read the serial clearly and know exactly which aircraft they were shooting down (for their logbooks...)


And yes, I've veered somewhat off-topic.

Yes I do. In fact I started counting them and stopped because there were too many.

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...

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.

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.

Remind me to take a good pair of binoculars with me next time I'm flying in Europe; I would love to see these US bases.....

Pisa
Er... there's a US airbase at Pisa? I think not!
Pisa Airport (PSA) has the usual line of Italian AF C-130s, three of which seemed to have all four engines, but the remainder weren't going anywhere in a hurry.
And no sign of any US military a/c
Did you mean Camp Darby just down the road?
I can tell you a funny story about Camp Darby; when I searched for Camp Darby, Google Earth helpfully completed my search box with;
"Camp Darby....Base Militare, Via Vecchio Livornese, Pisa, Province of Pisa, Italy"
And then when I selected their offering, Google fiercely shook it's little head and said "No such place exists"

So I went to the base website and asked for driving directions, to which they gave me Latitude & Longitude to six decimal places.
Google street view even takes you past their main gate. No sign of any runways or aircraft though.

Morón
Excellent staging post when required, but not exactly overloaded with US personnel and a/c at other times. On a random visit back in 2014 I counted one C-17, one KC-135, 3 CV-22 Osprey and one unidentified helicopter.

You got any more US Airbases in Europe that we "forgot"?

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.

Those are pre-positioned equipment stored for contingency operations and to be used by US-based units. Dont mix everything.

For airbases, you forgot:
Thule
Sigonella
Pisa
Lajes
Moron
Stuttgart

All those bases have rather limited US presence with few or no aircraft permanently assigned to them. Lajes and Moron are Portuguese AF and Spanish AF airbases respectively. Just because the US maintains a small detachment there doesnt mean that they are USAF airbases...

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.

Well, Germany is pretty much the exception in Europe. USAREUR presence is almost exclusively concentrated in Germany:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... nate_units

It might look a massive presence but the devil is in the detail. As i already said, all those units lack heavy equipment like MBTs and IFVs. USAREUR is only the shadow of it former self nowadays compared to what it once was during the Cold War.

I didn't talk about USAF bases, just US bases. According to my quick search there are 100 000 US servicemen in Europe.

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.

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.

No, there are around 64.000 US troops stationned in Europe nowadays.

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.

Road is a preferred means of transport in Western/NATO military doctrine.

Railway is the preferred means of transport in Soviet/post-Soviet Russian military doctrine.
A quick illustration -- during Minsk-II ceasefire discussions ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minsk_II ), Russians stalled several times (including Putin personally walking out of discussions, "to take a call"), dragging on, allowing Russian forces and their puppets to take the key railway junction in Debaltseve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Debaltseve
Russians (and their acolytes) cannot fathom fighting without proper railway support, and can afford to lose face, but must capture the railways.

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...

You can add RAF Fairford to that list.

Wes...

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.

Ummm....that is completely incorrect. Perhaps your research should include sites that don't push a nonsense right-wing agenda?

As per below German article, Antonov Airlines could station up to 6 An-124's in LEJ, negotiations are ongoing. Their offer consists of:

- 2 An-124's stationed permanently, for immediately availability (as today with 1xAntonov Airlines & 1xVolga-Dnepr)
- increase to 4 or 6 in cases of high demand,
- on-demand use of the An-225
- inclusion of the 1x An-22 operated by Antonov Airlines

http://www.airliners.de/antonov-nato-eu/44816

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

Wouldn't they need some extra work to replace some old aluminum skin with the newer alloys used on the C-5B?

Time to design/build a heavy duty Airbus 380F ….

st21 wrote:

Steep maintenance costs and poor reliabilty have always been the Achilles' heels of the Galaxy, especially the older C-5A version.

Do you really think either Lockheed, Congress, or GE viewed that as a weakness ?

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.

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.

We agree on all that