Interactive: C-5s vs. C-17s in Washington
Related Stories: Americas - USA, Avionics, Boeing, Engines - Aircraft, Events, Force Structure, GE, Issues - Political, Lobbying, Lockheed Martin, Official Reports, Spotlight articles, Support & Maintenance, Think Tanks, Transport & Utility
(click to view full)
A Washington think-tank has gone so far as to call the planned cancellation of C-17 heavy transport aircraft production “The Dumbest Weapons Decision of the Decade”. The US Air Force is loath to close the C-17 line, which would cost them about $1.5 billion, plus another $4+ billion to re-open it if their decision proves to be too hasty. Not to mention the larger $8+ billion economic effects and lost jobs. Still, the cost of its equipment means that funds are tight, and last-minute Congressional earmarks have been necessary to keep the C-17 line going. Concern has also been expressed that by shuttering the line, the USA is effectively handing the global strategic airlift market over to France and Russia; the Airbus A400M and Russia’s super-giant AN-124 would be the only games in town from 2010-2025, or longer.
Worse, there is almost no confidence in the Pentagon’s 2005 Mobility Requirements Study, whose assumptions hadn’t budged from a 2000 study – before 9/11 and the resulting global war saw airlift usage and flight hours skyrocket, before the Army’s Future Combat Systems’ failure to fit into C-130 transports as promised… before a lot of things happened.
The House has authorized $2.4 billion to buy 10 more C-17s in FY 2008, but the Senate’s version of the defense authorization bill doesn’t include anything. Reconciliation negotiations are in progress, and C-17 addition will happen (or not) in the FY 2008 wartime supplemental spending bill #2. That isn’t expected to come to the floor until early 2008.
cold outside
(click to view full)
Meanwhile, the C-5M AMP/RERP program to upgrade America’s super-giant Galaxy aircraft with modern avionics and engines has hit project and budgetary turbulence, with an official USAF cost growth notification, and predictions of a rise from $8-9 billion to $16-17 billion. Sue Payton, the Air Force’s acquisition executive, told a Senate committee that per-aircraft costs for C-5 AMP/RERP had ballooned to $146.7 million. Lockheed Martin business ventures vice president Larry McQuien, on the other hand, stands by the company’s $83 million price commitment, and said that even adding additional costs raised by the Air Force like training, spare parts, support equipment, and unanticipated repairs, the per aircraft price would not exceed $118 million.
It’s a turbulent debate. Some Reps. like Rep. Ellen Tauscher [D-CA] and Rep. Mike Castle [R-DE] are pushing “United States Airlift Requirement Act,” demanding a real mobility study that explicitly compares the C-5 and C-17 options. Others believe the C-17 and C-5 programs are not mutually exclusive, given current demands on the fleet and the planned addition of 90,000+ soldiers and Marines in the coming years. In the end, however, funds must be increased, or hard choices must be made, or an innovative “3rd option” out of the bind must be found.
To shed a bit of light on some of the key variables involved and what they really mean, DID has taken data from Congressional Research Service’s testimony to Congress in March 2007. We’ve added information from other sources, and structured an Excel spreadsheet that looks at the 2 programs and compares each aircraft’s program costs, lifetime costs to operate, and more. Red “tags” in a cell are pop-up explanations; just move your mouse over them, and they display a quick explanation or relevant insight. Best of all, the key variables are adjustable, so you can change some of the figures and see how it flows through to the final totals:
DID’s C-5 vs. C-17 program comparison
Additional readings and relevant news items can be found below – and this spreadsheet is open to improvement. Readers are invited to submit important data we may have missed (source must be indicated), or take issue with anything they believe to be a mistake, via editorial@... here at defenseindudstrydaily.com. We’ll look at it, and update the Excel sheet (and article) as required. This is a bit of a new approach for DID, so let us know what you think!
Displaying 653 of 1,352 words (about 4 pages)Continue Reading »
- Follow the 80/20 rule and save time
- Don't miss important facts
- Get the big picture, quickly
- Eliminate your blindspots
- Stay on top of new and forthcoming events
- Ability to conduct complex searches
- Procurement and doctrine issues
- Timeline of past and future program events
- Links to other useful resources
- Instant content access after payment
"Well written, interesting daily with information not readily available elsewhere...! You handle it with aplomb!" - a defense contractor CEO
