{"id":110291,"date":"2017-12-02T16:30:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T16:30:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T10:59:33","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T10:59:33","slug":"the-airlift-debate-continues-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/the-airlift-debate-continues-2\/","title":{"rendered":"The Airlift Debate Continues"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

<\/h3>\n
<\/div>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The C-5 Galaxy (USAF Photo)<\/em>
In yesterday’s Washington Times<\/a><\/em>, Delaware Senator Tom Carper responded to a recent op-ed by New Jersey Congressman Jim Saxton, who has called for cancellation of the troubled C-5 modernization program, so that the Air Force can buy more C-17s. With refurbishment costs now approaching $100 million per aircraft, Mr. Saxton argues that it makes little sense to modernize the C-5, which has a 25% lower mission capability rate than the newer C-17.
Not surprisingly, Senator Carper disagrees. As we’ve noted in the past, Mr. Carper and other members of the Senate have a vested interest in keeping the C-5 in service, and he remains a strong backer of the refurbishment effort. However, his arguments sound slightly less-than-convincing:<\/p>\n

It is true that in the past, the C-5 has experienced a lower reliability rate than the much newer C-17. The mission capable rates for the C-5A have frequently fallen below 50 percent, and the rate for the C-5Bs hovers somewhere around 65 percent.<\/span><\/p>\n

But Congress and the Bush administration realized the need to correct this reliability issue several years ago and directed the Air Force to begin the process of modernizing its C-5s, given the likelihood that the large cargo aircraft have another 25 years or more of useful life on their wings and fuselages. To date, the Air Force has worked with a contractor to modernize three C-5Ms, and it is flight testing and evaluating the aircraft to determine if it will meet the contractor-guaranteed mission capable rate of 75 percent. <\/span><\/p>\n

While we won’t know with absolute certainty until June 2010 whether the C-5 modernization process will increase the reliability to the specified rate, flight-test results over the past year suggest that it will likely be met, and possibly exceeded.<\/span><\/p>\n

In other words, Mr. Carper believes we should continue with the modernization program, in hopes that it can meet specified bench marks–in three years. Meanwhile, the cost of converting C-5As and C-5Bs to the new “M” standard has skyrocketed. Recent Air Force estimates put the cost per aircraft at $120 million per aircraft, while Lockheed maintains it can do the job for $83 million each. By comparison, a new C-17 costs about $200 million.<\/p>\n

It is true that the a single C-5 can fly missions that would require the services of two C-17s–plus tanker support. And, in a perfect world, the Air Force would benfit from a mix of C-5s and C-17s. But, in the current budget environment, it seems increasingly likely that the service can’t afford both programs. Facing that reality, the Pentagon (and the nation) may be better off by retiring the C-5 and concentrating on a newer airlifter, one that offers superior reliability, lower maintenance costs and a much longer service life.<\/p>\n

We’ll give Mr. Carper credit for trying to protect a program that’s important to his state’s largest military installation, Dover AFB. But, in our view, it’s becoming difficult to support a modernization program that has grown increasingly expensive, and has only an outside chance of meeting required performance standards.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The C-5 Galaxy (USAF Photo)In yesterday’s Washington Times, Delaware Senator Tom Carper responded to a recent op-ed by New Jersey Congressman Jim Saxton, who has called for cancellation of the troubled C-5 modernization program, so that the Air Force can buy more C-17s. With refurbishment costs now approaching $100 million per aircraft, Mr. Saxton argues […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":110292,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110291"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110291"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110291\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/110292"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110291"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110291"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110291"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}