NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Replacing Worn Out C-17s

February 12, 2009: The U.S. Air Force has ordered another fifteen C-17 transports, paying $194 million for each of them. This purchase was prompted by the fact that the current C-17 fleet is being worked to death. The problem is that the C-17 is more in demand during the war on terror than are air force combat aircraft. Only the two dozen AC-130 gunships, and a hundred or so A-10 ground attack aircraft and F-16 fighter-bombers are getting steady work these days. But their workload is nothing compared to the C-17s, which are in constant demand to deliver personnel and material to American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places where the war on terror is being fought.

The C-17 entered service 14 years ago, and those first few aircraft quickly compiled 3,000 flight hours supporting peacekeeping operations in Bosnia. Each C-17 has a useful life of 30,000 flight hours, but the current force is flying such long, and hard (landing on rough fields) flights that many of the early model C-17s will be worn out within 5-10 years. This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage, on early models,  was insufficiently strong for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours. Adding to this problem is the fact that many C-17s are landing on rough fields with heavy loads and are taking life time shortening structural damage. We have flown a lot of C-17s into northern Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and a bunch of other stans with rough/short strips in 2001 and 2003. The C-17 was built for this sort of thing, but lots of these landing come at the price of shorter useful life.

It's always been an uphill fight getting new air transports built. There were so many delays in the C-17 program that, when the 1991 Gulf War came along, the C-17 was not available and the C-141 transports, that was supposed to keep flying until 2010, were basically worn out by heavy use, and had to be retired early. Now the C-17s are doing more work, to make up for the missing C-141s. Originally, there were to be 120 C-17s (at $135 million each), with production ending in 2004. After September 11, 2001, it was realized that more air transports would be needed, and the production run of the C-17 was increased to 180. It was then proposed to increase it again to 222 aircraft. But logistics planners insist that 300 will be needed, if wartime needs are to be met. Moreover, the rapid deterioration of the early model C-17s means that eventually 350, or more, will have to be built to maintain a fleet of 300 transports. So far, 190 have been ordered, including 14 sold to foreign customers.

The major problem is that the air force is run by combat pilots. Although they recognize the importance of the C-17, they tend to focus on getting warplanes built. Additional C-17 construction comes at the expense of building new combat aircraft, and that's a hard sell inside the air force. Usually, it lobbying by the army, and other branches of the government, that compels Congress to strong arm the air force generals to build the needed C-17s. It's an ugly, messy and time consuming way to get aircraft built, but it works.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article AFGHANISTAN: The Dance Of Death


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

LB    Trucks are not sexy   2/12/2009 12:10:43 PM
Trucks, even flying trucks, are simply not sexy.  That said all the sexy stuff can not be used without enough trucks.  The US Army has already had to buy an aircraft similar to the C-130 because the USAF was unable or unwilling to provide the Army with enough transport sorties.  The fact they are less than highly motivated to provide enough C-17s is no surprise.
 
The USAF simply does not and appears will never understand that they are a support service.  It made sense for to have a lead service to deliver nuclear weapons at one time.  The problem is that even before that time the culture of the US Army Air Corp was that it could win wars by itself.  The nation requires air transports, air superiority fighters, bombers, etc.  The nation does not require the USAF.  We could save very significant dollars by keeping 75% or so of the aircraft in the other services and eliminating the USAF.
 
Today the US military maintains 6 separate air forces in the USAF, US Army, USN, USMC, USCG and SOCOM.  We don't need six different air forces.  Especially when one is institutionally challenged in working and playing well with others.  The USAF is a constant pain that worships the flying officer.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Trucks are not sexy   2/12/2009 1:30:12 PM
Trucks, even flying trucks, are simply not sexy.  That said all the sexy stuff can not be used without enough trucks.  The US Army has already had to buy an aircraft similar to the C-130 because the USAF was unable or unwilling to provide the Army with enough transport sorties.  The fact they are less than highly motivated to provide enough C-17s is no surprise.
 
The USAF simply does not and appears will never understand that they are a support service.  It made sense for to have a lead service to deliver nuclear weapons at one time.  The problem is that even before that time the culture of the US Army Air Corp was that it could win wars by itself.  The nation requires air transports, air superiority fighters, bombers, etc.  The nation does not require the USAF.  We could save very significant dollars by keeping 75% or so of the aircraft in the other services and eliminating the USAF.
 
Today the US military maintains 6 separate air forces in the USAF, US Army, USN, USMC, USCG and SOCOM.  We don't need six different air forces.  Especially when one is institutionally challenged in working and playing well with others.  The USAF is a constant pain that worships the flying officer.
 
Quote    Reply

GrantLee    LB--Get Real   2/12/2009 5:37:40 PM
LB--You say eliminate the AF and we'd save 75% of the money?  Total BS.  You want to eliminate the AF because the Army says it knows how to deliver Air Mobility services with a twin-engine airlifter that will do nothing except the traditional "Pizza boxes" mission?  Do you hear AF officers telling the Army how to fight and win?  No.  Your comment is as small-minded and utterly ridiculous as when I heard a 4 star AF general in 1994 saying that his analysis showed the AF won Desert Storm by itself, and the Army and MC simply rounded up prisoners.  (Again, total BS!) 
You speak of "not playing well with others"--you sound like a poser teenager.  You need to go reread your American military history (include some airpower books this time) and learn to respect the dedication, courage and selfless sacrifice that we all bring to "the fight"--Army + AF + Navy + MC -- each and every war.
 
BTW a factual correction--C-17 are roughly $250M Flyaway acc. to AF budget docs.  AF & AMC Logistics planners do not suggest we need 300 C-17.  They've said we need 300 or so (C-17 + C-5M).  A C-5M can carry twice what a C-17 carries almost twice as far, and the C-5M upgrade kit to the C-5A/B/C is about one-third of the cost of a new C-17.
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       2/12/2009 7:45:54 PM
Its in vogue to relagate the airforce to transport duties when most current air threats over Afganistan and Iraq are minimal.
 
The problem arises when an adversary will appear on the horizon with modern aircraft and modern missles, that will relegate air transport to a much lower priority.
 
Without a top line (F-22) aircraft to insure air superiority and deep strike capability, everything else becomes moot.
 
Quote    Reply

LB       2/13/2009 1:40:08 AM
You might have taken a moment to read what I wrote before attempting to make some argument about my lack of historical awareness.  I stated the nation should keep around 75% of the aircraft from the USAF and delete the service.
 
Were one to design the US military from scratch today one would create one unified service.  One certainly would not create six different services with six separate air forces.  In order to afford the force structure the nation does require I suggested cutting 1 of 6 of the air forces the nation maintains.  I'm perfectly willing to discuss cutting any of the other 6 instead.  
 
The nation requires air superiority fighters, bombers, strategic and tactical transports, etc.  It's small minded to assume they must be flown by only officers wearing blue in a service often considered the most spoiled.  The nation is going to get F-35's that operate from carriers and V/STOL F-35's able to operate with even more flexibility.  It's a matter of debate how many, if any conventional F-35's are required.
 
The conventional F-35 is mainly there to replace the F-16.  The F-16 was born in the 1970's as a part of the high/low mix of weapon systems.  The entire rationale was problematic and is even more so today.  One might look at the effectiveness of USN carrier air wings that operated with an all "high" mix of all F-14's and A-6's (no A-7s or F/A-18s).  One might investigate exactly what mix of aircraft the nation actually requires instead of simply replacing a certain number of F-16's with something new to provide the fighter mafia with enough slots to make them happy.
 
If the USAF was happy being deployed for long periods aboard ship,  happy with anyone qualified (of any rank) calling in air support and/or flying UAV's, and dedicated to supporting their brothers on the ground with whatever was required then I'd be the first to say get rid of US Army, USN, and USMC aircraft and have the USAF fly and control all aircraft.  Instead, since I actually do not live in that distant alternate universe I propose getting rid of the USAF.  They can live on in Space Command.
 
The budget is finite.  My only interest is in maximum sustained deployable combat power.  There is no question that cutting the USAF, and dividing up roughly 75% of it's current aircraft among the other services would save more than 25% of the current Air Force budget.  That would actually get us more F-22s, C-17s, and combat coded bomber and attack aircraft.  
 
One does not have to like this proposal. One might however take a moment to consider it and consider alternatives.  Little insults contribute nothing and one might consider what they say about the author.  Frankly, your historical observations lack perspective.  The USAAC, USAAF, and USAF have all instutionally believed that airpower alone can and does win wars.  Moreover, the USAF constantly believes it can seal off a battlefield through airpower alone.  It believed this in Italy during WWII, during Korea, and during Vietnam.  It was wrong every time.
 
During the Cold War when SAC was prepared to wage GTNW we might have had a case study in airpower "winning" a war.  The USAF can't even maintain reasonable security of nuclear weapons today.  The USAF's main rationale for existence has gone.  It does not matter to the nation who flies the F-22s, C-17s, and B-52s it requires.  The only thing that should matter is how to operate these most cost effectively in order to provide the number combat coded we require.
 
If one wants to talk about the USMC having a dozen divisions I'd be more than happy to discuss getting rid of the US Army.  Getting rid of the Corp would be difficult to justify given it's roles, missions, and cost effectiveness.  The Navy is actually the only service Congress is Constitionally required to maintain.  
 
To argue the nation can afford to buy everything it requires for the current force structure is delusional.  We must take a fresh look at roles, missions, and required force structure.  Your contribution to this debate has been less than fully helpful.
 
 
 
LB--You say eliminate the AF and we'd save 75% of the money?  Total BS.  You want to eliminate the AF because the Army says it knows how to deliver Air Mobility services with a twin-engine airlifter that will do nothing except the traditional "Pizza boxes" mission?  Do you hear AF officers telling the Army how to fight and win?  No.  Your comment is as small-minded and utterly ridiculous as when I heard a 4 star AF general in 1994 saying that his analysis showed the AF won Desert Storm by itself, and the Army and MC simply rounded up prisoners.  (Again, total BS!) 


You speak of "not playing well with others"--you sound like a poser teenager.  You need to go reread your American military history (include some airpower books this time) and learn to respect the dedication, courage and selfless sacrifice that we all bring to "the fight"--Army + AF + Navy + MC -- each and every war.

 

BTW a factual correction--C-17 are roughly $250M Flyaway acc. to AF budget docs.  AF & AMC Logistics planners do not suggest we need 300 C-17.  They've said we need 300 or so (C-17 + C-5M).  A C-5M can carry twice what a C-17 carries almost twice as far, and the C-5M upgrade kit to the C-5A/B/C is about one-third of the cost of a new C-17.


 
Quote    Reply

Chris    The rules of the air   2/13/2009 3:38:09 PM
The squabbles between the Air Force and Army began not too long after the Army Air Force was separated and made a distinct service.  The relationship between the two got to a point to where the Army for all practical terms wasn't allowed to own fixed-wing aircraft.
 
Lamentably, when the Air Force is run by fighter-jockeys there will always be a tendancy to buying the sexiest piece of merchandise on the market with the loins share of the budget.  The remainder of whatever is left over goes to whatever isn't fighter related.  And nowadays, with all the problems with supplying the boots on the ground in Afganistan (etc), and the supply roads under constant ambush/attack, the lack of transports is being recognized front and center.
 
Note also that the Air Force spent a lot of time and capital attempting to rid itself the A-10, which has been repeatedly proven to be an aircraft of exceptional capability that has no equal in our inventory, and simply terrifies adversaries and elates the ground-pounders when they see it overhead. 
 
But, the writing is on the wall for the Air Force and even they are starting to recognize it.  Just look at the UCAV development and how UAVs have prevailed over the past 20 years, and the Air Force has made a number of power plays to control all of the UAV action as well (none of which have worked out).  The F-22 and F35 are likely the last generation of fully manned fighter jets, the the jockeys know it coming, but they will retain control until thier cold hands are wrestled from the throttle (or budget, as the case may be).
 
However, the lamentable fact is where the Air Force might be able to bring a lot of firepower to bear, it does not occupy territory.  That is what the ground-pounders do.  So the Air Force will continue to see/sell itself as the sole winner of wars, but history has repeatedly proven this simply isn't the case.
 
The best way to fix the problem, is to remove all of the services from the acquisition process, and for the US to set up a program similar to that used by the British.  That would remove a lot of the BS and politics, and get the services the equipment they need in properly balanced quantities.  If the services and the houses of representatives are unable to get the job done properly, then take the job away from the and put it under adult supervision.
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Admirals, Army generals and air force generals    2/14/2009 2:29:50 AM
do not think alike.
 
Each has a different battlespace problem they solve differently.
 
Also history shows this in FACT as the Army Air Corps, USAAF, and the USAAF didn't have much dofference in their mind-sets with regards to aur warfare and the Army. Changing the letterhead didn't change the outlook. Airpower toolusers don't look at war the same way a rifleman does, Heck, look at the problems I have getting a stubborn soldier to understand why air and seapower matter far more to him than fighting the next "low intensity conflict" with a few new toys which he will never reach or win if the air and seapower isn't there to be his shield and sword in the 3rd and 4th dimension of the battlespace.    

As for folding the air force into another service, that is a tough call. You want the cadres that you fuse together to think alike and to understand the mechanics of airpower or more exact: three dimensiuonal warfare.
 
 That AIN'T the US Army which still has trouble understanding why Malvern Hill was a defeat; instead of the victory they claim it was.
 
The best fit is the NAVY.
 
Knucleheads now desperately need one thing the air force does do well-competent technology management.

Might as well. We operate from the sea to support Diego Garcia, Kadema, and Guam. The strategic forces are mostly Navy now anyway. A D-5 will stuff into a silo just as well as a Minuteman..
 
You see where this is going?
 
===============================
 
Forgot about the C-17
 
This attrition is accelerated by the fact that the early model C-17s are structurally different, and weaker, than the later model C-17s. The wing box in the center of the fuselage, on early models,  was insufficiently strong for the loads placed on it. This was corrected later in the production run, but those early planes are going to wear out faster than later model planes of the same flight hours.
 
Mickey D gave us the Super Hornet too. Guess WHY I bought that one up.
 

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Crunch130       2/14/2009 1:46:06 PM
Sounds like we have a Lockheed shill among us...
 
The "reduced" number of 180 (from a Rand study) C-17's was premised upon a much higher success level of C-5 AMP/ C-5 RERP than what they have been able to demonstrate to date. Yes, a C-5 can carry more, but they are so cotton-picking unreliable AND they can't operate on short or austere airfields. THAT is why we have been flying the crap out of the C-17s.
 
The first five (and the prototype, which we still have at Edwards) had the weaker wingbox design. The first five had a strengthening mod but have always had fuel leak issues and therefore are range limited.
 
As for all the bickering about unsexyness of cargo planes and the Air Force being spoiled, don't lose sight of the fact that the DoD collectively keeps making unrealistic presumptions about the "next" war being just like the last. After Vietnam (I was an ROTC cadet) the AF taught two types of conflict - GTNW and jungle insurgencies (low-intensity conflict). So what did we find out in Afghanistan? We really do need boots on the ground and the M-16 was pretty useless if the enemy was 300 yards away (so we quietly rushed M-14's out to the field for use by "designated marksmen"). All services make myopic decisions, all services have self-serving flag officers. (Most of the AF are the gobs of enlisted people require to maintain and support air operations.)
 
This article is about the C-17, which I can tell you, is one hell of a great airplane.
 
Crunch
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/14/2009 3:38:17 PM

<Took out the dull stuff. H.>.
 
Sounds like we have a Lockheed shill among us...

Crunch

Are you  kidding? The only difference between the thieves at Boeing and the thieves at Lockmart is that LockMart knows how to work the Congress better. You don't see LockMart on McCain's crap list do you?

I was also quite specific about citing McDumdum's Super Hornet; designed when there was still a McDonnell Douglas to sort of screw that wing box up. Can't exactly blame that on the Boeing mob can I? Well actually I can, but then it wasn't the Boeing engineering shop that originated it. Its they who have taken their own sweet time fixing it though.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Chuang Shyue Chou       2/16/2009 4:21:14 AM
Herald, may I know what your issue is with the F/A-18s? I am interested in your perspective.
 
Quote    Reply

RHylton       2/17/2009 1:16:57 AM
"Note also that the Air Force spent a lot of time and capital attempting to rid itself the A-10, which has been repeatedly proven to be an aircraft of exceptional capability that has no equal in our inventory, and simply terrifies adversaries and elates the ground-pounders when they see it overhead."
 
I doubt I am the only one that gritted his teeth when an F-16 went overhead to drop something downrange,  oddly enough, never had that feeling when a A-10 rolled over on its back as it passed overhead. or when am Apache popped up over a ridge.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/17/2009 5:30:09 AM

Herald, may I know what your issue is with the F/A-18s? I am interested in your perspective.

No disrespect intended, but aside from what is in the public domain that you can easily find for yourself, I do NOT discuss what I specifically know or WHY.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy