No More C-17s, Defense Officials Tell Congress

In addition to Habibbi's excellent response, may I add that it is cheaper to install several LCD displays with only a few wires going to a central computer than it is to install and run wires to several dozen separate instruments, each only monitoring one function.

The wiring is much simpler, the displays are more reliable, and the computer is more flexible in what gets displayed in which window and when. Glass cockpits enable things like moving map displays, weather radar displays, and engine performance displays to all exist in the same very limited real estate of the cockpit instrument panel.

There is also increased safety with a glass cockpit, because only the most basic engine parameters need to be represented on a glass panel, but if the computers detect a problem, the display can instantly change to display a detailed set of parameters for the suspect engine.

This is more important in newer aircraft, as the flight engineer position has been eliminated. There is no flight engineer position, for example, on the C-17. When the C-5M is modernized, I believe (although I'm not sure) that the flight engineer position will be eliminated there as well.

Also increasing safety is the ability for a glass cockpit display to show checklists to the aircrew, which is faster and easier than looking them up in a flipchart. Also the correct emergency checklist can be displayed automatically when an alarm is detected.

Besides, they just look cooler! C-5A cockpit vs. a C-5B AMP cockpit:

No problem "being short."

And how many C-5’s will have the glass cockpit?

All of them. All C-5Bs and the two C-5Cs have already gone through the Aviation Modernization Program (AMP.) The C-5As are now in work. The Air Force plans to retire 22 C-5As next year, so those won't be modernized, but the remaining As will have the same AMP kit installed.

What the As won't get is the RERP that the Bs will get. No new engines and other reliability tweaks.

I understand that the C-5A/B has had a horrible mission ready rate for it's entire life. Hopefully these two programs will change that.

We have a mutual defense treaty that we have signed with the South Koreans.

The KC-X is for aerial refuelling. It is not designed for transport

KC-X is the name of the United States Air Force program to procure its next-generation aerial refueling tanker aircraft

The KC-X is for aerial refuelling. It is not designed for transport

It also doesn't have the same sorts of take-off and landing requirements as the C-17, which is designed to operate into and out of short (3000 ft), narrow (90 ft) and rough runways.

One more time the C-17 is a transport plane. The KC-X is a aerial refuelling plane.

One more time the C-17 is a transport plane. The KC-X is a aerial refuelling plane.

Amazingly, I knew that.

Why else do you suppose I was adding information to make further distinction between the two planes?

I see. I am very sory.

Yeah, we’ve been providing them with a shield for 50+ years now. They are big boys now and should be able to defend themselves. We’re broke and over extended.

NOTE The following text is a quote:

http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60007

No More C-17s, Defense Officials Tell Congress

By Lisa Daniel
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, July 13, 2010 – The military has more than enough large transport planes, and the appropriation of any more in the next budget year will force some into premature retirement, Defense Department officials told a congressional panel today.

“We have enough C-17s,” Mike McCord, principal deputy undersecretary of defense (comptroller), said. “Money spent on things we don’t need takes away from those we do need.”

Along with McCord, Air Force Maj. Gen. Susan Y. Desjardins, director of strategic plans for Air Mobility Command, and Alan Estevez, principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for logistical and materiel readiness, repeated Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ position against the purchase of more C-17s to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs’ federal financial management subcommittee.

All three defense officials agreed with the subcommittee’s leaders, Sens. Thomas Carper and John McCain, that the C-17, in addition to the C-5, has been critical to airlift in and out of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they said, the military’s current fleet of 223 C-17s and 111 C-5s is more than enough airlift capability for years to come.

A department study that concluded in February was consistent with two other studies that found that the current fleet is sufficient “even in the most demanding environments” to take the military through 2016, McCord said. The oldest plane in the transport fleet, Lockheed’s C-5A Galaxy, will be viable until 2025, and the fleet as a whole should last until 2040, he said.

The department has not requested C-17s, built by Boeing, since the fiscal 2007 budget, yet Congress has added them every year since, spending about $1.25 billion on C-17s “that we don’t want or need,” said McCord, a 21-year staff member of the Senate Armed Services Committee before his current appointment.

Any additional appropriation for C-17s will have to be offset by retiring some of the military’s older – but still viable — transport planes, the defense officials said.

And, the defense officials said, adding force structure such as aircraft always entails additional costs in training, maintenance, and infrastructure, such as new hangars, bases and tooling. The department spends about $50,000 per aircraft per year to store aircraft where spare parts are available, Desjardins said.

“It’s the gift that keeps on giving, because if you give it to us, we’ll maintain it,” Estevez said.

It would be more cost-effective, the defense officials said, to modify the C-5M for longer viability to continue to work in conjunction with the C-17.
Desjardins called the C-17 the “backbone” of the air mobility fleet, and said the C-5’s combination of long range, high capacity and capability to carry outsize cargo is unequaled. Together, she said, “they meet the needs for cargo and capacity anywhere in the world.”

Retiring the least-capable C-5s would save about $320 million, Desjardins said.

“Making tradeoffs of two types of aircraft when we already have more than enough of both is not going be cost effective,” McCord said.

Asked what the department would cut to accommodate any new C-17s, McCord said that would depend on how many new C-17s were bought. “You and Congress would decide that,” he said, “because you would cut from our budget about $300 million for every C-17 added.”

“We have a good mix right now,” Estevez said. “Replacement is definitely not the most cost-effective way. Buying more to retire more is certainly not the way the department needs to balance its resources.”

The defense secretary has made that case to Congress, and President Barack Obama has promised to veto any legislation that provides for more C-17s.

Biographies:
Mike McCord
Air Force Maj. Gen. Susan Y. Desjardins

Related Articles:
Obama Backs Gates in Budget Debate

NOTE The following text is a quote:

http://www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=60006

Airdrops Break Records in Afghanistan

By Bob Fehringer
U.S. Transportation Command

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill., July 13, 2010 – When your unit is surrounded by an enemy hitting you with small-arms fire and rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar rounds are screaming in and you’re running low on food, ammo and everything else, you can’t exactly send someone to Wal-Mart for supplies.

Container Delivery System bundles parachute to the ground from a C-17 Globemaster III transport jet over a drop zone in Afghanistan on May 9, 2010. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Manuel J. Martinez
(Click photo for screen-resolution image);high-resolution image available.

That’s when you pray for an airdrop. Now.

“Sometimes these missions are like driving an 18-wheeler through a 5 o’clock traffic jam while trying to ask for directions with a cell phone that isn’t getting any reception,” said Air Force Capt. Scott Huffstetler, an airdrop mission planner with the 8th Airlift Squadron in Afghanistan. “Eventually, you just muscle your way through and get the job done.

“The airspace in [Afghanistan] can be incredibly busy, and often times the terrain makes radio reception poor,” Huffstetler added. “Last night, my crew and I flew a mission into an area of the country where the air traffic congestion could rival Frankfurt, Atlanta or Chicago.”

Huffstetler said communication and coordination had to be accomplished during that mission by talking with many different air traffic control areas, none of which could hear the other.

“One of the biggest challenges that we face during the airdrop missions is coordinating clearance into the different airspaces within the country,” Huffstetler said. “With about 10 minutes until the drop, we had four different radios which were actively being used to accomplish this. With dozens of aircraft flying a wide variety of missions, and all of them needing access to the same airspace at the same time, things can get complicated quickly.

“In short,” he continued, “with three pilots talking on four radios, some of which were less than ‘loud and clear,’ and driving 20 minutes out of our way in order to avoid traffic and blocked airspace, we successfully got the drop off and delivered the goods to the user. All of this being at night and on [night-vision goggles].”

In spite of communication glitches and other problems encountered on these missions, during a recent 12-week period, about 500 bundles were dropped per week, which amounts to 450 tons dropped each week.

For comparison, during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II, 482 tons of supplies were dropped in a two-day period in December 1944. In Vietnam, during the battle of Khe Sahn, 294 tons were dropped in a 77-day period.
Air Force Col. Keith Boone, recently reassigned after serving as director of the Air Mobility Division at the Combined Air and Space Operations Center in Southwest Asia, managed airdrops since his arrival in Afghanistan last year. He’s been chosen to be vice commander of the 621st Contingency Response Wing at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, N.J.

April set a record for monthly bundles dropped, with more than 2,700 delivered, Boone said, with April 7 setting a single-day record of 200 bundles, equaling 160 tons.

“We have been steadily increasing since sustainment airdrop operations began in 2005,” he said. “Undoubtedly, this is the longest aerial delivery sustainment in the history of military operations. With the exception of about five days, we have had at least one drop every day since I have been here, and I suspect that is true for the past two years.”

Methods of delivering supplies to troops in the field have improved dramatically since the early airdrops of World War II were conducted by pushing small crates with parachutes out of the aircraft’s side cargo doors.

“Lots of great innovations [are] happening in theater,” said Air Force Brig. Gen. Barbara Faulkenberry, recently reassigned after serving as director of mobility forces and commander of Air Mobility Command’s 15th Expeditionary Mobility Task Force. “The end result is we’re providing what the warfighter needs, when he needs it, and where he needs it.” Faulkenberry has been selected to be deputy chief of logistics for U.S. Africa Command in Stuttgart, Germany.
Among those innovations are the Joint Precision Airdrop System, the Improved Container Delivery System and the most recent development, the C-130 “low-cost low-altitude” combat airdrop to resupply soldiers at a forward operating base.

JPADS uses GPS, steerable parachutes and an onboard computer to steer loads to a designated point on a drop zone. It integrates the Army’s Precision and Extended Glide Airdrop System and the Air Force’s Precision Airdrop System program. ICDS allows for improved precision by factoring in the altitude, wind speed, wind direction, terrain and other circumstances that might affect the drop. A low-cost, low-altitude airdrop is accomplished by dropping bundles weighing 80 to 500 pounds, with pre-packed expendable parachutes, in groups of up to four bundles per pass.

“The LCLA drops will meet the needs of a smaller subset of the units,” Boone said. “This is a significant step forward in our ability to sustain those engaged in counterinsurgency operations throughout Afghanistan.

“Our main method of supply will continue to be through air-land missions - landing at airfields and offloading supplies,” Boone continued. “Where that isn’t possible, we will deliver sustainment requirements through larger-scale [Container Delivery System airdrops] - everything from ammunition to meals.”

These resupply missions are coordinated by U.S. Transportation Command with its component commands: the Army’s Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command and the Navy’s Military Sealift Command.

Air Force Gen. Duncan J. McNabb, Transcom commander, recently flew on one of the airdrop resupply missions in Afghanistan.

“The work these airmen do every day is saving lives,” McNabb said. “I am amazed by our airmen — no matter the size of the challenges they face, they find solutions and get the job done. These airdrop missions are a terrific example of how our phenomenal people in the field will always deliver to the warfighter.”

U.S. Central Command Combined Air and Space Operations Center officials said 97 percent of the airdrops have been on target.

“Tactical airlift has never been so responsive, so agile in our [tactics, techniques and procedures], and critical in a fight,” Faulkenberry said.

“Airdrop is enabling the small, dispersed [counterinsurgency] unit to engage and operate. This April, we dropped 4,860,000 pounds to ground forces who needed the food, fuel, or ammo. It is taking air-ground teamwork to succeed, and together, we’re making our history.”

Related Sites:
U.S. Transportation Command

Air Force loadmaster Senior Airman Kevin Johnson loads Container Delivery System bundles onto the back of a C-17 Globemaster III transport jet, May 27, 2010. The aircrew air-dropped supplies to members of the Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan. U.S. Air Force photo by Staff Sgt. Quinton Russ
Download screen-resolution
Download high-resolution

“The KC-X is for aerial refuelling. It is not designed for transport”

Are you in common with USAF aircraft designation system? For what do you think the “C” within “KC-X” stands for?
The KC-X is designed for airlift.

System Requirements Document (SRD) for the KC-X
https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=2538827bd21adb15bed0d01bab0f2dde

Within the SRD for KC-X you'll find section 3.2 “Airlift”.

3.2.1 Seamless and Efficient Cargo Operation Within Defense Transportation System
3.2.1.1 The KC-X shall transport cargo and personnel by using only material handling equipment and transportation support processes and procedures employed by other Air Mobility Command (AMC) assets.(MANDATROY)
3.2.1.2 Cargo Handling
3.2.1.2.1 The entire KC-X main cargo compartment shall accommodate an all cargo configuration using 463L pallets. (MANDATORY).
[...]
3.2.3 Payload Combination and Reconfiguration
[...]
3.2.3.1.1 The KC-X shall have a maximum en-route turn time of two (2) hours, 45 minutes for all cargo missions.[...]

A C-17 can carry about 18 463L pallets;
A KC-767NG about 19 and a KC-45 about 32.
For moving troops both KC-X are far better.

“It also doesn't have the same sorts of take-off and landing requirements as the C-17, which is designed to operate into and out of short (3000 ft), narrow (90 ft) and rough runways. “

For most airlift missions these restrictions don't exist. USAF avoids to use C-17 on rough runways. Also C-17 guzzles twice as much fuel as any KC-X.
KC-X can relief C-17 on many missions.

But the KC-X main mission is for aerial refuelling

But you got a point

“But the KC-X main mission is for aerial refuelling”

I hope not.

Main mission for KC-135 was and is just aerial refueling and that is the main problem for KC-135. KC-135 was used for less than flying 400 hours a year. Therefore lifetime expecting for the airframe is more than 80 years. But not all parts of an aircraft will last such a long time (skin, wiring, electronic updates...) . From an economic point of view this is a catastrophe.

I hope main mission for KC-X is going to be airlift so the aircraft can reach more than 800 flying hours a year. So USAF can retire the KC-X in 40 years with no regrets.