So would it be better to buy new C-17's or refurbish the existing C-5A's? The preliminary reports, from the study of the retired C-5A that has been completely torn down to study how the fleet is aging and how much life the airframes have left, indicate that the C-5A's have 70% of their structural life left. For each C-5A that is recapitalized, there would be the equivalent of two new C-17's in payload capacity but with better range. The RERP program is supposed to keep the C-5's running till at least 2040 and probably 2050.
Moreover, the C-5A models have more structural problems than they anticipated as well.
The "70% service life" quote has been around since 1997, and is often repeated (ad nausea), but it is kind of like a phrase that people hear at a meeting and just keep using over and over again.
The A models have far less than 70% structural life left, but I am not sure what.
I am not the expert, nor do I have the latest info - but I think what the Air Force is looking for is to retire all the A's, and continue to work with the B's, while asking for still more C-17s.
And I want a pony.
I am not sure what they will get. The problem with retiring the A-models is that some of them are in the Guard - and I am sure you know that retiring Guard aircraft in a Congressman's district is akin to them thinking you are trying to rape their wives.