Does the RAAF want more C-17's?
Thread Starter
Does the RAAF want more C-17's?
No more C-17s, DOD officials tell Congress
The military has more than enough large transport planes
(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 July 13.
"We have enough C-17s," said Mike McCord, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense (comptroller). "Money spent on things we don't need takes away from those we do need."
Along with Mr. McCord, Maj. Gen. Susan Y. Desjardins, the director of strategic plans for Air Mobility Command, and Alan Estevez, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for logistical and materiel readiness, repeated Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' position against the purchase of more C-17 Globemaster IIIs 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 Galaxy, 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, Mr. McCord said.
The oldest plane in the transport fleet, Lockheed's C-5, 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 Mr. McCord, who was 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, adding force structure such as aircraft always entails additional costs in training, maintenance, and infrastructure, such as new hangars, bases and tooling, defense officials said.
The department spends about $50,000 per aircraft per year to store aircraft where spare parts are available, General Desjardins said.
"It's the gift that keeps on giving, because if you give it to us, we'll maintain it," Mr. 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.
Mr. 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, General Desjardins said.
"Making tradeoffs of two types of aircraft when we already have more than enough of both is not going be cost effective," Mr. McCord said.
When asked what the department would cut to accommodate any new C-17s, Mr. 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," Mr. 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.
Source : AFPS
If they are surplus to US military needs, perhaps the ADF could pick up a couple more fairly cheap.
The military has more than enough large transport planes
(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 July 13.
"We have enough C-17s," said Mike McCord, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense (comptroller). "Money spent on things we don't need takes away from those we do need."
Along with Mr. McCord, Maj. Gen. Susan Y. Desjardins, the director of strategic plans for Air Mobility Command, and Alan Estevez, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for logistical and materiel readiness, repeated Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates' position against the purchase of more C-17 Globemaster IIIs 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 Galaxy, 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, Mr. McCord said.
The oldest plane in the transport fleet, Lockheed's C-5, 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 Mr. McCord, who was 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, adding force structure such as aircraft always entails additional costs in training, maintenance, and infrastructure, such as new hangars, bases and tooling, defense officials said.
The department spends about $50,000 per aircraft per year to store aircraft where spare parts are available, General Desjardins said.
"It's the gift that keeps on giving, because if you give it to us, we'll maintain it," Mr. 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.
Mr. 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, General Desjardins said.
"Making tradeoffs of two types of aircraft when we already have more than enough of both is not going be cost effective," Mr. McCord said.
When asked what the department would cut to accommodate any new C-17s, Mr. 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," Mr. 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.
Source : AFPS
If they are surplus to US military needs, perhaps the ADF could pick up a couple more fairly cheap.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't you love US politics - undoubtedly Californian senator hears C17 production line will shut in 20XX year due to no more orders, meaning loss of 20,000 or so jobs from the Long Beach factory. Said senator then cuts a deal in congress that means that the military must buy more, even if they don't need them.
"We have enough C-17s," said Mike McCord, the principal deputy undersecretary of defense (comptroller). "Money spent on things we don't need takes away from those we do need."
If they are surplus to US military needs, perhaps the ADF could pick up a couple more fairly cheap.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard rumours that CDF wants more J model Hercs in preference to the C-17s .... he's holding out .... so Ronnie's going slow on more Js hoping that CDF retires before the C-17 line is shut and the opportunity is lost.
Is the RAAF sufficiently resourced to pay for the fuel burnt by the C-17s?
I dunno - I'm just asking. As I said - rumours & speculation.
Is the RAAF sufficiently resourced to pay for the fuel burnt by the C-17s?
I dunno - I'm just asking. As I said - rumours & speculation.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they are surplus to US military needs, perhaps the ADF could pick up a couple more fairly cheap.
C-17 ACI Corrosion Findings
P20 Fuselage Skin Corrosion:
- Significant corrosion on fuselage sin interior, and under external rubstrips
- All fairing panels opened up; corrosion found in approximately 200 fastener holes
- Worst corrosion conditions at fastener holes repaired with Jo-bolts
- Proposal submitted to inspect/repair corrosion. Design and process changes to be incorporated to reduce corrosion potential.
Extract from a presentation: "Corrosion Management of Airlift Assets"
Colonel Darrell H. Holcomb
Commander
330th Strategic Airlift Sustainment Group
USAF
