The
USAF has a problem. It doesn't have enough planes for transport roles today and
in the future. Worse its not doing much about it. This is a problem and it
needs fixing.
(Photo source USAF)
This
piece will hopefully be mercifully short. Because it is embarrassing. I want to
bring this data to the front of mind because I believe we have an immediate
requirement (more C-17s) and a long term replacement aircraft long haul
tactical transport aircraft that can transport almost anything the US needs to
deploy. (Let’s call it the C-X).
The
US has no airlift capability designed or contemplated past the current
capability which consists of 3 forms. Infleet and outsourced. Here are the
numbers:
|
Mobility Capability Fleet Size
|
Estimate
|
Unit of Measure
|
|
Strategic Airlift Aircraft
|
275
|
C-17/C-5
|
|
Commercial Airlift: Civil Reserve
Air Fleet (CRAF)
|
257
|
Cargo/Passenger
|
|
Theater Airlift Aircraft 300 C-130
|
300
|
C-130
|
Here
are the statistics for the US Air Force’s Heavy Lift capability. There are 4
types in fleet aircraft that are capable of hauling a tank. These are listed below.
Note: a slight discrepancy between the numbers is due to the dates. The Fig 1
is likely to be the most accurate from Jan 2019 for estimates of the fleet in
2023. For information on the CRAF fleet go here: https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104583/civil-reserve-air-fleet/
The large capability does not include any aircraft that can transport a tank.
|
Type
|
maker
|
Class
|
Role
|
Introduced
|
In service
|
|
Lockheed
|
Jet
|
1970
|
52
|
||
|
Boeing/MD
|
Jet
|
1995
|
222
|
||
|
Lockheed
|
Turboprop
|
1956
|
176
|
||
|
Lockheed
|
Turboprop
|
1996
|
186
|
||
|
Boeing/MD
|
Jet
|
1981
|
59
|
||
|
Boeing
|
Jet
|
2019
|
11
|
||
|
Lockheed
|
Turboprop
|
1954
|
10
|
For
the purpose of this article I will concentrate on the big airframes – the C-5M
and the C-17A.
Due
to the low amount of flying the USAF does of its aircraft the serviceability
requires that the aircraft typically spends 3-4x each flying hour in the shop
being fixed. At any one time the Air Force aims to have operational about 50%
of this capacity. The USAF has a group who is focused on transport. USTRANSCOM.
Here is its latest report: https://www.armed-services.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Lyons_03-05-19.pdf
In my humble opinion it’s not doing even that well. Published rates of aircraft
that are currently available to fly have decreased every year since, well a
long time. Using recent statistics the numbers have continued to fall. That
number has falled by 8 percentage points. In fiscal
2012, 77.9% percent of all aircraft were deemed flyable. By fiscal 2017, that
metric had dropped to 71.3 %, and it dipped further to 69.97 % in 2018. And the
C5 has some of the worse numbers. Recently the availability for the F-35 (A/B/C
models) dropped to around 35% for a variety of reasons but mostly missing
parts. For more detail go here. It’s not like this isn’t a secret, but we have
to start focusing the attention on this topic. If the current and future
Administrations are going to be warmongering, as their previous generations
were, then mission availability is critical. And currently it is pretty bad. https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/07/26/aircraft-mission-capable-rates-hit-new-low-in-air-force-despite-efforts-to-improve/
It would be good to compare their rates to say… someone like the UK and
Singapore.
There are numerous stories that can be easily found of C5s
that don’t complete their missions on the scheduled time. http://web.archive.org/web/20040112233408/http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2004/0104galaxy.asp
As the
USAF does not publish any performance stats in the same way commercial aircraft
operators do – we cannot see the actual performance numbers. The C5M is one of
the most expensive aircraft to operate. The last data I can find is from 2016
where the cost was over $100K per hour of operation. https://www.businessinsider.com/air-force-plane-cost-per-flight-hour-chart-2016-3
So a
typical mission from USA to Afghanistan and back would be about 20 hours each
way. So $4 million a roundtrip. I am sure there is many an airline bean counter
who would like to have that as his revenue number. If you want to be really
geeky about Aircraft operating costs in the USAF, there are a few think tanks
who dive into the Congressional data. Here is one from the Rand Corporation
from 2015. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1100/RR1178/RAND_RR1178.pdf
A relatively short report but it will require you to dust off your regression
analysis capability.
As one C-5 pilot confided in me the plane was probably older
than HIS/HER father. IE not inconceivable that the same airframe was flown by
the current fleet pilots’ grandfathers. (There were no female C-5 pilots I
could find in this research when the plane entered the fleet).
The latest talk is about extending the airframe out to 2060.
Really??? The latest version of the C-5 (with remanufactured airframes)
re-entered the fleet in 2018. The biggest change was that the engines were
replaced with CF6s. Yup a 45 year old design.
The C-5M
is not the real workhorse of the fleet, that is the C-17A. A sprightly young
thing who first flew in 1975 (as the YC-15). The bad news is that in October
Boeing put the production line facility up for sale once the moratorium on the
sale was lifted. The last C17 was delivered to the USAF in 2013. Production continued
for another few years but now that’s all done. Using the same logic – the C-17
should therefore last into the next century. (Stick with me here, if the
original life span can be extended from a 1970 in service aircraft for 90 years
then a 1995 aircraft should last more than 100 years. Eisenhower must be
spinning in his grave). But not to worry, the Air Force actually started to
mothball some of the oldest ones in the fleet in 2012.
There is
no new design planned for large scale transportation for the US military. The
US issued a study in early 2018 to look at the issue. https://www.defensedaily.com/dod-starts-study-airlift-sealift-tanker-needs/air-force/
The resulting report is pretty thin. Here is
the published version. http://www.airforcemag.com/DocumentFile/Documents/2019/MobilityCapabilitiesRequirementsStudy2018.pdf
The actual numbers the Air Force is talking about is a further 3 C-17 squadrons
and another 2 C-130 squadrons. But as we saw above there is no facility for
producing any new C-17s.
Perhaps there is something in Europe? Well
the troubles for the A400M aircraft are well documented but at least there is a
live production line. Current rate 9 aircraft in 2019. It could fly a lesser
capacity payload compared to the C-17. https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/compare-aircraft-results.asp?form=form&aircraft1=33&aircraft2=820&Submit=Compare+Aircraft
So
there you have it. We have a problem and its urgent. We need to fix it. How?
Here
is what I propose. For the short term, The USAF will have no choice but to add
capacity and the A400M is it. The C-130x is not a possibility. So that is
unless you want a Russian (IL-76, An-124), Chinese (Y-20) or possibly Brazilian
(KC-390) aircraft. No way can the C-17 be delivered unless they are
re-manufactured ones from the desert.
For
the C-X system, we should be looking at the requirement of a non-traditional
heavy lift aircraft that can operate at a far lower cost per hour but last a
really long time at relatively low rates of utilization. This has to be crewed
but with a small crew capability with UAV support as back up. There are no
current designs that should be considered.
The C-X should comprise a all new frame using a significant set of COTS
components that can address the near term design issues.
Best
of luck with this. I really hope someone wakes up and takes notice.
Cheers
No comments:
Post a Comment