The Sorry State of US Military Airlift Capability

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
C-5M Super Galaxy	Lockheed	Jet	Transport	1970	52
C-17A Globemaster III	Boeing/MD	Jet	Transport	1995	222
C-130H Hercules	Lockheed	Turboprop	Transport	1956	176
C-130J Super Hercules	Lockheed	Turboprop	Transport	1996	186
KC-10A Extender	Boeing/MD	Jet	Aerial refueling	1981	59
KC-46 Pegasus	Boeing	Jet	Aerial refueling	2019	11
LC-130H Hercules	Lockheed	Turboprop	Cargo aircraft	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

USAF Tanker - Depoliticize The Decision

I haven't commented on the Tanker Wars in a while. However with the impending publication of the latest RFP - perhaps it is time to rethink the process.

The Tanker battle has always been a political hot potato. it has been fraught with criminal misdealings and almost constant wrangling

So I have a suggestion for the august people in the US Dept. of Defense and the Congress.

Buy both the A330 and the 767.

SAY WHAT???

Hear me out here - my reasoning is not that crazy. Let's consider this. They are not similar aircraft. The real question is the best fit for the role. So if the Air Force acquires both aircraft in limited numbers now on a lease basis - lets say a fleet of 25 Aircraft each, they could both be evaluated fairly and the USAF would get to start replacing the 600+ aging not fit for much else than the scrap heap KC135s.

Also I think the powers that be in the purchasing office should buy the COTS version. Both are currently deployed in different places and therefore they meet the NATO standard for compatibility. Thus there should be no reason not to do anything else but fly the things. Judging by recent history of US military aircraft purchases - during any life time the aircraft has been so modified from its original configuration that all the likely mods can either by developed with production experience or (as they would be leased) they could be sent back to the manufacturer as being unsuitable. The cost inefficiency of buying 2 aircraft vs one would be more than outweighed by the other cost based advantages. (If you don't believe me just ask the airlines that operate mixed Boeing and Airbus Fleets).

In my view the Air Force would get its capability earlier. The manufacturers could start delivering product and the procurement process could be one heck of a lot simpler and faster. PLUS by taking this path the politicos would be forced to make an assessment based on operational FACT as opposed to political speculation.

End result - a fleet of aircraft doing its job earlier. A cheaper product to buy. Competitive pressures maintained to keep pricing down. More flexibility in deployments. Lower risk for the user community. More resources for the hard pressed men and women who serve in the US Armed forces.

Contrast this with the continued wrangling over which aircraft is POTENTIALLY best. The constant messing with the spec. And a lot of hot air being expended in various parts of the country.

Will this happen? Nah... that's WAY too sensible a solution.

Tanker Wars Episode 5 - The Empire Strikes Back - Contract Cancelled

"So if we can't win then no-one can."

Clearly responding to intense pressure from some quarters, The Pentagon announced today that they are suspending the contract until after the next election.

There is one clear winner and one clear loser in this.

The winner is the Boeing Company. The loser is the American Armed Forces.

Some people I hope should be ashamed of themselves. It seems that politics as usual is the norm in defense contracts.

Latest - GAO sides with Boeing in Tanker Contract

In a big blow to EADS - the GAO (whose decision is not binding on the Air Force) has confirmed that the complaints filed by Boeing in the contract award are indeed valid.

While much of the noise will be focused on the protagonists - the real loser here is the US Defence Department procurement process which once again shows itself as being less than competent.

So the protest goes in - Now what?

Boeing - playing sore looser - has filed a a formal protest against the award of the Boeing Tanker contract to Northrup Grumman based on Airbus's A330.

Automatically the review will be conducted by the GAO. It has 100 days to review and then a possible further round could add another 100 days to the protest. This is highly likely given that Boeing will likely protest again unless of course they win in which case Northrup will likely protest.

In the mean time the Air Force has to put up with an ageing fleet of Tankers whose average age is now 40 years plus. Kudos to Boeing for building a product that has been so successful.

As a US taxpayer, I am loathe to see this process go further. We all want to see the USAF get its new tankers and for the rest of the world to get on with it.

My wish? Boeing to cooperate with NG and become a contractor to the project. NG could definitely do with some help. Airbus has a significant hill to climb with some of its other projects.

Lets hope the USAF got their numbers and criteria right in the award. If not then we should all feel concerned that the procurement process for US military is (as I believe) deeply flawed. This should be a priority to review for the next US Administration.

Cheers

Timothy

The USAF Tanker deal - some thoughts

Quite frankly I was shocked to learn that the US Air Force had decided to select the Northrup Grumman/EADS team over Boeing. The decision had a seam of inevitability in it that was a train going to Abilene.

However in today's global economy where the words "National" and "Interests" are not always synomomous, this is a positive trend. But the decision criteria was not based on anything but the previously stated (and in my understanding) and fair set of rules. According to the statements from the USAF committee, Airbus won on all criteria accounts. The fall out in both Washingtons is going to reverberate for a long time.

Boeing would do well to accept the decision. If the criteria was flawed or if the result were not so clear cut then a protest should be conducted. However given the background and the time taken to make the decision, one can only believe that the review was conducted in the most strict of circumstances.

One of the arguments I have seen against the award has been the notion that high tech jobs are being outsourced to foreigners. Frankly I believe the opposite is the case. An industrial base of additional understanding especially in composites will be a direct result of this award.

Perhaps now that the decision has been made then we can only hope that there are some lessons to be learned here. One of the biggest lessons that should be learned is that the US Defense Acquisition process is flawed and needs rework.

One final thought is that there is a bad knock on effect within the airline industry. The 767 production line has been hanging on with some cargo based sales but very little new sales as customers wait for the 787. There is already a very big shortage of 767-300 size aircraft and the probably 18 month to 2 year total delay in the 787 program means a strong shortage of this size equipment. This is not good and will need monitoring in the coming months.

US Air Force Tanker Deal - A different view

So at the moment all of the Beltway bandits are probably engaged in the biggest political battle of the season. Who is going to win the USAF's Air Refueling contract. it could be worth $100 Bn when all is said and done.

In the red corner is Reigning Champ and long favoured bidder Boeing with its decidedly ancient Boeing 767 design. In the Blue corner is the Northrup Grumman and EADS-Airbus Industrie the nasty Franco-German smelling foreigners, with their bigger A330 based design. OK so on patriotic grounds Boeing should win. But not so fast. NG/EADS-Airbus (what a mouthful) is proposing a production line in Alabama Only 400 Miles from where Mercedes (And EADS Shareholder, builds its M and R series).

At the moment the battle is squarely around an old US based design smaller and the bigger newer European design.

But i would like to post a contra view. Because over to the side is Lockheed-Martin (US's Largest Defense Contractor) advocating an update to the very decrepit C5 with the C5M re-engined, updated avionics. Boeing is also advocating more purchases of the C-17.

Lets start with the C5M. BAD IDEA. The plain is clapped out and the wings leak like crazy. It is in such poor shape that half the fleet (the ones that can fly not the ones on the books) are now used as cannibalization for parts. It has lost most of the crews (After being forced to do back to back tours the Reservists who fly this old clunker bailed en masse).

So how about this. Re-think it. Although I am sure that the Lobbyists would welcome this and Congress and the others will moan - but even though this contract has been scandal plagued and delayed for nearly 10 years, they time has come to rethink the whole idea of Military airlift in the USA Arsenal.

I propose that the US uses the A330M as a COTS based aircraft. I further propose that all the money that was to be used for C5M be used to purchase many more additional C-17s.

Who wins?

Boeing ends up with a good contract extension on the C-17 and we can reduce the price do the very stupid US procurement practices. Further they can stop wasting time on the 767. Time to put the old girl out to pasture which in turn will free resources for the now troubled 787 program.

Lockheed gets a smack in the eye - they need it.

NorthrupGrumman/EADS-Airbus (whew!) get a US production line and possibly a shot at the Hercules replacement market with the A400M.

The US Air Force (remember them) get much greater airlift capacity and better tanking with multiple convertible aircraft better suited to today's needs.

The US public gets a better deal for its money

Will they do it?

Naw not a hope in hell. Still nice idea.

Cheers
Timothy


Timothy J O'Neil-DunneManaging Partner - T2Impact LtdGlobal Travel eBusiness Tel (US) +1 425 836 4770Mobile (US) +1 425 785 4457
Mobile (International) +44 7770 33 81 75Fax +1 815 377 1583
UNIVERSAL VOICEMAIL BOX +1 425 749 4221
http://www.t2impact.com/
Please treat this email and all forms of communication as confidential use only for the direct recipient(s).
Read our Blog: http://t2impact.blogspot.com/