Regardless of how much weight the Army takes off its tanks and
support vehicles, providing airlift services to the land forces
will continue to be a “major focus for air mobility in the
21st century,” said a senior Air Force officer in charge of
transport aircraft programs.
Even a medium-weight brigade combat team, which is the Army’s
new expeditionary unit, still will require significant airlift capabilities,
said Air Force Brig. Gen. Robert W. Chedister, program executive
officer (PEO) for airlift and trainers.
Chedister, a former test pilot and Joint STARS (Surveillance Target
Attack Radar System) program manager, recently spoke with National
Defense at his office in Arlington, Va.
“It’s still too early in the [Army’s] transformation
process to make any hard, fast judgments about what requirements
may or may not be further down the road,” he cautioned. But
one thing that remains constant, Chedister said, is the symbiotic
relationship between the Army and the Air Force. “The Army
still needs us,” he said, “to take them where they need
to go.”
The Air Force currently is developing acquisition strategies in
anticipation of the soon-to-be-released Mobility Requirements Study
2005 (MRS 05). Most likely, “the MRS will recommend more lift
capacity for the U.S. Air Force, not less,” Chedister said.
The job of PEO for airlift and trainers encompasses three areas,
Chedister said. They are the acquisition, modification and sustainment
of airlift assets. The biggest problem confronting airlift capability
is aging aircraft, said Chedister. The C-5 is 30 years-old, and
most of the C-130s, except the “J” variant, are pushing
40 years of age.
“Aging systems take more time and money to maintain,”
he explained. “This is why we are constantly upgrading.”
Modernization procedures normally are taken in incremental steps,
he said, due partly to budgetary restrictions and “to avoid
having too much of any one system down at a time.”
The Air Force expects to remain busy, conducting traditional military
operations, as well as peacekeeping and humanitarian relief missions,
he said. He expects that the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review will
reinforce this fact.
The behemoth C-5 is the Air Force’s principal system for
carrying oversized cargo, such as the Abrams tank, said Chedister.
The current fleet will undergo an aviation modernization program
(AMP), which started in 1999, and a reengineering reliability program
(RERP), beginning in early 2001.
When pressed for details, Chedister responded that because contract
negotiations were still in progress, he could not discuss specifics
of the programs. The Air Force estimates that the C-5 upgrade will
cost approximately $43 million per aircraft. Upgrading the entire
fleet of 126 C-5s will cost about $5.4 billion in 2000 dollars.
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. is the prime contractor for the
two-phase upgrade. The C-5 AMP and RERP are the first major upgrades
of the C-5 since the last C-5B variant was delivered in March 1989,
Chedister said. Each copy of the C-5B costs approximately $184.2
million.
There will always be a requirement for lifting oversized payloads,
even if the Army lightens its vehicles, Chedister continued. “Anyway
you look at it, lift is a challenge,” he said. “With
a lighter Army, we could be lifting more volume than actual weight.
With a payload like a tank, even if you can take off armor, you
still have to lift a tank that’s going to stay the same width
and length.”
According to the Air Mobility Command, Scott Air Force Base, Ill.,
the normal maximum takeoff weight, including payload, for a C-5,
is 769,000 pounds. An empty C-5 weighs 375,000 pounds. However,
under emergency, or wartime conditions, this maximum takeoff weight
can be raised to 840,000 pounds, which equals a 291,000-pound payload.
In length, the C-5 would fill nearly three-quarters of a football
field.
Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, in 1990-1991, marked
the last time there was such a waiver. The normal payload weight-range,
which insures safer operation and increased global range, is calculated
not to exceed 130,000 pounds. Under normal conditions, a C-5 burns
22-24,000 pounds of fuel per hour. This burn-rate represents a range
of 4,500 nautical miles.
C-130 Hercules
There also are two modernization programs presently in progress
for the C-130, “the heart of tactical airlift,” Chedister
said. One involves future purchases of 96 C-130Js for the Air Force,
Air National Guard, the Marine Corp and the Coast Guard.
An AMP upgrade program planned for the existing C-130H fleet is
still in the source selection phase, which should be completed by
January 2001, he said.
According to the Air Force, new equipment featured on the “J”
model—such as fully integrated, digital avionics, color multifunctional
liquid crystal displays and head-up displays, and new navigational
systems with dual inertial navigation and global positioning systems,
could be included in the C-130 AMP and RERP as well, sources indicated.
Initially, the Air Force was reluctant to press forward with acquisition
of the “J” version, Chedister acknowledged. “Each
new model has its own set of growing pains,” he said.
“Mostly the challenges were in avionics,” he continued.
“But this has been an upgrade challenge on all C-130 models.
Working the bugs out of new software always presents a problem.
“Then, you have to take into account the time that it takes
to retrain your experienced personnel, who are used to a different
system, in addition to training new crews for an upgraded C-130
system,” he said.
The “J” is a product of the Defense Department’s
“acquisition reform initiative,” Chedister noted. Lockheed
Martin developed the “J” variant as a commercial aircraft,
unlike the older Hercules, which had been developed under the traditional
military procurement process.
One of the principles of “acquisition reform” is to
try to keep production lines open, instead of spending dollars to
shut them down and then restart them again, Chedister said. This
reform process also includes what Chedister called “dissimilar
competition.”
Basically, this means fostering competition among suppliers instead
of awarding an entire major contract to just one company, which
could result in long-term dependence on a single supplier. “There’s
a growing realization that reliable partners are a good thing to
have.”
Twenty-nine “Js” are under contract through fiscal
year 2000, said Chedister. To date, 19 have been delivered. Twelve
more are scheduled for 2001.
The latest addition to the heavy lift fleet is the C-17 Globemaster
III.
Declared operational in 1995, the C-17 is steadily replacing the
C-141 Starlifter, which Chedister called “the workhorse of
the air mobility.” The C-141 will be retired in the 2005-2007
time frame.
The C-17 has four, high-wing, Pratt & Whitney PW2040 turbofan
engines, each producing 40,440 pounds of thrust. It has a maximum
payload capacity of about 170,000 pounds. The most commonly transported
loads run closer to 90,000 pounds, which gives the aircraft a range
of 3,600 nautical miles.
“The C-17 is exceeding expectations,” Chedister reported.
“It was used for intra-lift in Bosnia and reduced the need
for additional tactical aircraft [C-130s].”
Besides being a new platform, the C-17 offers another cost-savings
benefit because a crew of three—two in the cockpit and a single
loadmaster, can operate it. It takes a crew of five to fly a C-141
or a C-130. The C-5 requires seven crew members.
“It’s expensive to have large crews up there,”
Chedister agreed. Automation technologies made it possible to replace
human operators on the C-17. “A smaller crew means a smaller
[logistics] footprint and makes it easier for us to maintain currency
for the aircraft.”
The trend toward reducing crew size will continue, Chedister said.
According to the Air Force, the service spends $20 billion per year
on routine operations and maintenance of equipment.