News>Officials look to reduce strategic airlift inventory
Photos
Gen. Raymond Johns, the Air Mobility Command commander, reads his opening statement July 13, 2011, during a Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. Christine Fox, the Department of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation director, and Gen. Duncan McNabb, the U.S. Transportation Command commander, also testified before the subcommittee. (U.S. Air Force photo/Scott M. Ash)
Department of Defense and military officials testified before the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower in Washington, D.C., July 13, 2011. Testimony included the budget request to lower the 316 strategic airlift floor to 301 aircraft at a cost savings of more than $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars across the Future Years Defense Plan. Seated from right are Gen. Raymond Johns, the Air Mobility Command commander; Christine Fox, the Department of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation director; and Gen. Duncan McNabb, the U.S. Transportation Command commander. (U.S. Air Force photo/Scott M. Ash)
by Staff Sgt. Richard A. Williams Jr.
Air Force Public Affairs Agency
7/15/2011 - WASHINGTON -- Combatant and major command officials provided testimony to members of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower to propose a reduction of strategic airlift aircraft numbers in a session here July 13.
Gen. Raymond Johns, the Air Mobility Command commander, and Gen. Duncan McNabb, the U. S. Transportation Command commander, provided the committee with information supporting an Air Force request to lower the aircraft inventory requirement of 316 C-17 Globemaster III, C-5A Galaxy and C-5M Super Galaxy aircraft to a minimum of 301 strategic airlift aircraft.
"AMC is charged with maintaining our strategic airlift fleet and ensuring it has the capability and capacity required by United States Transportation Command and the geographic combatant commander's," Johns said.
He added that AMC officials are "keenly aware" of the financial difficulties facing the nation and the command's goal is to fulfill mission requirements in a fiscally responsible manner.
The retirement of a portion of older C-5A aircraft would not diminish Air Force airlift capability and potentially save $1.2 billion in taxpayer dollars in future years' defense planning, Johns said.
"Our ability to manage the strategic airlift over the coming years will enable us to be more fiscally responsible to our nation," McNabb added.
He said the reduction of aircraft would not hinder USTRANSCOM ability to support combatant commanders around the globe.
The requirement to maintain the bottom limit of 316 aircraft is a congressional restriction from the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 137. With changing requirements and an additional 40 more C-17's in the inventory than anticipated when that study was completed, Johns said, the exact mix of aircraft used in that study is less critical than the mission capability of the newer C-17 airframe.
McNabb agreed.
"As more capable aircraft like the C-17 and the C-5M enter the inventory, requirements can be maintained with fewer aircraft. The 316 strategic airlift floor requires us to keep unneeded, the less capable C-5A in the inventory."
McNabb added the fiscal savings are important but not as important as taking care of the Airmen who fly and maintain the aircraft and the use of manpower is absolutely critical to mission success.
"I need to be able to put my best people on my best assets," McNabb said.
"Reducing the fleet would reduce the workload on our Airmen," Johns added.
Johns said there is no reason for the Air Force to maintain a capability that is not needed and the ultimate goal of both AMC and USTRANSCOM is to maintain the best streamlined, economically sound fleet possible.
Comments
7/19/2011 2:02:59 PM ET @Lee Caplinger: How inconvenient of the aircrews to make you add a day or two to your travel plans. I'm sure they have nowhere else they would prefer to be either.
KB, WA
7/19/2011 8:51:23 AM ET Let's just boneyard ALL the inventory, contract it all out, pay WAY over what it would cost to maintain the fleet properly, and make sure our contractors rake in the cash.
Ray, Robins AFB
7/19/2011 7:48:47 AM ET The C-5A will more than likely go to the boneyard. Paul I agree with you the C-17 is purely a political push for the government. That aircraft carries only half the load of the C-5 and can't quite go the distance. Especially the M model. It would have been cheaper just to update all of the C-5's and use the C-130's for tight nip lading area's.
JW, Dover AFB
7/18/2011 3:28:36 PM ET The C-5As will get the avionics upgrade, no new engines. Sad since the lone C-5A that was upgraded to C-5M standards is at 85 percent mission capable rate. The C-5As going to the boneyard could have been sent to AFRES and ANG units losing their manned flying missions. This would allow a surge capability that AMC will not have when the C-5As are sent to the boneyard. There is never enough tails when you need them.
Mike, South Florida
7/18/2011 3:20:07 PM ET Sell them to China to help pay off the debt.
Jim, Robins AFB
7/18/2011 11:50:52 AM ET Really? We have enough airlift? Then why is it always such a problem to schedule a plane? Why do you need to add a day or two to your travel plans if you are lucky enough to get military transport?
lee caplinger, toledo oh ang
7/16/2011 10:17:22 AM ET Sell the C-5As to Volga-Dnepr Group. They will operate them more efficiently than the USAF and fly missions for TRANSCOM. These wonderful aircraft have been mis-managed for years. Underfunded for parts and upgrades at the expense of buying less capable C-17s. Congrats to the politicians for buying more C-17s made in their districts. No wonder we have a budget crisis.
Paul, Melbourne FL
7/15/2011 2:28:10 PM ET Would the remaining C-5As be upgraded or are the retiring aircraft just a source pf parts?
