.

Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement:
Background and Issues for Congress
Ronald O'Rourke
Specialist in Naval Affairs
September 14, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22763
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Summary
Procurement of C-17 airlift aircraft began in FY1988, and a total of 213 have been procured
through FY2009, including 8 that were procured in the FY2009 supplemental appropriations act
(H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32 of June 24, 2009).
The Administration’s proposed FY2010 defense budget proposes to end C-17 procurement and
does not request any funding for the procurement of additional C-17s. The Administration argues
that enough C-17s have now been procured to meet future operational needs. Supporters of
procuring additional C-17s in FY2010 believe additional C-17s will be needed to meet future
operational needs. The issue of how much airlift capability will be needed in the future is
currently being examined in a congressionally mandated study being done by the Institute for
Defense Analyses (IDA) and in a separate Department of Defense (DOD) study called the
Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16), which is due to be completed
by the end of 2009.
The primary issue for Congress in FY2010 is whether to procure additional C-17s. An additional
issue is whether to pass legislation relating to the airlift aircraft force structure.
FY2010 defense authorization bill: The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, in their
markups of the FY2010 defense authorization bill (H.R. 2647/S. 1390), recommended no funding
for the procurement of additional C-17s. Section 134 of H.R. 2647 would require the Secretary of
the Air Force, in coordination with the Director of the Air National Guard, to submit to the
congressional defense committees, at least 120 days before a C-5 airlift aircraft is retired, a report
on the proposed force structure and basing of C-5 and C-17 aircraft. Section 135 of H.R. 2647
would amend 10 USC 8062(g)(1) to state that, effective October 1, 2009, the Secretary of the Air
Force shall maintain a total inventory of C-5s and C-17s of not less than 316 aircraft. Assuming
the retention of the current force of 111 C-5s, this provision would appear to support a C-17 force
of 205 C-7s—the number procured through FY2008. Section 121 of S. 1390 would prohibit the
Secretary of the Air Force from proceeding with a decision to retire C-5As until certain
conditions are met, and require the Secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the
congressional defense committees on the issue of C-5 retirement.
FY2010 DOD appropriations bill: The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept.
111-230 of July 24, 2009) on H.R. 3326, recommended $762.6 million in procurement funding
for the C-17 program, including $674.1 million for the procurement of three C-17s. The
paragraph in the bill that makes funding available for the procurement of Air Force aircraft states
that the funds are made available, “Provided, That no funds provided in this Act for the
procurement or modernization of C-17 aircraft may be obligated until all C-17 contracts funded
with prior year `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force' appropriated funds are definitized.” The Senate
Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-74 of September 10, 2009) on H.R. 3326,
recommends $2,588.5 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program, including $2,500.0
million for the procurement of 10 C-17s.
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Background ................................................................................................................................ 1
C-17 Program ....................................................................................................................... 1
C-17 in Brief................................................................................................................... 1
Comparison with C-5 ...................................................................................................... 2
Program Origin and Milestones ....................................................................................... 2
Procurement Quantities ................................................................................................... 3
Contractors, Employment, and Production Line Shutdown .............................................. 4
FY2010 Procurement Funding Request ........................................................................... 6
C-5 Modernization Program.................................................................................................. 6
C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP).................................................................. 6
C-5 Reliability and Re-engining Program (RERP)........................................................... 7
Requirements for Strategic Airlift.......................................................................................... 9
Mobility Capabilities Study 2005 (MCS-05).................................................................. 10
Congressionally Mandated Study of 2007...................................................................... 11
Evolution in Planned Mix of Airlift Aircraft, 2005-2008................................................ 11
Congressionally Mandated IDA Study of 2009 .............................................................. 11
Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16) .................................. 11
Prior-Year Legislation Relating to Airlift Force Structure..................................................... 13
Section 132 of FY2004 Defense Authorization Act........................................................ 13
Section 132 of FY2006 Defense Authorization Act........................................................ 13
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 13
Factors to Consider ............................................................................................................. 14
Requirements for Airlift Capability ............................................................................... 14
Cost-Effectiveness of C-5 Modernization Compared to C-17 Procurement .................... 15
Legislative Activity in 2009 ...................................................................................................... 18
FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 2647/S. 1390) .................................................... 18
House ........................................................................................................................... 18
Senate ........................................................................................................................... 19
FY2009 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3326).................................................................... 21
House ........................................................................................................................... 21
Senate ........................................................................................................................... 23
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32)..................................... 24
House ........................................................................................................................... 24
Senate ........................................................................................................................... 24
Conference.................................................................................................................... 25

Tables
Table 1. C-17 and C-5 Characteristics ......................................................................................... 2
Table 2. C-17 Procurement Quantities ......................................................................................... 3
Table 3. Planned Mix of Strategic Airlift Aircraft, 2005-2008 .................................................... 11
Congressional Research Service

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Table 4. [Table 3 in GAO report] Comparison of a Modernized C-5 and C-17 Equivalent
Aircraft Capabilities ............................................................................................................... 16

Appendixes
Appendix. Section 1046 of FY2008 Defense Authorization Act ................................................. 26

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 29

Congressional Research Service

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Introduction
Procurement of C-17 airlift aircraft began in FY1988, and a total of 213 have been procured
through FY2009, including 8 that were procured in the FY2009 supplemental appropriations act
(H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32 of June 24, 2009).
The Administration’s proposed FY2010 defense budget proposes to end C-17 procurement and
does not request any funding for the procurement of additional C-17s.1 The Administration argues
that enough C-17s have now been procured to meet future operational needs. Supporters of
procuring additional C-17s in FY2010 believe additional C-17s will be needed to meet future
operational needs. The issue of how much airlift capability will be needed in the future is
currently being examined in a congressionally mandated study being done by the Institute for
Defense Analyses (IDA) and in a separate Department of Defense (DOD) study called the
Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16), which is due to be completed
by the end of 2009.
The primary issue for Congress in FY2010 is whether to procure additional C-17s. An additional
issue is whether to pass legislation relating to the airlift aircraft force structure. Congress’s
decisions on these issues could affect DOD capabilities and funding requirements and the U.S.
military aircraft industrial base.
Background
C-17 Program
C-17 in Brief
The Air Force C-17, also known as the Globemaster III or simply the Globemaster, can transport
equipment, supplies, and personnel over long distances, from one theater of operations to another,
and can also land on austere airfields with shorter runways. The C-17 complements the Air
Force’s larger C-5 Galaxy airlift aircraft in the strategic (i.e., inter-theater) airlift role, and smaller
C-130 Hercules airlift aircraft in the tactical (i.e., intra-theater) airlift role. DOD states that
The C-17 can perform the entire spectrum of airlift missions and is specifically designed to
operate effectively and efficiently in both strategic and theater environments. Airlift provides
essential flexibility when responding to contingencies on short notice anywhere in the world.
It is a major element of America’s National Military Strategy and constitutes the most
responsive means of meeting U.S. mobility requirements. Specific tasks associated with the
airlift mission include deployment, employment (airland and airdrop), sustaining support,
retrograde, and combat redeployment. Not only can the C-17 deliver outsize cargo to austere
tactical environments, but it also reduces ground time during airland operations. The C-17
will perform the airlift mission well into this century.2

1 The budget submission refers to ending C-17 procurement at 205 aircraft, because the budget was submitted in May,
prior to the enactment of the FY2009 supplemental appropriations act that funded eight additional C-17s.
2 United States Air Force, Committee Staff Procurement Backup Book, Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Budget Estimates,
Aircraft Procureent, Air Force, Volume 1, May 2009, page 2-1 (Exhibit P-40, Budget Item Justification, C-17 [MYP],
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Comparison with C-5
The C-17, like the C-5, can carry outsized (i.e., large-dimension) cargo items, such as M-1 tanks.
The C-5 can carry more cargo than the C-17 and has a longer unrefueled range than the C-17.
Certain DOD cargo items are so large that they can be carried only by a C-5. The C-17, however,
can deploy cargo and personnel directly into austere airfields with shorter runways.3 The C-17
also costs less to operate per flight hour than the C-5 and has a higher mission capable rate
(MCR), which is a measure of aircraft reliability. Table 1 compares some characteristics of the C-
17 and C-5.
Table 1. C-17 and C-5 Characteristics
Characteristic C-17
C-5
Cargo
170,900 pounds
270,000 pounds
Troops 102
81
Unrefueled range
2,700 miles
6,320 miles
Minimum runway length
3,500 feet
6,000 feet
Speed 572
mph
518
Crew 3
7
Mission capable rate (2007)
86%
53%
Cost per flying hour (2007)
$11,300
$23,100
Source: Information taken from Figure 1 (page 5) of Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:]
Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix,
GAO-09-50, November 2008. GAO states that Figure 1 is based on GAO analysis of DOD data.
Program Origin and Milestones
The C-17 program began in the early 1980s.4 Procurement of C-17s began in FY1988.5 The first
C-17 was delivered to the Air Force in June 1993. The C-17 achieved Initial Operational

(...continued)
page 1 of 10).
3 In addition to being able to land on shorter runways, the C-17 is more maneuverable on the ground than the C-5,
which permits a larger number of C-17s to use an airfield simultaneously for loading and offloading equipment.
4 The source selection decision for the program was announced in August 1981. A contract for the program was
awarded in July 1982. The program was given Milestone II approval, and Full Scale Engineering Development (FSED)
began, in February 1985.
The C-17 program had a difficult time winning congressional support in the late 1970s, and C-17 development was
delayed until initial funding was finally approved in FY1981. By 1982, DOD was concerned its airlift shortfall was too
urgent to await development of a new plane and decided to purchase aircraft readily available for production. Congress
approved funds in the FY1983 budget to purchase 50 additional C-5B cargo planes and 44 new KC-10 Extender aerial
refueling aircraft to quickly bridge the airlift gap. Because DOD wanted to develop the C-17 and buy additional C-5s,
Congress directed DOD to develop a comprehensive description of its future acquisition plans. The result was the
Airlift Master Plan of September 1983, which compared several alternatives for modernizing the airlift fleet and
concluded that the C-17 was the most cost-effective.
5 The program was granted Milestone III approval, and low-rate initial production (LRIP) began, in January 1989. The
first flight of a C-17 occurred in September 1991. Developmental test and evaluation began in September 1991 and was
completed in December 1994; initial operational test and evaluation (IOT&E) began in December 1994 and was
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Capability (IOC), with the delivery of 12 aircraft to a C-17 squadron, in January 1995. A full-rate
production contract was awarded in February 1996. The C-17 program experienced development
challenges and cost growth in its earlier years that were the subject of congressional oversight at
the time.
Procurement Quantities
Table 2 shows annual C-17 procurement quantities, along with changes over time in the planned
total number of C-17s to be procured. C-17s were procured under overlapping multiyear
procurement (MYP) arrangements in FY1997-FY2003 and FY2003-FY2007.
Table 2. C-17 Procurement Quantities
Planned total
number to be
procured
Annual
Annual
Cumulative
under that
quantity
quantity
quantity
year’s budget
Fiscal Year
requested
procured
procured
submission
1988
n/a 2 2 n/a
1989 n/a 4
6 210
1990 n/a 4
10 210
1991 n/a 0
10 210
1992 n/a 4
14 210
1993 n/a 6
20 120
1994 n/a 6
26 120
1995 n/a 6
32 40
1996 n/a 8
40 40
1997 n/a 8
48 120
1998 n/a 9
57 120
1999
13 13 70 120
2000
15 15 85 120
2001
12 12 97 134
2002 15 15 112 137
2003 12 15 127 180
2004 11 11 138 180
2005 14 15 153 180
2006 15 15 168 180
2007 12 22 190 180
2008 0 15a 205 190

(...continued)
completed in June 1995.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Planned total
number to be
procured
Annual
Annual
Cumulative
under that
quantity
quantity
quantity
year’s budget
Fiscal Year
requested
procured
procured
submission
2009 0 8b 213 190
2010 0 TBD TBD 205c
Source: Prepared by CRS based on DOD data. Figures for total number to be procured for FY1989-FY1998
taken from the DOD Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) report of May 8, 2009, for the C-17 program.
Notes: n/a = figures not available from online DOD budget data, and have been requested from the Air Force.
a. Procured in FY2008 supplemental appropriations act (H.R. 2642/P.L. 110-252 of June 30, 2008).
b. Procured in FY2009 supplemental appropriations act (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32 of June 24, 2009).
c. The FY2009 budget was submitted in May 2009, prior to the enactment of the FY2009 supplemental
appropriations act (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32 of June 24, 2009), and consequently reflects only the 2005 aircraft
procured through FY2008.
Contractors, Employment, and Production Line Shutdown
The prime contractor for the C-17 is Boeing Airlift and Tankers of Long Beach, CA. C-17s are
the only aircraft made at Boeing’s Long Beach production plant.6 A May 2009 press report states
that the C-17 program, including supplier firms, employs a total of about 30,000 people in 43
states.7
The proposed FY2010 budget states that the 205th C-17 is scheduled to be delivered to the Air
Force in September 2010. C-17s in recent years have been delivered at a rate of one or
(occasionally) two per month. On that basis, the 213th C-17 might be delivered in the first half of
2011. As the final C-17 moves down the production line, the parts of the production line behind
that aircraft will begin to shut down. Thus, if C-17 procurement ends at 213 aircraft, parts of the
C-17 production line will begin to shut down prior to the delivery of that aircraft in the first half
of 2011. Earlier parts of the production line, including suppliers who provide materials or make
long leadtime items for the C-17, would be among the first parts of the line to shut down.
An August 28, 2009, press report states:
Boeing needs the lawmakers on Capitol Hill to insert 15 C-17 Globemaster IIIs in the
Pentagon’s fiscal year 2010 defense budget in order to prevent the company from beginning
to shut down its cargo hauler production facility, according to a senior company official....
Lawmakers in the House and Senate did not insert funding in the FY-10 defense
authorization bill for more C-17s, but they did include another eight aircraft in the FY-09
warfighting supplemental, which was signed by the president earlier this year.

6 Amy Butler, “New C-17s Not Needed, DOD Analysis Shows,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 18, 2009: 3.
7 John M. Doyle, “Senators Push Panel For 15 More C-17 Cargo Aircraft,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May
13, 2009: 3.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Still, Boeing claims it needs an order of 15 airlifters in FY-10 to keep production humming
along. Steve Gress, Boeing’s vice president of Air Force systems, said the company has
looked at ways to reduce cost and improve productivity on the C-17 production line -- not
just at the assembly facility in Long Beach, CA, but throughout the entire supply chain.
“The effort there is to try and reduce the sensitivity of the cost of C-17s to the rate that your
producing” them, he said during an Aug. 21 interview in Arlington, VA. “Any change
though, you may be able to hold the cost, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you can keep
that whole team together.
“Any change in the quantity is going to probably produce some sort of impact to the
workforce,” Gress continued....
At the same time, Gress said Boeing is “aggressively” looking at potential international sales
of the Globemaster III, however there is no predictability when those orders will come.
“We have a number of different pursuits out there that take us into the international market,”
he said. “The challenge . . . is you still need an open, ongoing production line to maintain an
affordable product for many of the countries because, although they’re very interested in the
C-17, the numbers [purchased] are small.”
Earlier this month, Boeing delivered the first of two C-17s to Qatar.8
A September 4, 2009, news report states:
A lack of international C-17 cargo hauler purchases in fiscal year 2010, the same year the Air
Force is planning to end production of the aircraft, has placed defense giant Boeing in a near-
term bind, Inside the Air Force has learned.
The shortage of overseas sales in FY-10, combined with only a smattering of secured
Globemaster III foreign sales over the next five years, would leave 36 aircraft unaccounted
for, according to internal Pentagon documents reviewed by ITAF. Boeing’s C-17 economic
order quantity estimates show the need for 12 purchases in FY-11; 10 in FY-12; and eight in
FY-13 and FY-14 based on the anticipated timing of international purchases.
India is expected to purchase 10 C-17s between FY-11 and FY 14. While New Delhi could
purchase all 10 aircraft at once, the documents show it would likely purchase three planes
per year in FY-11 through FY-13 and the remaining aircraft in FY-14. Qatar, which is in the
process of receiving its first two C-17s, is expected to buy two more in FY-12, and the
United Arab Emirates is expected to buy four aircraft in FY-11.
In addition to these countries, a number of other nations are interested in the C-17, according
to Air Force and industry sources. International buys could increase even more if the Airbus
A400M cargo transport program is further delayed or canceled.
While there are nine more potential C-17 customers, they are not solid, according to industry
and military sources.

8 Marcus Weisgerber, “Boeing Claims It Needs Order For 15 C-17s to Prevent Shutdown,” Inside the Air Force,
August 28, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Boeing’s projections show its Long Beach, CA, production facility churning out C-17s
through FY-16, according to the documents. The aircraft orders would be submitted in FY-
14.
The Chicago-based defense giant claims it needs lawmakers on Capitol Hill to insert 15 Air
Force C-17s in the Pentagon’s FY-10 defense budget in order to prevent the company from
beginning to shut down its cargo hauler production facility (ITAF, Aug. 28, p5). However,
the documents show the potential for one C-17 purchase by the United Kingdom in FY-10,
meaning the company still needs a customer for 14 aircraft.
Boeing spokesman Jerry Drelling said the company has not officially projected production
through 2014 and is focusing its efforts on securing 15 C-17 buys in FY-10. The company is
expecting UAE to sign four its aircraft in the coming months.
“Certainly there is a lot of optimism that the U.K. will step up and fill its needs with
additional C-17s,” Drelling said of the potential Royal Air Force sales.
To maintain Boeing’s projected schedule detailed in the documents, a customer would need
to buy 36 more C-17s between FY-10 and FY-14. The company currently needs orders for
14 aircraft in FY-10, five in FY-11 through FY-13 and another seven in FY-14.
Based on current orders, the production line will remain open until July 2011, Drelling said..9
FY2010 Procurement Funding Request
Consistent with the Administration’s proposal to end C-17 procurement, the proposed FY2010
defense budget does not request funding for the procurement of additional C-17s, and instead
requests funding to shut down the C-17 production line. The budget requests $88.5 million in
procurement funding for the C-17 program, but the funding is for C-17 support equipment,
spares, data, and training equipment.
C-5 Modernization Program
Decisions on how many C-17s to procure can be affected by decisions on how many C-5s are
retained in the strategic airlift fleet, and by decisions on efforts to modernize C-5s.
The Air Force is implementing a two-phase program for modernizing its fleet of 111 C-5s, which
includes C-5As procured between 1969 and 1974, and C-5Bs and Cs procured in the 1980s. The
prime contractor for both phases of the modernization effort is Lockheed Martin of Marietta, GA.
A key goal of the modernization effort is to improve the C-5 fleet’s MCR.
C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP)
The first phase of the modernization effort, the C-5 Avionics Modernization Program (AMP),
began in 1999. The first flight of an AMP-modified C-5 occurred in December 2002. Operational
test and evaluation of AMP began in September 2005 and was completed in July 2006. AMP-

9 Marcus Weisgerber, “Lack of Foreign C-17 Sales Putting Boeing Production in A Bind,” Inside the Air Force,
September 4, 2009.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

modified C-5s achieved initial operational capability (IOC) in February 2007.10 Modernization of
all 111 C-5s with AMP is scheduled for completion in 2015.
C-5 Reliability and Re-engining Program (RERP)
The second phase of the C-5 modernization effort, the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-
engining Program (RERP), began in 2000. C-5s that receive RERP modification do so after
receiving AMP modification, and are redesignated C-5Ms. DOD states that:
RERP is a comprehensive modernization effort that will improve aircraft reliability,
maintainability, and availability. RERP will enable the C-5M to achieve wartime mission
requirements by increasing fleet availability (mission capable rates and departure reliability),
reducing Total Ownership Costs (TOC), and improving aircraft performance. This effort
centers on replacing the current TF-39 engine with a more reliable, Commercial Off-the-
Shelf (COTS) General Electric (GE) CF6-80C2 (F138-GE-100 military designation)
turbofan engine with increased takeoff thrust, stage-3 noise compliance, and Federal
Aviation Regulation pollution compliance. In addition to new engines/pylons, C-5 RERP
will provide upgrades to wing attachment fittings; new thrust reversers and Auxiliary Power
Units (APUs); upgrades to the electrical, hydraulic, fuel, fire suppression, landing gear, and
pressurization/air conditioning systems; and airframe structural modifications. These aircraft
improvements increase payload capability and access to Communication, Navigation,
Surveillance/Air Traffic Management (CNS/ATM) airspace. C-5 RERP also decreases
aircraft time to climb, increases engine-out climb gradient for takeoff, improves
transportation system throughput, and decreases engine removals.11
The RERP phase was originally intended for all 111 C-5s, like the AMP phase, but cost growth in
2007 that was sufficient to trigger a Nunn-McCurdy breach led to a DOD restructuring of the
RERP phase in 2008 that limited RERP modifications to 52 C-5s.12 The first flight of a RERP-
modified C-5 occurred in June 2006. Test and evaluation of RERP-modified C-5s began in June
2006 and, as of June 2008, was scheduled to be completed in April 2010. Initial operational
capability of RERP-modified C-5s is scheduled for June 2013.13
The U.S. Transportation Command testified in February 2009 that:
the C-5’s outsized and oversized cargo capability is essential to meeting our global mobility
requirements. Unfortunately, low departure reliability and mission capable rates continue to
plague the C-5 fleet. Modernizing all the C-5s with avionics upgrades is essential to allow
access to international airspace and foreign airfields. New engines and other reliability
enhancements for our C-5Bs and two C-5Cs are necessary to increase aircraft availability,

10 Department of Defense, Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), C-5 AMP, December 31, 2007, p. 6.
11 Department of Defense, Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), C-5 RERP, June 30, 2008, pp. 3-4.
12 DOD states:
After notifying Congress of a Nunn-McCurdy breach on September 27, 2007, the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (USD (AT&L)) certified a restructured C-5 Reliability Enhancement and
Reengining Program (RERP) on February 14, 2008. On March 14, 2008, the USD (AT&L) conducted a successful
MS [Milestone] C Defense Acquisition Board (DAB) [review]. The USD (AT&L) signed the Acquisition Program
Baseline (APB) reflecting the Nunn-McCurdy certification and the MS C approval on June 24, 2008.
(Department of Defense, Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), C-5 RERP, June 30, 2008, p. 4.)
13 Department of Defense, Selected Acquisition Report (SAR), C-5 RERP, June 30, 2008, p. 6.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

reduce fuel consumption and significantly improve performance throughout their projected
service life. We will modernize the C-5 fleet while closely managing the costs.14
The Air Force testified in May 2009 that:
The Avionics Modernization Program (AMP) provides modern, sustainable aircraft avionics,
allowing the aircraft to efficiently access international airspace. This will allow the Air Force
to more efficiently conduct peacetime operations and meet closure times for our Nation’s
war plans. All C-5B/Cs have entered or completed AMP modification and the first C-5A
completed modification on 16 Feb 2009 and is assigned to Lackland ARB, Texas. Currently,
the C-5 AMP effort continues at two modification centers at Dover AFB, Delaware and
Travis AFB, California and will modify all 111 C-5 aircraft by 2015.
The Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program (RERP) builds upon the C-5 AMP
modification. C-5 RERP replaces the propulsion system and improves the reliability of over
70 systems and components. Following a critical Nunn-McCurdy breach, the Defense
Acquisition Executive (DAE) certified a restructured C-5 RERP modernization of the entire
C-5B/C fleet. Since the certification, the program has completed a Milestone C Defense
Acquisition Board as well as an Interim Program Review in January 2009, earning DAE
approval to continue low rate initial production (LRIP).
The restructured program successfully completed developmental test and evaluation, meeting
or exceeding all of its KPPs. As part of this testing, the fully modernized aircraft, known as
the C-5M, accomplished a non-stop flight from Travis AFB, California to Mildenhall AB,
United Kingdom via the polar route, without aerial refueling. The flight began at a gross
weight of 807,000 pounds, well above the normal maximum of 769,000 pounds, established
a continuous climb to an initial altitude of 33,000 feet, carried 120,000 pounds of cargo, and
flew 4,770 nautical miles in approximately 11 hours. This is a vast improvement over legacy
C-5A/B fleets, which would require aerial refueling to carry the same amount of cargo over
the same distance.
The Air Force delivered the first C-5M to an operational unit on 9 February 2009, piloted by
General Arthur Lichte (Commander, Air Mobility Command) with former Secretary John
Young (USD (AT&L)) and former Secretary Sue Payton (Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force for Acquisition) as proud passengers. The production program is delivering on cost
and on schedule. These efforts will fully modernize 52 C-5s that meet the warfighters’
requirements.15
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in November 2008 that:
The Air Force has cut the number of C-5s it plans to fully modernize by more than half
because of substantial cost increases in the modernization effort.... All 111 C-5s will receive
the avionics upgrade, while only 52 will receive the reliability enhancement and reengining
upgrade. This mix may change again, based on the results of DOD’s new mobility

14 Statement of General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF Commander, United States Transportation Command, Before the
House Armed Services Air & Land Forces and Seapower & Expeditionary Forces Subcommittees [Hearing] On the
State of the Command, February 25, 2009, p. 7.
15 Department of the Air Force, Presentation to the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Air and Land
Forces, United States House of Representatives, Combined Statement of: Lieutenant General Daniel J. Darnell, Air
Force Deputy Chief Of Staff For Air, Space and Information Operations, Plans And Requirements (AF/A3/5)
Lieutenant General Mark D. Shackelford, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition (SAF/AQ) Lieutenant General Raymond E. Johns, Jr., Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans
And Programs (AF/A8), May 20, 2009, pp. 18-19.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

capabilities studies, possible C-5 retirements, and a revised cost estimate for C-5
modernization....
The costs to modernize C-5 aircraft have not been fully identified and are likely to increase.
While the Air Force now estimates it will spend $9.1 billion to modernize C-5s, the costs
may be underestimated because DOD did not apply risk or uncertainty analysis to its
reliability enhancement and reengining program major cost drivers. Moreover, that particular
effort is underfunded by almost $300 million and costs may escalate if the Air Force has to
stretch the program schedule to stay within funding targets. At the same time, the Air Force
has not fully priced or budgeted for a new C-5 upgrade program it plans to begin in fiscal
year 2010 to address current avionics deficiencies and to add new capabilities. Some future
costs, however, may be avoided should the Air Force justify retirement of some older C-5s
and forego planned modifications.16
Requirements for Strategic Airlift
DOD’s requirements for airlift capability have evolved over the years. The discussion below
summarizes developments in the situation since 2005.

16 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and
Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix, GAO-09-50, November 2008, p. 3. The
report also stated on page 6 that:
Together, [the AMP and RERP] upgrades were expected to improve the fleet’s mission capable rate to at least 75
percent, thereby increasing payload capability and transportation throughput, and to reduce total ownership costs
over the life cycle by about $14 billion in 2008 dollars.
DOD initially expected to spend about $12 billion on the C-5 AMP and RERP efforts. However, both
modernization efforts experienced cost problems. AMP development costs increased by approximately 20 percent
and would have been higher had the Air Force not reduced requirements and deferred some development activities
to other programs. Officials waived 14 operational requirements and deferred the correction of 250 deficiencies
identified during testing, many of which will be addressed and funded in RERP or future efforts. In 2007, DOD
reported that RERP average procurement unit costs grew more than 50 percent from the original baseline estimate.
The report also stated on pages 8-9 that:
C-5 modernization cost increases caused DOD to change its approach for meeting its strategic airlift requirements.
DOD had planned to meet the requirements with 112 fully modernized C-5s—i.e., those receiving both the AMP
and RERP modifications—and 180 C-17 aircraft. The cost for the C-5 modernization efforts was estimated to be
approximately $12 billion—about $900 million for the AMP program and $11.1 billion for the RERP program.
However, just prior to the RERP production decision in February 2007, the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin,
indicated that RERP costs related to labor and supplier parts had significantly increased, prompting new cost
estimates. The Air Force’s estimate of $17.5 billion was $4.2 billion more than Lockheed Martin’s estimate of
$13.3 billion at that time. The new estimate increased projected average procurement unit costs by more than 50
percent compared to the original baseline and triggered a statutory requirement for review and certification of the
program.
Following notification to Congress of the cost increase, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics requested that the CAIG estimate the cost of various options for DOD to meet its
strategic airlift mission. The CAIG analyzed 14 options covering a range of scenarios for the RERP program in
three broad categories: modifying all C-5 aircraft, partially modifying the C-5 fleet, and canceling the C-5 RERP
program. Each option also assumed that the department would have at least 203 C-17 aircraft, 14 more than the
program planned to acquire at that time. The CAIG estimated the cost of providing the RERP modification to all
111 aircraft to be $15.4 billion, halfway between the contractor’s and the Air Force’s estimates. Based on this
analysis, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics concluded that the cost to
RERP all C-5 aircraft was unaffordable and opted to limit full modification to 52 aircraft—47 C-5 Bs, both C-5
Cs, and 3 system development and demonstration aircraft. While the Air Force is expected to spend $3.4 billion
less under the restructured program, ultimately less than one-half of the 111 aircraft will be modernized and at a
much higher unit cost than originally estimated....
Congressional Research Service
9

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Mobility Capabilities Study 2005 (MCS-05)
DOD’s Mobility Requirements Study of 2005 (MCS-05) identified a requirement for between 292
and 383 strategic airlift aircraft. The bottom end of this range coincided with the Air Force’s
program of record at the time, which included a force of 292 aircraft—180 C-17s and 112 fully
modernized C-5s.17 MCS-05 recommended a strategic airlift force structure of 292 aircraft, which
the study said would meet national military strategy requirements with “acceptable risk.”18 The
2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) subsequently stated a DOD goal of maintaining 292
strategic airlifters, including 180 C-17s and 112 fully modernized C-5s.19
The unclassified executive summary of MCS-05 noted that unlike past mobility studies, MCS-05
did not recommend an airlift requirement expressed in millions of ton-miles per day (MTM/D) of
airlift capacity.20
A previous DOD study of strategic airlift requirements, called the Mobility Requirements Study
2005 (MRS-05), was completed in 2000. The study established a requirement of 54.5 MTM/D.21
Some observers expected that MCS-05 would identify a new requirement closer to 60 MTM/D,
while others speculated that MCS-05 would not increase the 54.5 MTM/D requirement because
of DOD concerns about being able to afford a larger airlift fleet.22
In September 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticized the methodology
that was being used for MCS-05.23 A more detailed GAO criticism followed in September 2006,
as MCS-05 was nearing completion.24 Other observers criticized MCS-05 for not adequately
addressing DOD intra-theater airlift needs, and for focusing on near-term capabilities rather than
taking a longer view.25 The criticism regarding intra-theater airlift needs was particularly germane
because the C-17 can be used in for intra-theater airlift operations.
In September 2006, it was reported that the Air Force’s Air Mobility Command was again
studying DOD airlift needs. Some observers might have interpreted the Air Force’s initiation of
another airlift study so soon after the completion of MCS-05 as tacit acknowledgment of flaws in
the MCS and an attempt to ameliorate them.26

17 One C-5 was destroyed in a crash on April 3, 2006, leaving 111 in the inventory.
18 “Headquarters Air Mobility Command White Paper, KC-X: The Next Mobility Platform, The Need For A Flexible
Tanker,” p. 4.
19 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and
Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix, GAO-09-50, November 2008, p. 1.
20 A ton-mile is one ton of cargo transported one mile. Transporting 50 tons (112,000 pounds) of cargo over a distance
of 2,000 miles equates to 100,000 ton miles.
21 Marc Selinger, “DoD Launching New Review of Transportation Needs,” Aerospace Daily, March 11, 2004.
22 John Tirpak, “Air Mobility in the Doldrums,” Air Force Magazine, vol. 88, issue 8, August 2005, available online at
http://www.afa.org/magazine/aug2005/0805mobility.html.
23 Government Accountability Office, Defense Transportation: Opportunities Exist to Enhance the Credibility of the
Current and Future Mobility Capabilities Studies, GAO-05-659R, September, 2005.
24 Government Accountability Office, Defense Transportation: Study Limitations Raise Questions About the Adequacy
and Completeness of the Mobility Capabilities Study and Report, GAO-06-938, September 2006.
25 John T. Bennett, “Influential DoD Mobility Study’s Focus on Intratheater Needs Questioned,” Inside the Air Force,
April 7, 2006.
26 Michael Fabey, “AF Formulating Mobility Plan,” Aerospace Daily, September 28, 2006.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Congressionally Mandated Study of 2007
To provide Congress with greater clarity into airlift requirements, Section 1034 of the FY2007
Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 October 17, 2006) required DOD to submit a
report to Congress defining airlift requirements in terms of million-ton-miles per day. DOD
delivered the report in classified form to the congressional defense committees on February 27,
2007.
Evolution in Planned Mix of Airlift Aircraft, 2005-2008
As shown in Table 3, which is taken from a November 2008 GAO report, the planned mix of C-
17s and C-5s evolved between 2005 and 2008 due to continued procurement of C-17s, the
restructuring of the C-5 modernization program to limit the RERP phase to 52 aircraft, and the
crash in 2006 of one C-5 (which reduced the C-5 inventory from 112 to 111).
Table 3. Planned Mix of Strategic Airlift Aircraft, 2005-2008
September
Aircraft type
December 2005
July 2007
February 2008
2008
C-17s 180
190
190
205
C-5s (fully modernized)
112
112
52
52
C-5s (AMP modernization only)
0
0
59
59
Estimated MTM/D
33.09
33.95
33.05
34.80
Source: Information taken from Table 2 (page 9) of Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:]
Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix,
GAO-09-50, November 2008. GAO states that Table 2 is based on GAO analysis of DOD data.
Notes: Fully modernized C-5s are those that have received both AMP and RERP.
Congressionally Mandated IDA Study of 2009
Section 1046 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28,
2008) requires the Secretary of Defense “to conduct a requirements-based study on alternatives
for the proper size and mix of fixed-wing intratheater and intertheater airlift assets to meet the
National Military Strategy for each of the following timeframes: fiscal year 2012, 2018, and
2024.” The study is being conducted by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), which is to
submit the study to the congressional defense committees. For the full text of Section 1046, see
the Appendix.
Mobility Capabilities and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16)
The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the U.S. Transportation Command are
currently examining future requirements for airlift capability in a study called Mobility Capability
and Requirements Study 2016 (MCRS-16), which is expected to be completed by the end of
2009.27 The U.S. Transportation Command testified in February 2009 that MCRS-16 and the

27 Department of the Air Force, Presentation to the House Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Air and Land
Forces, United States House of Representatives, Combined Statement of: Lieutenant General Daniel J. Darnell, Air
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

congressionally mandated IDA study discussed in the previous paragraph “will aid decision
makers in determining the mobility requirements necessary to defend the homeland, prevail in the
war on terror, conduct irregular warfare and win conventional campaigns in the 2016
timeframe.”28
GAO reported in November 2008 that
According to Air Force officials, [MCRS-16] will take into account a variety of changes that
have occurred since the last mobility study was completed in 2005, including the following:
• Addition of over 92,000 Marines and Army soldiers and their equipment that will need to
be transported to locations across the United States and around the world.
• Establishment of a new African Command that will require the movement of troops and
equipment to a variety of locations around the second largest continent in the world.
• Introduction of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, which are being used in Iraq to
provide enhanced protection for U.S. troops.
• Increase in weight of the Army’s Future Combat System vehicles, which makes it no longer
possible to transport some vehicles with C-130 aircraft (DOD’s primary tactical airlifter).
The GAO report also stated:
Some expect the [congressionally mandated IDA study and MCRS-16] will identify
increased demands on airlift, particularly for the C-17 since it can perform both a strategic
and tactical role. As Army equipment becomes heavier and/or bulkier, the C-17 may be the
only aircraft capable of delivering major weapon systems to the front lines and to more
austere bases in the theater of combat. The results of both studies, if done accurately and
comprehensively, should provide the analytical foundation for the future airlift force
structure.29
A May 2009 press report stated:
Early indications from the Pentagon’s Mobility Capabilities Requirements Study suggest no
need for additional strategic airlift beyond the funded procurements of re-engined C-5s and
205 C-17s already planned, says U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz.
The 2005 Mobility Capabilities Study had suggested a requirement of roughly 300 strategic
airlifters, and Schwartz says he sees “no major shift in the demand signal.” The 2005 study,
however, was discredited in much of Washington as a budget-driven formality under former
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and a new study has been eagerly awaited.

(...continued)
Force Deputy Chief Of Staff For Air, Space and Information Operations, Plans And Requirements (AF/A3/5)
Lieutenant General Mark D. Shackelford, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for
Acquisition (SAF/AQ) Lieutenant General Raymond E. Johns, Jr., Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans
And Programs (AF/A8), May 20, 2009, p. 19.
28 28 Statement of General Duncan J. McNabb, USAF Commander, United States Transportation Command, Before the
House Armed Services Air & Land Forces and Seapower & Expeditionary Forces Subcommittees [Hearing] On the
State of the Command, February 25, 2009, p. 6.
29 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and
Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix, GAO-09-50, November 2008, p. 10.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

The new study is now under way, although official results are not expected until the fall.
Unlike previous reviews, this study will take into account the requirements associated with
increases in Army and Marine Corps end-strength, as well as the new U.S. Africa Command.
Even if more strategic airlift is ultimately needed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley says
an independent study30 presents several options before considering a buy of additional C-17s,
the only aircraft made at Boeing’s Long Beach, Calif., plant.
These include leasing additional Civil Reserve Air Fleet capacity, as well as re-engining all
111 C-5s.31
Prior-Year Legislation Relating to Airlift Force Structure
Section 132 of FY2004 Defense Authorization Act
Section 132 of the FY2004 defense authorization act (H.R. 1588/P.L. 108-136 of November 24,
2003) prohibits the Secretary of the Air Force from proceeding with a decision to retire C-5As
from the active inventory of the Air Force in any number that would reduce the total number of
C-5As in the active inventory below 112 (effectively now 111, following the crash in 2006 of a C-
5 in 2006) until the Air Force has modified a C-5A aircraft to RERP configuration and DOD’s
Director of Operational Test and Evaluation conducts an operational evaluation of that aircraft
and provides to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees an
operational assessment.
Section 132 of FY2006 Defense Authorization Act
Section 132 of the FY2007 defense authorization act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of October 17,
2006) amended 10 USC 8062 to create a new subsection (g)(1) stating that, effective October 1,
2008, the Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain a total aircraft inventory of strategic airlift
aircraft of not less than 299 aircraft. The provision defines strategic airlift aircraft as those with a
cargo capacity of at least 150,000 pounds and a capability to transport outsized cargo over an
unrefueled range of at least 2,400 nautical miles. The aircraft types that meet this definition are
the C-5 and C-17.
Issues for Congress
Introduction
The primary issue for Congress in FY2010 is whether to procure additional C-17s. An additional
issue is whether to pass additional legislation relating to the airlift aircraft force structure.

30 This may be a reference to the congressionally mandated IDA study.
31 Amy Butler, “New C-17s Not Needed, DOD Analysis Shows,” Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, May 18, 2009: 3.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

The Administration argues that enough C-17s have now been procured to meet future operational
needs. Supporters of procuring additional C-17s in FY2010 believe additional will be needed to
meet future operational needs.
Factors to Consider
In considering whether to procure additional C-17s in FY2010, Congress may consider a number
of factors, including the total requirement for airlift capability and the cost-effectiveness of C-5
modernization compared to procuring additional C-17s. Additional factors to consider are
constraints on total defense spending and the potential affect that procuring additional C-17s may
have on reducing funding for other defense programs.
Requirements for Airlift Capability
Observers are now awaiting the results of the two current studies on the total requirement for
airlift capability—the congressionally mandated IDA study and MCRS-16. GAO reported in
November 2008 that:
We previously reported on shortcomings in the Institute for Defense Analysis’ study plan
that could make it difficult for decision makers to know how much strategic airlift is needed.
For example, the study plan did not provide details on assumptions and the measures of
effectiveness, or metrics, the command officials would be using in their evaluation.
Measures of effectiveness are considered to be especially important when evaluating
alternatives, such as comparing the results of two analyses that measure different airlift force
mixes. We recommended in April 2008 that DOD take action to ensure that the final study
plan included sufficient details to address all the elements specified in the law and needed to
inform decision makers on airlift issues.32 DOD concurred with our recommendation.
We also identified shortcomings in DOD’s 2005 mobility capabilities study approach that, if
not addressed, could be repeated again in the current study. Unlike prior studies, the 2005
study did not recommend a specific airlift requirement expressed in million ton-miles per
day—a common metric integral to prior capability studies that defines and quantifies airlift
requirements as a basis for computing the size and optimal mix of airlift forces. Instead,
DOD officials stated that it expressed its airlift requirement in terms of specific numbers and
types of aircraft needed to meet the national defense strategy to take into account real-world
operating parameters that may cause aircraft payloads to vary significantly from standard
planning factors. Later, in response to congressional direction, DOD translated the
requirements into a million ton-mile requirement. We also found the study did not identify
the operational impact of increased or decreased strategic airlift on achieving warfighting
objectives that would be associated with different mixes of C-5 and C-17 aircraft. As a
result, we could not determine how the study concluded that the mix of C-5s and C-17s at
that time was adequate for meeting mobility requirements and for supporting strategic airlift
portfolio investment decisions. In 2006, we recommended that DOD include mobility
metrics, along with warfighting metrics to determine air superiority, when completing future
mobility capabilities studies. DOD concurred with this recommendation.33

32 The passage at this point contains a footnote citing the following GAO report: Government Accountability Office,
Defense Transportation[:] DOD Should Ensure that the Final Size and Mix of Airlift Force Study Plan Includes
Sufficient Detail to Meet the Terms of the Law and Inform Decision Makers, GAO-08-704R, April 28, 2008.
33 The passage at this point contains a footnote citing the following GAO report: Government Accountability Office,
Defense Transportation: Study Limitations Raise Questions about the Adequacy and Completeness of the Mobility
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Although DOD concurred with the recommendation, a Transportation Command official
stated that a decision has not yet been made on what specific metrics will be used to
determine the number and mix of strategic airlifters in the current mobility capabilities study.
At the time of this writing, the study plan had not been finalized and it is unclear whether a
million ton-miles metric will be used, though it is being considered. DOD often uses the
million ton-mile metric as an easy way to compare the capacity of different fleet mixes. For
example, according to a DOD official, since C-130s, C-130Js, C-17s, C-5As, C-5Bs, and C-
5Ms all have different capabilities when it comes to payload and range, it is difficult to
compare different mixes of them without using this metric.34
The report also stated:
The C-5 and C-17 provide complementary capabilities. However, DOD continues to struggle
with identifying the specific quantities and determining the optimal mix of aircraft needed.
Clarity is needed before committing additional billions of dollars to C-5 modernization
programs, establishing C-5 retirement schedules, and/or acquiring additional C-17 aircraft.
Careful planning is also important to avoid the costs of shutting down the C-17 line
prematurely and later deciding to restart the production. The new mobility studies, if done
correctly, could bring clarity to strategic airlift capabilities needed to support the future force
and changed threats, as well as inform future tactical airlift requirements because of the C-
17’s dual role. Important metrics left out of the 2005 capabilities study—such as specific
ton-mile mobility requirements and relative reliability rates—are considered critical factors
in quantifying and analyzing cost-effective force mixes. DOD concurred with our prior
recommendation to use mobility metrics to inform future mobility capabilities studies.
However, at this writing, it is unclear whether DOD will use a million ton-mile metric in its
current analysis to determine the cost-effective mix of aircraft and guide important
investment decisions related to the expenditure of billions of dollars. Until comprehensive
requirements—supported by appropriate, quantifiable metrics—and the full costs for
alternate courses of action are identified, DOD decision making on the future size and mix of
strategic airlift is hampered, thus increasing the risk of incurring unnecessary costs and
establishing a less than optimal mix of strategic and tactical airlift forces.35
Cost-Effectiveness of C-5 Modernization Compared to C-17 Procurement
Regarding the cost effectiveness of C-5 modernization compared to procuring new C-17s, GAO
reported in November 2008 that:
if the cost for C-5 modernization continues to increase, Air Force officials may have to
reconsider the mix within its airlift portfolio or request additional funding. Additional
investments in C-17 aircraft may become more attractive. Currently, a new C-17 would cost
about $276 million compared to $132 million to fully modernize a C-5. Each new C-17
potentially adds 100 percent of its cargo capacity toward meeting the total airlift
requirement. Because the C-5s are already part of the operational force, each aircraft’s
current capacity is already counted toward the total requirement. Consequently, according to
DOD data, the C-5 modernization programs only provide a marginal increase of 14 percent

(...continued)
Capability Study and Report, GAO-06-938, September 2006.
34 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and
Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix, GAO-09-50, November 2008, pp. 10-11.
35 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and
Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix, GAO-09-50, November 2008, pp. 19-20.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

in capability over nonmodernized aircraft. Using DOD’s million ton-mile per day planning
factors, we, working in collaboration with DOD, calculated that DOD would need to fully
modernize 7 C-5s to attain the equivalent capability achieved from acquiring 1 additional C-
17 and the costs would be over 3 times more (see table 3).
Table 4. [Table 3 in GAO report] Comparison of a Modernized C-5 and C-17
Equivalent Aircraft Capabilities
Aircraft needed to
Total Cost of
provide equivalent
equivalent
Unit
costa
capabilities
capability
C-5 fully
$ 132 million
7
$924 million
modernized
C-17
new $276
million 1 $276
million
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
a. Unit costs reflect procurement costs only. Data are rounded for presentation purposes.
The analysis does not include the life-cycle costs of adding more C-17s to DOD’s airlift
portfolio. However, previous DOD analysis indicated that the life-cycle costs would be
approximately the same if DOD replaced 30 C-5s with 30 C-17s.
The Air Force has not fully identified the funding needed to modernize the C-5 aircraft, and
costs are likely to increase. The current cost estimate is $9.1 billion to AMP the entire fleet
of 111 aircraft and RERP 52 aircraft. However, we believe this is understated. The current
budget does not fully fund the revised RERP program and the CAIG’s [the DOD Cost
Analysis Improvement Group’s] cost estimate does not adequately address risk and
uncertainty. Further, the cost estimate does not include the costs for a new modernization
upgrade program slated to begin in fiscal year 2010 that would fix AMP deficiencies and add
new capabilities. Alternatively, some future modification costs may be avoided should the
Air Force justify retirement of some older C-5s.
The current budget does not sufficiently fund the revised RERP program. According to the
CAIG’s analysis, the C-5 RERP is underfunded by about $294 million across the Future
Years Defense Plan for fiscal years 2009- 2013. Approximately $250 million less is needed
in fiscal years 2009 through 2011, and $544 million more is needed in fiscal years 2012 and
2013. According to program officials, the Air Force is committed to fully funding the CAIG
RERP cost estimate in the fiscal year 2010 President’s budget yet to be submitted. However,
program officials could not identify sources for the additional funding needed in fiscal years
2012 and 2013....
While our review of the CAIG’s cost-estimating methodology found it generally well
documented, comprehensive, and accurate, we found some weaknesses that impair the
credibility and overall reliability of the C-5 cost estimate. Specifically, the CAIG did not take
risk or uncertainty into account for some major cost drivers, in particular the propulsion
system and labor. Because cost estimates predict future program costs, uncertainty is always
associated with them. For example, there is always a chance that the actual cost will differ
from the estimate because of a lack of knowledge about the future as well as errors resulting
from historical data inconsistencies, assumptions, cost-estimating equations, and factors that
are typically used to develop an estimate. Quantifying that risk and uncertainty is considered
to be a cost estimating best practice because it captures the cumulative effect of risks and
recognizes the potential for error.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

In a memo documenting its independent cost estimate, the CAIG stated that the biggest risk
to the cost estimate was the purchase agreement between Lockheed Martin and General
Electric for the propulsion system that is conditioned on specific annual procurement
quantities. The CAIG had estimated that the Air Force could save 18 percent by meeting the
quantity and schedule identified in the revised RERP. However, CAIG officials stated that if
the budget is not sufficient to meet these agreed-to quantities, then anticipated price breaks
would not occur, resulting in increased costs of the C-5 RERP to the government. Despite
this significant risk, the CAIG did not perform a risk/uncertainty analysis to determine the
extent to which costs would increase should the buy quantity be cut. CAIG officials stated
that they believe propulsion system procurement risk has been mitigated because they have
identified the quantities necessary to meet the conditions of the purchase agreement and the
Air Force plans to fully fund to this estimate. Despite these assurances, however, we have
found that DOD often changes procurement quantities and there is a risk that quantities for
the C-5 RERP program may change. For example, DOD’s Selected Acquisition Report
summary shows that of the 56 programs currently in production, 38 (or 68 percent), have
experienced a quantity change since their production decisions.
In addition, the CAIG did not quantify or address uncertainty with its $2.1 billion labor cost
estimate associated with the installation of the RERP on C-5 production aircraft. The RERP
program experienced a 29-month break in production between the last system development
and demonstration unit and the first production unit. As such, the CAIG had to estimate
inefficiencies due to loss of learning and how it would affect the costs of future production.
The CAIG’s assumptions differed from those used by the Air Force and Lockheed Martin,
which caused the CAIG estimate to be about $200 million more than Lockheed Martin’s
estimate and about $400 million less than the Air Force’s labor estimate. As a result of the
weaknesses discussed above, the Air Force’s basis for making strategic airlift portfolio
investment decisions is impaired, and the RERP program is at increased risk of experiencing
cost overruns.
Additional modernization efforts not yet budgeted will add to future C-5 costs. Air Force
officials stated that a new C-5 upgrade program is slated to begin in fiscal year 2010. The
initial funding requirement is $65 million—$40 million in research, development, test, and
evaluation funds and $25 million in procurement funds—to migrate all C-5s toward a
standard software configuration, based on changes made in the AMP and RERP programs.
Requirements previous waived on the AMP may also be addressed in the initial block of this
program. Additional funding will be requested in 2012 and beyond to provide additional
capabilities. According to a program official, the total requirements and funding needs for
this modernization program have not been finalized. However, at this time it is not expected
to be as costly as the C-5 AMP or RERP.
The eventual costs for modernizing C-5 aircraft hinge upon the decisions DOD officials
make about the number and mix of strategic airlifters DOD needs in the future. If additional
C-5 capability is needed, more C-5 aircraft may need to receive the RERP modification and
costs will increase. On the other hand, if decision makers believe additional C-17 capability
is needed in lieu of the C-5, the Air Force may be able to reduce the number of aircraft that
need the AMP modification and additional modifications slated to begin in fiscal year
2010.36

36 Government Accountability Office, Defense Acquisitions[:] Timely and Accurate Estimates of Costs and
Requirements Are Needed to Define Optimal Future Strategic Airlift Mix, GAO-09-50, November 2008, pp. 12-16.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Legislative Activity in 2009
FY2010 Defense Authorization Bill (H.R. 2647/S. 1390)
House
The House Armed Services Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-166 of June 18, 2009) on H.R.
2647, recommends no funding for the procurement of additional C-17s in FY2010, and instead
recommends approving the Administration’s request for $88.5 million in procurement funding for
other C-17 program expenses. (Page 93)
Section 134 of H.R. 2647 would require the Secretary of the Air Force, in coordination with the
Director of the Air National Guard, to submit to the congressional defense committees, at least
120 days before a C-5 is retired, a report on the proposed force structure and basing of C-5 and C-
17 aircraft. The text of Section 134 is as follows:
SEC. 134. REPORTS ON STRATEGIC AIRLIFT AIRCRAFT.
At least 120 days before the date on which a C-5 aircraft is retired, the Secretary of the Air
Force, in coordination with the Director of the Air National Guard, shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report on the proposed force structure and basing of
strategic airlift aircraft (as defined in section 8062(g)(2) of title 10, United States Code).
Each report shall include the following:
(1) A list of each aircraft in the inventory of strategic airlift aircraft, including for each such
aircraft—
(A) the type;
(B) the variant; and
(C) the military installation where such aircraft is based.
(2) A list of each strategic airlift aircraft proposed for retirement, including for each such
aircraft—
(A) the type;
(B) the variant; and
(C) the military installation where such aircraft is based.
(3) A list of each unit affected by a proposed retirement listed under paragraph (2) and how
such unit is affected.
(4) For each military installation listed under paragraph (2)(C), any changes to the mission of
the installation as a result of a proposed retirement.
(5) Any anticipated reductions in manpower as a result of a proposed retirement listed under
paragraph (2).
Congressional Research Service
18

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

(6) Any anticipated increases in manpower or military construction at a military installation
as a result of an increase in force structure related to a proposed retirement listed under
paragraph (2).
Section 135 of H.R. 2647 would amend 10 USC 8062(g)(1)—the subsection of 10 USC 8062 that
was created by Section 132 of the FY2007 defense authorization act (H.R. 5122/P.L. 109-364 of
October 17, 2006)—to state that, effective October 1, 2009 (rather than October 1, 2008), the
Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain a total strategic airlift aircraft (i.e., C-5 and C-17)
inventory of not less than 316 (rather than 299) aircraft. Assuming the retention of the current
force of 111 C-5s, this provision would appear to support a C-17 force of 205 C-7s—the number
procured through FY2008.
The committee’s report states:
Strategic airlift force structure
The committee notes that the current Mobility Capabilities Study 2005 (MCS–05) identified
a range of 292–383 strategic airlift aircraft to meet global mobility requirements with
moderate risk. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces and the
Subcommittee on Seapower and Expeditionary Forces on February 25, 2009, the commander
of the United States Transportation Command testified that a force structure of 205 C–17s,
52 [fully modernized] C–5Ms, and 59 C–5As modified with the avionics modernization
program [AMP], a total of 316 strategic airlift aircraft, meets the requirement to transport
33.95 million ton-miles per day. Additionally, the committee notes that the previous
commander of the United States Transportation Command and now current Air Force Chief
of Staff, in his letter to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services on
November 6, 2007, also identified 316 strategic airlift aircraft as the ‘‘sweet spot’’ to meet
global mobility requirements.
The committee further notes that MCS–05 did not consider the combined Army and Marine
Corps increase of 92,000 soldiers and Marines, a potential increase in strategic airlift
necessary to transport the Army’s future combat systems, or the prospect that future strategic
mobility aircraft would be utilized to conduct intra-theater airlift missions to move outsized
and oversized equipment as they are now being used in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and
believes that the results of MCRS–16 should more accurately identify the inventory of
strategic airlift aircraft necessary to meet future strategic airlift mobility requirements.
Accordingly, the committee believes that the long-term strategic airlift force structure
inventory required to meet global mobility requirements may be subject to future adjustment
based on the results of the Mobility Capability Requirement Study 2016 (MCRS–16)
scheduled for completion in December 2009, and encourages a continued dialogue between
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, senior uniformed military officials, and the
congressional defense committees. The committee also recommends a provision elsewhere in
this title [Section 135] that would amend subsection (g)(1) of section 8062, United States
Code, by striking ‘‘299’’ and inserting ‘‘316.’’ (Pages 101-102)
Senate
Division D of S. 1390 as reported by the Senate Armed Services Committee (S.Rept. 111-35 of
July 2, 2009) presents the detailed line-item funding tables that in previous years have been
included in the Senate Armed Services Committee’s report on the defense authorization bill.
Division D recommends no funding for the procurement of additional C-17s in FY2010, and
Congressional Research Service
19

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

instead recommends approving the Administration’s request for $88.5 million in procurement
funding for other C-17 program expenses. (Page 630 of the printed bill.)
Section 121 of S. 1390 would prohibit the Secretary of the Air Force from proceeding with a
decision to retire C-5As until certain conditions are met, and require the Secretary of the Air
Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees on the issue of C-5 retirement.
The text of Section 121 is as follows:
SEC. 121. LIMITATION ON RETIREMENT OF C-5 AIRCRAFT.
(a) Limitation- The Secretary of the Air Force may not proceed with a decision to retire C-
5A aircraft from the active inventory of the Air Force in any number that would reduce the
total number of such aircraft in the active inventory below 111 until—
(1) the Air Force has modified a C-5A aircraft to the configuration referred to as the
Reliability Enhancement and Reengining Program (RERP) configuration, as planned under
the C-5 System Development and Demonstration program as of May 1, 2003; and
(2) the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation of the Department of Defense—
(A) conducts an operational evaluation of that aircraft, as so modified; and
(B) provides to the Secretary of Defense and the congressional defense committees an
operational assessment.
(b) Operational Evaluation- An operational evaluation for purposes of paragraph (2)(A) of
subsection (a) is an evaluation, conducted during operational testing and evaluation of the
aircraft, as so modified, of the performance of the aircraft with respect to reliability,
maintainability, and availability and with respect to critical operational issues.
(c) Operational Assessment- An operational assessment for purposes of paragraph (2)(B) of
subsection (a) is an operational assessment of the program to modify C-5A aircraft to the
configuration referred to in subsection (a)(1) regarding both overall suitability and
deficiencies of the program to improve performance of the C-5A aircraft relative to
requirements and specifications for reliability, maintainability, and availability of that
aircraft as in effect on May 1, 2003.
(d) Additional Limitations on Retirement of Aircraft- The Secretary of the Air Force may not
retire C-5 aircraft from the active inventory as of the date of this Act until the later of the
following:
(1) The date that is 150 days after the date on which the Director of Operational Test and
Evaluation submits the report referred to in subsection (a)(2)(B).
(2) The date that is 120 days after the date on which the Secretary submits the report required
under subsection (e).
(3) The date that is 30 days after the date on which the Secretary certifies to the
congressional defense committees that—
(A) the retirement of such aircraft will not increase the operational risk of meeting the
National Defense Strategy; and
Congressional Research Service
20

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

(B) the retirement of such aircraft will not reduce the total strategic airlift force structure
below 324 strategic airlift aircraft.
(e) Report on Retirement of Aircraft- The Secretary of the Air Force shall submit to the
congressional defense committees a report setting forth the following:
(1) The rationale for the retirement of existing C-5 aircraft and a cost/benefit analysis of
alternative strategic airlift force structures, including the force structure that would result
from the retirement of such aircraft.
(2) An assessment of the costs and benefits of applying the Reliability Enhancement and Re-
engining Program (RERP) modification to the entire the C-5A aircraft fleet.
(3) An assessment of the implications for the Air Force, the Air National Guard, and the Air
Force Reserve of operating a mix of C-5A aircraft and C-5M aircraft.
(4) An assessment of the costs and benefits of increasing the number of C-5 aircraft in Back-
up Aircraft Inventory (BAI) status as a hedge against future requirements of such aircraft.
(5) An assessment of the costs, benefits, and implications of transferring C-5 aircraft to
United States flag carriers operating in the Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) program or to
coalition partners in lieu of the retirement of such aircraft.
(6) Such other matters relating to the retirement of C-5 aircraft as the Secretary considers
appropriate.
(f) Maintenance of Aircraft Upon Retirement- The Secretary of the Air Force shall maintain
any C-5 aircraft retired after the date of the enactment of this Act in Type 1000 storage until
opportunities for the transfer of such aircraft as described in subsection (e)(5) have been fully
exhausted.
FY2009 DOD Appropriations Bill (H.R. 3326)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-230 of July 24, 2009) on H.R.
3326, recommended $762.6 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program, including
$674.1 million for the procurement of three C-17s. (Page 187)
The report recommends a $152.6-million reduction in the amount of procurement funding
requested for the modification of in-service C-17s, mostly for “Excess Install[ation] funding” for
certain pieces of equipment, and a $91.4-million reduction (a 100% reduction) in the amount of
procurement funding requested for C-17 post-production support for “Program Reduction.”
(Pages 188 and 189).
The paragraph in the bill that makes funding available for the procurement of Air Force aircraft
states that the funds are made available, “Provided, That no funds provided in this Act for the
procurement or modernization of C-17 aircraft may be obligated until all C-17 contracts funded
with prior year `Aircraft Procurement, Air Force' appropriated funds are definitized.”
Congressional Research Service
21

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

The report recommends approving the requests in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
part of the budget for $132.3 million in procurement funding for the modification of in-service C-
17s37 and for $11 million in procurement funding for C-17 post-production support. (Page 358)
The committee’s report states:
C–17 AIRCRAFT
The C–17 Globemaster III aircraft has been the supply and logistics workhorse of the
ongoing overseas conflicts. This platform has been responsible for the airlift of more cargo
and personnel than any other platform. In recognition of the platforms contributions to the
Nation’s security, the Committee provides an additional $674,100,000 for the procurement
of three C–17 aircraft. The Committee recognizes that this is well below the minimum
sustaining rate required for the production line. In an effort to avoid the extremely high costs
associated with small production lots, the Committee’s intent is that these aircraft be
absorbed into the fiscal year 2009 production run that was funded from the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2009, to create a full production run funded over a two year period. The
Committee intends that the pricing for these aircraft be consistent with the 2009 aircraft,
using methods such as a fixed price option to the fiscal year 2009 production contract. (Page
191)
The report also states:
UNDEFINITIZED CONTRACT ACTIONS
The Committee has become aware of the excessive use of undefinitized contract actions
(UCA’s) by the Air Force. Based on information obtained by the Committee, it is apparent
that the Air Force has not provided the proper oversight of contracting activities within
various programs. Specifically, the C–17 aircraft program has billions of dollars in
undefinitized contracts. The Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR) very clearly
stipulate in subpart 217.74 that UCA’s are to be used as the exception not as the rule for
urgent needs. It is common practice for the C–17 program to place all of its funding on a
UCA and then immediately obligate up to 50 percent of the not-to-exceed price at the award
which is a disincentive to definitize the contract. Further, the DFAR requires that the contract
must be definitized within 180 days after the issuance of initial undefinitized action unless it
is extended by another 180 days after the contractor submits a qualifying proposal. The C–17
program has numerous contracts well in excess of these timelines with proposal times for
fiscal year 2007 funds ranging from 373 to 975 days and on average 688 days to definitize.
This use of UCA’s places the taxpayer at a severe disadvantage when negotiating contracts
since the contractor has little incentive to control costs while performing work under a UCA.
Even more concerning to the Committee, is that this excessive use of UCA’s is not just
isolated to procurement and modernization programs but has migrated to operation and
maintenance programs. Based on information supplied by the Air Force, a Deputy Assistant
Secretary of the Air Force for Contracting memorandum dated 28 November 2001
authorized the waiver of the limitations in the DFAR for definitization schedule and
obligations for UCAs that support overseas operations. With this memorandum as
justification, the Air Force has placed the fiscal year 2009 C–17 depot funding on a UCA
which is still not definitized in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year even though the Air Force
has obligated 89.7 percent of the $1,118,679,167 not-to-exceed price. This rationale for the

37 The report of the Senate Appropriations Committee on H.R. 3326 (see discussion below) states that the requested
figure was $120.7 million.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

use of a undefinitized contracts for routine activities is abusive. The Committee directs the
Secretary of the Air Force to address this situation within 30 days of enactment of this Act to
include the cancellation of the November 2001 memorandum. The Committee further directs
the Air Force to provide a detailed report to the congressional defense committees of all
undefinitized UCA’s in excess of $50,000,000 within 30 days of enactment of this Act. The
report shall include the date the UCA was initiated, the not-to-exceed price, the amount
obligated on the UCA, and the planned date for definitization.
While the Committee understands the need at times for programs to use this type of
contracting mechanism, it appears that the Air Force has grossly abused it with respect to
volume, value, and time to definitize. The Committee insists that the Air Force finalize all
existing undefinitized contract actions in an expedited manner and to minimize the use of
UCA’s the future. To encourage a sense of urgency, the Committee has included a new
proviso in the Aircraft Procurement, Air Force appropriating paragraph which specifies that
for C–17 procurement and modernization efforts funded with Aircraft Procurement, Air
Force the obligation of fiscal year 2010 procurement funds is prohibited until the existing
UCA’s are definitized. The Committee further directs the Undersecretary of Defense,
Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT&L)) to review contracting procedures
within the Air Force and provide a report to the congressional defense committees within 90
days of enactment of this Act detailing a strategy to reduce current and minimize future
undefinitized contracts in the Air Force. (Pages 190-191)
Section 8041 of the bill as reported would rescind certain FY2009 appropriations for DOD
programs. The committee’s report states that the funds that would be rescinded include $70
million in FY2009 research and development funding for the C-17 program. (Page 324)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-74 of September 10, 2009) on
H.R. 3326, recommends $2,588.5 million in procurement funding for the C-17 program,
including $2,500.0 million for the procurement of 10 C-17s. (Page 133)
The report recommends a $45.3-million reduction in the amount of procurement funding
requested for the modification of in-service C-17s for “Funding requested ahead of need,” and a
$91.4-million reduction (a 100% reduction) in the amount of procurement funding requested for
C-17 post-production support for “Funding requested ahead of need.” (Page 133)
The report recommends approving the requests in the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
part of the budget for $120.7 million in procurement funding for the modification of in-service C-
17s38 and for $11 million in procurement funding for C-17 post-production support. (Page 261)
Section 8040 of the bill as reported would rescind certain FY 2008 and FY2009 appropriations
for DOD programs. The committee’s report states that the funds that would be rescinded include
$22.4 million in FY2009 research and development funding for the C-17 program. (Page 230)
The report “directs that the National Guard and Reserve Equipment program shall be executed by
the heads of the Guard and Reserve components with priority consideration given to” several

38 The report of the House Appropriations Committee on H.R. 3326 (see discussion above) states that the requested
figure was $132.3 million.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

items, including Large Aircraft Infrared Countermeasures (LAIRCM) systems for C-17s. (Page
151)
FY2009 Supplemental Appropriations Act (H.R. 2346/P.L. 111-32)
House
The House Appropriations Committee, in its report (H.Rept. 111-105 of May 12, 2009) on the
FY2009 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 2346), recommended $2.2452 billion for the
procurement of eight additional C-17s. (Page 21) The report stated:
C–17 GLOBEMASTER III
The Committee recommendation includes $2,245,200,000 for the procurement of eight C–17
Globemaster III aircraft. The C–17 is the workhorse of the theater, flying fifty percent of all
sorties for the United States Transportation Command over the last 24 months. These
missions range from airdrops for troops in forward locations to aeromedical evacuation of
servicemembers from theater back to the United States. While the aircraft is designed to fly
1,000 hours per year over 30 years, over the last ten years the C–17 fleet has averaged 1,250
hours per aircraft with some aircraft flying in excess of 2,400 hours in a single year. This
heavy usage is reducing the expected service life of the aircraft. The aircraft included in the
recommendation will alleviate some of these issues by introducing new aircraft into the
inventory.
Further, the Committee is concerned that a decision on the continuation of the C–17 program
was announced prior to the completion of the Mobility Capability and Requirements Study
(MCRS), which will address the needs of the Department of Defense in 2016. Since the last
MCRS in 2005, several changes have occurred that would change previous requirements to
include the growth of ground forces, the increased size and use of Special Operations Forces,
additional use of the C–17 in an intra-theater role, and the stand up of a new combatant
command—United States Africa Command. It seems more prudent to continue the C–17
program until the results of the study are announced later this year.
Additionally, the Air Force is encouraged to work with Congress and the reserve component
to replace aging C–5A aircraft with C–17 aircraft. While there are concerns that reserve
component aircraft are not utilized at the same rate as aircraft assigned to Air Mobility
Command, the Committee believes that the Air Force can develop plans to work with the
reserve component to address some of these issues (i.e. active association with Guard units).
(Pages 24-25)
Senate
The Senate Appropriations Committee, in its report (S.Rept. 111-20 of May 14, 2009) on the
FY2009 supplemental appropriations bill (S. 1054), recommended no funding for the
procurement of additional C-17s, and instead recommended rejecting a request that the
Administration had made for $230.2 million in FY2009 supplemental funding to cover other C-17
program expenses. (Page 43)
Congressional Research Service
24

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Conference
The conference report (H.Rept. 111-151 of June 12, 2009) on H.R. 2346 provided $2.172 billion
for the procurement of eight additional C-17s. (Page 93)
Congressional Research Service
25

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

Appendix. Section 1046 of FY2008 Defense
Authorization Act
The text of Section 1046 of the FY2008 defense authorization act (H.R. 4986/P.L. 110-181 of
January 28, 2008) is as follows:
SEC. 1046. STUDY ON SIZE AND MIX OF AIRLIFT FORCE.
(a) Study Required- The Secretary of Defense shall conduct a requirements-based study on
alternatives for the proper size and mix of fixed-wing intratheater and intertheater airlift
assets to meet the National Military Strategy for each of the following timeframes: fiscal
year 2012, 2018, and 2024. The study shall—
(1) focus on organic and commercially programmed airlift capabilities;
(2) analyze the full-spectrum lifecycle costs of the various alternatives for organic models of
each of the following aircraft: C-5A/B/C/M, C-17A, KC-X, KC-10, KC-135R, C-130E/H/J,
Joint Cargo Aircraft; and
(3) incorporate the augmentation capability, viability, and feasibility of the Civil Reserve Air
Fleet during activation stages I, II, and III.
(b) Use of Ffrdc- The Secretary shall select, to carry out the study required by subsection (a),
a federally funded research and development center that has experience and expertise in
conducting similar studies.
(c) Study Plan- The study required by subsection (a) shall be carried out under a study plan.
The study plan shall be developed as follows:
(1) The center selected under subsection (b) shall develop the study plan and shall, not later
than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, submit the study plan to the
congressional defense committees, the Secretary, and the Comptroller General of the United
States.
(2) The Comptroller General shall review the study plan to determine whether it is complete
and objective, and whether it has any flaws or weaknesses in scope or methodology, and
shall, not later than 30 days after receiving the study plan, submit to the Secretary and the
center a report that contains the results of that review and provides any recommendations
that the Comptroller General considers appropriate for improvements to the study plan.
(3) The center shall modify the study plan to incorporate the recommendations under
paragraph (2) and shall, not later than 45 days after receiving that report, submit to the
Secretary and the congressional defense committees a report on those modifications. The
report shall describe each modification and, if the modifications do not incorporate one or
more of the recommendations, shall explain the reasons for not doing so.
(d) Elements of Study Plan- The study plan required by subsection (c) shall address, at
minimum, the following:
(1) A description of lift requirements and operating profiles for airlift aircraft required to
meet the National Military Strategy, including assumptions regarding the following:
Congressional Research Service
26

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

(A) Current and future military combat and support missions.
(B) The planned force structure growth of the military services.
(C) Potential changes in lift requirements, including the deployment of the Future Combat
Systems by the Army.
(D) New capability in airlift to be provided by the KC(X) aircraft and the expected utilization
of such capability, including its use in intratheater lift.
(E) The utilization of intertheater lift aircraft in intratheater combat mission support roles.
(F) The availability and application of Civil Reserve Air Fleet assets in future military
scenarios.
(G) Air mobility requirements associated with the Global Rebasing Initiative of the
Department of Defense.
(H) Air mobility requirements in support of worldwide peacekeeping and humanitarian
missions.
(I) Air mobility requirements in support of homeland defense and national emergencies.
(J) The viability and capability of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to augment organic forces in
both friendly and hostile environments.
(K) An assessment of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet to adequately augment the organic fleet as
it relates to commercial inventory management restructuring in response to future
commercial markets, streamlining of operations, efficiency measures, or downsizing of the
participant.
(2) An evaluation of the state of the current airlift fleet of the Air Force, including
assessments of the following:
(A) The extent to which the increased use of airlift aircraft in on-going operations is affecting
the programmed service life of the aircraft of that fleet.
(B) The adequacy of the current airlift force, including whether or not a minimum of 299
strategic airlift aircraft for the Air Force is sufficient to support future expeditionary combat
and non-combat missions, as well as domestic and training mission demands consistent with
the requirements of meeting the National Military Strategy.
(C) The optimal mix of C-5 and C-17 aircraft for the strategic airlift fleet of the Air Force, to
include the following:
(i) The cost-effectiveness of modernizing various iterations of the C-5A and C-5B/C aircraft
fleet versus procuring additional C-17 aircraft.
(ii) The military capability, operational availability, usefulness, and service life of the C-
5A/B/C/M aircraft and the C-17 aircraft. Such an assessment shall examine appropriate
metrics, such as aircraft availability rates, departure rates, and mission capable rates, in each
of the following cases:
Congressional Research Service
27

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

(I) Completion of the Avionics Modernization Program and the Reliability Enhancement and
Re-engining Program.
(II) Partial completion of the Avionics Modernization Program and the Reliability
Enhancement and Re-engining Program, with partial completion of either such program
being considered the point at which the continued execution of each program is no longer
supported by the cost-effectiveness analysis.
(iii) At what specific fleet inventory for each organic aircraft, to include air refueling aircraft
used in the airlift role, would it impede the ability of Civil Reserve Air Fleet participants to
remain a viable augmentation option.
(D) An analysis and assessment of the lessons that may be learned from the experience of the
Air Force in restarting the production line for the C-5 aircraft after having closed the line for
several years, and recommendations for the actions that the Department of Defense should
take to ensure that the production line for the C-17 aircraft could be restarted if necessary,
including—
(i) an analysis of the methods that were used and costs that were incurred in closing and re-
opening the production line for the C-5 aircraft;
(ii) an assessment of the methods and actions that should be employed and the expected costs
and risks of closing and re-opening the production line for the C-17 aircraft in view of that
experience.
Such analysis and assessment should deal with issues such as production work force,
production facilities, tooling, industrial base suppliers, contractor logistics support versus
organic maintenance, and diminished manufacturing sources.
(E) Assessing the military capability, operational availability, usefulness, service life and
optimal mix of intra-theater airlift aircraft, to include—
(i) the cost-effectiveness of procuring the Joint Cargo Aircraft versus procuring additional C-
130J or refurbishing C-130E/H platforms to meet intra-theater airlift requirements of the
combatant commander and component commands; and
(ii) the cost-effectiveness of procuring additional C-17 aircraft versus procuring additional C-
130J platforms or refurbishing C-130E/H platforms to meet intra-theater airlift requirements
of the combatant commander and component commands.
(3) Each analysis required by paragraph (2) shall include—
(A) a description of the assumptions and sensitivity analysis utilized in the study regarding
aircraft performances and cargo loading factors; and
(B) a comprehensive statement of the data and assumptions utilized in making the program
life cycle cost estimates and a comparison of cost and risk associated with the optimally
mixed fleet of airlift aircraft versus the program of record airlift aircraft fleet.
(e) Utilization of Other Studies- The study required by subsection (a) shall build upon the
results of the 2005 Mobility Capabilities Studies, the on-going Intra-theater Airlift Fleet Mix
Analysis, the Intra-theater Lift Capabilities Study, the Joint Future Theater Airlift
Capabilities Analysis, and other appropriate studies and analyses, such as Fleet Viability
Board Reports or special aircraft assessments. The study shall also include any testing data
collected on modernization, recapitalization, and upgrade efforts of current organic aircraft.
Congressional Research Service
28

---

.
Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress

(f) Collaboration With United States Transportation Command- In conducting the study
required by subsection (a) and preparing the report required by subsection (c)(3), the center
shall collaborate with the commander of the United States Transportation Command.
(g) Collaboration With Cost Analysis Improvement Group- In conducting the study required
by subsection (a) and constructing the analysis required by subsection (a)(2), the center shall
collaborate with the Cost Analysis Improvement Group of the Department of Defense.
(h) Report- Not later than January 10, 2009, the center selected under subsection (b) shall
submit to the Secretary and the congressional defense committees a report on the study
required by subsection (a). The report shall be submitted in unclassified form, but shall
include a classified annex.

Author Contact Information

Ronald O'Rourke

Specialist in Naval Affairs
rorourke@crs.loc.gov, 7-7610




Congressional Research Service
29

---