Should we build more C-17

[rapter 0]

Subject: FW: Lexington Issue Brief - THE DUMBEST WEAPONS DECISION OF
THE DECADE

In case you need a little morale booster this morning! Lexington issue
Briefs are targeted for Congressional Member to read (and they do).

Freely pass on as you wish.

David M. Bowman
Vice President and C-17 Program Manager
Boeing Integrated Defense Systems


issue Brief

September 13, 2006



THE DUMBEST WEAPONS DECISION OF THE DECADE

Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.



One of the eternal mysteries of large organizations is the way they
bring smart people together in support of dumb ideas. Invading Iraq.
Merging with AOL. Building the Edsel. It's hard to believe the best and
brightest minds of a generation were involved in making such decisions,
but they were. There's an extensive body of academic literature that
explains how organizational processes produce sub-optimal outcomes, even
when everyone in the room is a genius. But don't take my word for it
-- look at the Pentagon's recent decision to terminate production of its
C-17 cargo plane.



The C-17 Globemaster III is by all accounts the best
long-range military transport ever built. It can fly very big loads into very small
places, it has a 90% mission-capable rate, it is cheap to operate, and it
costs no more than a commercial airliner. The plane is so popular with
military users that it is being used at a rate 40% higher than
expected. Basically, every C-17 that's available is in use everyday,
delivering supplies to troops in Afghanistan, providing humanitarian relief to
refugees, evacuating wounded soldiers from Iraq (which is one reason why
the time it takes to get wounded from the war zone to stateside
hospitals has declined from ten days in the first Gulf War to three days
today).



So of course, policymakers have decided to stop building the plane.
They say they have enough C-17's to meet strategic airlift needs for the
foreseeable future. Even though their stated requirement for how much
airlift is needed hasn't changed since a "Mobility Requirements Study"
was conducted in 2000. Perhaps you remember what it was like back
then. No global war on terror. No shift to expeditionary warfare. No
plans to return troops in Europe to the U.S. No big hurricane
evacuations. The good old days.



So how is it possible that a projection of future airlift needs
calculated before 9-11 could still be valid? Simple -- you just make up the
assumptions to assure they give you the results you wanted. And just to
be on the safe side, you keep almost everybody from the Air Force's
mobility community out of the room. That's how the Pentagon did its
update of the 2000 study last year, producing a mobility analysis that
concluded the war on terror and the Katrina disaster added nothing to the
discussion about future airlift needs.



Is it any wonder that many Americans believe in conspiracy theories?
Someday in the not-so-distant future, American soldiers are going to die
because the joint force couldn't get essential supplies into some
remote airstrip fast enough. When that day comes, critics will recall the
optimistic assumptions that justified killing the nation's only modern
jet airlifter and say, "How could anybody think that 180 C-17's would be
enough to cover the world when the only other long-range airlifter in
the fleet was designed in the 1960's, couldn't use small airstrips, and
had chronic reliability problems? It must be some sort of a
conspiracy!"



Believe it or not, the reason policymakers say they shouldn't buy more
C-17's is that Congress won't allow them to retire old cargo planes,
and if they have too many planes the airlines will stop setting aside
widebodies for military missions. Apparently they haven't heard that the
reason airlines are dumping widebodies is because they're shifting from
hub-and-spoke to point-to-point commercial routes. With half the
nation's airlines facing bankruptcy, military missions are the last thing on
their minds. But fear not -- the Pentagon says it will mothball the
C-17 production line just in case it's needed again. There must be some
other conspiracy to freeze all those skilled workers who otherwise
would have to find new jobs.

Only the good die young, so I have found immortality,

[kallend 2,106]

Our ROTC unit C/O's (2 O-5s and an O-6) were telling me at lunch last week that the cadets and midshipmen with the lowest aptitude scores go into logistics and intelligence.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

then where do they put the smart ones?

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

then where do they put the smart ones?

Submarines.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Flying_Penguin 0]

Quote

Quote

then where do they put the smart ones?

Submarines.

Err.. ROTC = Army= no subs NROTC you mean?
but yes you are correct

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

then where do they put the smart ones?

Submarines.

Err.. ROTC = Army= no subs NROTC you mean?
but yes you are correct

At our university:
AROTC army, department = Military Science
AFROTC air force, department = Air Science
NROTC navy and marines, department = Naval Science

ROTC - generic for all services



NROTC tends to get the smartest kids because their scholarships are better. AROTC has just raised its scholarships a huge amount on account of declining enrollments due to Bush's Iraq misadventure.

Nuclear option navy is hardest to get into, followed by navy and air force flight school.

Logistics and intelligence gets the bottom of the heap. You get what you pay for.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[nanook 1]

Quote

Logistics and intelligence gets the bottom of the heap. You get what you pay for.

Not disagreeing with you here. After all, with all those Spike Lee commercials using attractive God-Smack soundtracks and camera angles, who the hell would want to do the menial desk job career associated with these two specialties? The ones not competitive enough to get the God Smack.

_____________________________

"The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln

[Gawain 0]

The initial run of C-17s was completed in 2004 (120 units). The expected service life is about 30,000 hours and they've been in service since 1993. Modification programs have kept the C-130, and C-5 in use for decades. Modification programs are also part of the service life of the C-17.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[sundevil777 102]

When will production actually stop?

Hopefully with some foreign sales and more forced retirment of C-141s and C-5s...many more of those things really should be put out to pasture.

Unfortunately, Europe is developing their own jet military transport, so a big chunk of the usual potential foreign market is loyal to that effort.

How about a fire fighting water drop version? 747s have also been seriously considered for this.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gawain 0]

Quote

When will production actually stop?

Technically, it has (for the US).

Quote

Unfortunately, Europe is developing their own jet military transport, so a big chunk of the usual potential foreign market is loyal to that effort.

With exception to the Airbus A400M, there isn't a significant military application sourced in Europe. The A400M is slightly bigger than a C-130, but smaller than a C-17 and NATO will continue to use those as well.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Doogie320 0]

This is a stupid decision. Our logistics train is so screwed up in the ME and they aren't adding to the -17 fleet?

Damn.....

[sundevil777 102]

I thought production would continue (deliveries continue) for a while yet. Even though suppliers start shutting down before the final assy does, I thought there was some time.

Even though the Airbus transport is smaller than the C-17, I would think the local product would be irresistable for European governments with any stake in the plane.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Even though the Airbus transport is smaller than the C-17, I would think the local product would be irresistable for European governments with any stake in the plane.

Perhaps, but the mission of the A400M is not the same as the C-17. They're still being built, it's simply that the USAF took the last delivery in 2004. There is plenty of life left for this plane, and modification programs do work, look at the B-52 -- it's likely to outlast the B-1 and B-2, with final retirement projected past 2040 for the majority of the B-52 fleet. That will mean close to 90 years in service. Can we say... W O W!!

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[warpedskydiver 0]

Max when you build a good one, it is hard to just junk them

[sundevil777 102]

What I can't understand is can't the B-1 do everything the B-52 can? I designed some stuff for the B-1, so I'm a little biased.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Gawain 0]

The B-1B was converted from a nuclear role, and has suffered from a low mission capable rate for a while. The Air Force proved it could improve the mission capable rate, but it hasn't been sustained.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[warpedskydiver 0]

I think of it this way, the B52 is a Delivery truck made to deliver every day, night and all weather regardless of how many miles are on it.

The B1B is an excellent plane, but is more of a large sports car that requires a lot more TLC.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

What I can't understand is can't the B-1 do everything the B-52 can? I designed some stuff for the B-1, so I'm a little biased.

Thank the combined efforts of Presidents Carter and Reagan for that. The B1 airframe was designed for one mission but converted to a different mission for which it is sub-optimal.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

What I can't understand is can't the B-1 do everything the B-52 can? I designed some stuff for the B-1, so I'm a little biased.

Thank the combined efforts of Presidents Carter and Reagan for that. The B1 airframe was designed for one mission but converted to a different mission for which it is sub-optimal.

Funny you should mention that. Carter cancelled the B-1A, Reagan revived it and specification changes derived the B-1B. It was during the 1990s (beginning in FY1994 IIRC) that the Air Force began making the conversion of the Lancer to a conventional role.

The weird thing is, that while the B-1B is fully capable (and proficient) in its conventional role, it requires a lot more availability of spare parts, maintenance equipment and manpower. Like someone mentioned, it requries a lot more TLC.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What I can't understand is can't the B-1 do everything the B-52 can? I designed some stuff for the B-1, so I'm a little biased.

Thank the combined efforts of Presidents Carter and Reagan for that. The B1 airframe was designed for one mission but converted to a different mission for which it is sub-optimal.

Funny you should mention that. Carter cancelled the B-1A, Reagan revived it and specification changes derived the B-1B. It was during the 1990s (beginning in FY1994 IIRC) that the Air Force began making the conversion of the Lancer to a conventional role.

The weird thing is, that while the B-1B is fully capable (and proficient) in its conventional role, it requires a lot more availability of spare parts, maintenance equipment and manpower. Like someone mentioned, it requries a lot more TLC.

If you started from scratch to design for the B-1B's role, the aircraft you come up with would NOT be a B-1B. The change in role resulted in something of a mongrel. I had lunch last week with a B-52 pilot (O5) who went on at length on the B1-B's problems.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Zep 0]

Quote

Quote

then where do they put the smart ones?

Submarines.

Thinking about it, that actually makes a lot of sense.
Do they have female submariners

Gone fishing

[jakee 1,559]

Quote

look at the B-52 -- it's likely to outlast the B-1 and B-2, with final retirement projected past 2040 for the majority of the B-52 fleet. That will mean close to 90 years in service. Can we say... W O W!!

The longevity of the B-52 is simply stunning, the contract for its original design being handed out in 1946 and its direct predecessor the B-36 still used piston engines! Really amazing.

On another note my dad (an R&D guy) went out on submarines a few times and was absolutely stunned by the rigorous selections for ranking officers and commanders of nuclear subs. He said each one he met was a bona fide genius capable of processing more information than any person should be able to. But considering what they are responsible for I think that really is the way it has to be.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[LouDiamond 1]

I have to second what Gawain has stated on this issue. Maybe its because of the familiarity with what it really means. I think someone (thompson?) is trying to push an agenda or is simply opening their mouth about something they don't fully understand. My prediction is that the C-17 will be in service and around for a looong time. I also find it hard to believe that there is a shortage of them to fullfill the current mobility requirements. If that was the case, I wouldn't have 3 of them dedicated to me next month to conduct a 25K HALO drop.

On the nuke sub commanders, I have to say that the ones I have personally interacted with, be it teaching them to shoot to evasive driving, all have been exceptionaly smart as well as talented. They not only do precisely what you tell them to do, they do it to perfection on the very first try. However, all sub guys are a little bit weird IMO. I don't know exactly what or why but they are definately "touched" if you know what I mean.

"It's just skydiving..additional drama is not required"
Some people dream about flying, I live my dream
SKYMONKEY PUBLISHING

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

I think of it this way, the B52 is a Delivery truck made to deliver every day, night and all weather regardless of how many miles are on it.

The B1B is an excellent plane, but is more of a large sports car that requires a lot more TLC.

I was a B-52 mechanic (Airframe) from 91-94. That thing had the WORST maintenance record in the Air Force. Tied with the MH-53 Pave Low. I personally sent 2 aircraft on a one way flight to the bone yard. Glad I didn't have to sign that off. Those flights were approved by "depot level." The wings were LITERALLY about to fall off. The HUGE structure that holds them onto the fueselage had a 9 inch crack on 1 and a 7 inch crack on the other. Vertically.......right down through the fastener holes. It's poorly designed and it's a tribute to the maintenance crews that they perform so well. OTOH........the KC-135 is about 10 years older and requires about 1/2 the maintenance hours. THAT..........is a well designed plane.



The C-17..........they have to do SOMETHING. They don't have anything else to fill the gap. It seems like a great airplane although my perspective was as a jumper. It has a lot of "nice things" that make life better for a guy jumping out of it.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Do you recall the age of those two planes?