Military Community, Navy Community, military installations, discussions, blogs, photos, - Navy Times

Not all C-5 Galaxies are worth modernizing

One of the biggest challenges facing Air Force leaders is strategic airlift, the long-range, cargo-hauling job performed by the C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III.

“Every time we think we’ve got a handle on this, something gets unglued,” a recently retired airlifter said.

The service has 110 C-5A, C-5B and C-5C airplanes, all currently slated for a two-part upgrade of avionics and engines. The modernized Galaxy will be called the C-5M. One example, the 111th plane in the fleet, is flying today, easily recognized by its distinctive (and temporary) red nose instrument boom.

The Air Force once intended to buy 180 C-17s and now appears likely to get 190. Congress added the additional Globemasters last year to prevent a shutdown of the C-17 production line.

A mix of 111 C-5Ms and 190 C-17s exceeds air mobility requirements that existed just a couple of years ago. The mix keeps alive the rivalry between the C-5, which is seriously unreliable, and the C-17, which has disappointing range.

Some argue for completing the C-5 modernization program in full. I have made that argument. At the other extreme, some call for retiring all C-5s and buying more C-17s.

The debate takes on new urgency because of two developments. First, the Army and Marine Corps are increasing troop strength by 92,000. Strategic airlifters don’t usually haul troops, who typically fly aboard chartered airliners, but C-5s and C-17s haul the things troops use.

Second, C-5 modernization is over budget. Once deemed cost-effective, the effort may soon cost too much to make it worth upgrading the oldest planes in the C-5 fleet, the 59 C-5As and two C-5Cs that were built in the 1960s.

This must seem confusing to the flight crew members and maintainers who wonder about the future of these big airplanes. But recent changes in airlift needs and expectations introduce other complications, as well.

Until now, advocates of a new air refueling tanker have focused almost exclusively on the plane’s role as a flying filling station. That’s a formula that favors the Boeing 767 in the KC-X tanker competition.

But if more airlift capacity is needed to accommodate more soldiers and Marines, and to make up for C-5 modernization shortfalls, the KC-X choice probably should be the competing Northrop Grumman/Airbus A330-200, a dual-role aircraft with capacity for both fuel and cargo. The latter aircraft is called the KC-30 in marketing literature.

In March, Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley told me the solution would be to “weed out the worst possible” actors in the C-5A fleet and modernize only the rest. He said that “about 25 or 30 C-5As can go away.” While the Air Force isn’t openly seeking more C-17s, Moseley said that if he had 25 or 30 more C-17s, they would fit well in Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units.

Until now, I argued that we need every C-5. I’m still a big fan of the C-5, which can carry more and travel farther than any other transport.

But times are changing. I now believe we must retire the poorest performers in the C-5A/C fleet. That may mean we’ll need more C-17s. And while that will be popular on Capitol Hill, it will require a change in administration policy.

There are no easy answers here. Air Force leaders have tough choices to make.

The writer, an Air Force veteran, lives in Oakton, Va. He is the author of “Air Combat,” a history of fighter pilots. His e-mail address is robert.f.dorr@cox.net.