Lawmakers appear to be taking sides in a battle for defense budget dollars centering on the Air Force’s two strategic airlifters—specifically the C-5A vs. the C-17. One side favors revamping the 48 oldest C-5s, while the other side wants to buy more than the currently authorized 190 new C-17s. At a March 7 House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee hearing, C-5 advocates Jim
Marshall (D-Ga.) and Phil Gingrey (R-Ga.) questioned the Air Force’s desire to retire the C-5As, maintaining that, once the A models receive new avionics and new engines they will last another 25 years and that such upgrades cost less than buying new C-17s—Gingrey said “one-third that of a new C-17.” They also noted that the C-5 can haul some military equipment that won’t fit on the C-17. And, Marshall maintained that once upgraded, the notorious 49.5 percent mission capability rate would rise nearly to the level of the C-17. (See below.) On the other side, James Saxton (R-N.J.) noted that the number of times the Air Force can fly the mammoth C-5 fully loaded “is really small,” arguing that just because it can haul twice the load of a C-17 doesn’t make it “the ultimate airplane.”
The future U.S. bomber force could provide a way for the Pentagon to simultaneously deter conflict with peer adversaries in two geographically disparate theaters, said Mark Gunzinger, the director of future concepts and capability assessments at AFA's Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, during a March 21 event. But doing so…