If the C-5 upgrade is going to require spending almost as much per airplane as buying new C-17s, then the nation should go with the C-17s, AMC chief Gen. Arthur Lichte told reporters in Washington Wednesday. The justification for hanging onto the C-5 has largely been that it can carry super-large, bulky stuff, but “there are not that many missions the C-17 can’t do that the C-5 can,” Lichte said. He added that it might make sense to forego the upgrade but retain some number of C-5s for those unique missions where only it can handle the job. The key, Lichte said, is “velocity.” He would prefer having to fly two C-17s, which can get a mission done with high reliability, rather than gamble on a single larger C-5 that “breaks along the way.” Is it critical to decide the fate of the C-5 reliability enhancement and re-engining program while the C-17 production line is still running hot? “Yes,” said Lichte.
Seeking to make life harder for a potential adversary like China, the Air Force wants more airfields in more locations, giving the service more freedom to operate in combat. But runways serve little purpose if they are damaged beyond use. The Air Force recently conducted a “beta test” to figure…