Acquisition of the C-17 Aircraft

Gao ID: T-NSIAD-87-20 March 26, 1987

GAO testified on its evaluation of the Air Force's decision to continue developing and procuring the C-17 aircraft, rather than the C-5 aircraft, to meet its long-range airlift goals. The Air Force analysis concluded that: (1) the C-17 would be operationally superior to the C-5 because of its projected capability to deliver all types of military materiel directly to battle locations; (2) the C-17 would probably be capable of flying 15.2 hours per day, as compared to 12.5 hours per day for the C-5; and (3) the C-17 would cost about $29.3 billion less than the C-5. GAO noted that: (1) the Air Force should be able to more fully implement direct delivery with the C-17; (2) the Air Force would need fewer C-130 aircraft with the C-17 than with the C-5; (3) the Air Force could reach its airlift goal of 66 million ton-miles per day as much as 5 years sooner with the C-5, because the C-5 is already in production and the first C-17 has yet to be built; (4) the Air Force underestimated the acquisition and life-cycle costs of both aircraft; (5) the C-17 should cost about $16.7 billion less than the C-5 on a life-cycle basis; and (6) the Air Force should need 12,900 fewer personnel with the C-17 than with the C-5. GAO concluded that the Air Force made a reasonable decision to proceed with procuring the C-17 because it should provide the Air Force advantages in terms of operational utility, life-cycle costs, and manpower requirements.

The Justia Government Accountability Office site republishes public reports retrieved from the U.S. GAO These reports should not be considered official, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Justia.