Rand Says C-17 Could Tear Up Runways

A study by Rand Corp. has raised serious questions about the ability of the C-17 cargo jet to make repeated landings at many unimproved runways overseas, saying the plane could create large craters in the airports’ concrete.

But Air Force officials dismissed the report in congressional testimony Tuesday as a superficial analysis.

The disclosure, and the resulting attack on the Rand study, came during a lengthy House Armed Services Committee hearing on the fate of the C-17, produced in Long Beach by McDonnell Douglas Corp.

John Deutch, undersecretary of defense, made a lengthy and spirited case for continuing the program, arguing that the committee erred in cutting its funding for fiscal 1995.

Rep. Ronald V. Dellums (D-Oakland), the committee chairman, indicated he had not changed his position that the Pentagon should cut the program further, though some members expressed support for trying to restore funding in a later House vote.

The Rand report, which has not yet been publicly released, says that much of the cargo carried to Saudi Arabia during the Persian Gulf War was bulk cargo that could have been carried by commercial jetliners. The study by the Santa Monica think tank also asserts that the C-17 would wreck many of the airports where the Pentagon expects to use the plane.

The C-17’s weight is distributed over 12 main landing gear wheels. By contrast, the C-5, which is the military’s other large cargo jet (now out of production), is easier on runways because it has 24 main wheels but a gross weight that is only 50% higher than that of the C-17, Rand said.

However, Gen. Ronald Fogelman, commander of the U.S. Transportation Command, suggested that the C-17 is not any harder on the runways than the C-5. He testified that the C-5 and the C-17 are in the same classification for their runway thickness requirements.

“The author of that (Rand) report ignored the operating reality of our airlift system,” Fogelman said.