port-which was the Army, Air Force, and Marines recognition of a very serious shortfall in capability to handle intratheater outsized equipment. We built the YC-15 and Boeing built the YC-14. We flew it many hours, as I already talked about, to demonstrate its ability to perform intratheater capability.

Then the military decided, I think rightly so, that although this covers just the intratheater, which is not solved at all without the C-17, in any of the current proposals, but they felt that they needed the additional flexibility to be able to carry from the continental United States a load of outsize and other equipment across the ocean to the theater of operation and not have to land in a major airport just inside the boundary of that continent.

But instead, we have to fly all of the way in and land close to the theater operation, right near the battle area. This, of course, eliminated landing, unloading, and reloading for airplanes that_could then be carried on into the forward edge of the battle area. It provided a flexibility for the Air Force, Marines, and Army, which they could not have had if they had stuck to the original intratheater outsize lifter like the YC-15.

So, it is true, obviously, that you can put more outsized equipment in the other airplanes, but the plain advantage of the C-17 is that you can carry it nonstop right up to the point where it is needed rather than going through the waste of time or additional time of loading out one airplane into another. If that field is bombed out, they wouldn't be able to land there at all, anyway.

Senator EAGLETON. So, is that part of the picture of the enhanced flexibility of the C-17?

Mr. MCDONNELL. That is right.

Mr. MARKS. Senator Eagleton, again, related to the efficiencies and flexibility of the C-17, I would like to point out a couple of things by taking you on a typical mission outside on CONUS.

If you had deployment from Fort Carson or Fort Hood where the Army personnel and equipment are and use the runways which exist in those places rather than to have to transport them to Dover or some other place, you can get out of those airstrips with the C-17, because of its thrust loading, at full maximum gross weight and maximum payload, maximum load of fuel and go from there trans-Atlantic and beyond. That is a key flexibility that does not currently exist even for the outsize.

In the terminal area of things, you have your choice many times to go into major airports or to have to disburse for wartime reasons into other airfields. The C-17 was designed specifically for that purpose as a direct delivery airplane. It was designed as a smaller, compacter airplane which we like to call a square airplane, which gives it great advantage, not only in the air to get into small strips, but in maneuvering after you get there.

So the throughput capability of the C-17, because of the technological features including the ability to reverse and back up the airplane-picture yourself in a parking lot trying to reverse if you had no reverse gear on your automobile, the same situation in being able to use the limited space in the wartime situation.

Those are some of the things that were built into the requirements and responded to within the C-17.

DELIVERY DATE OF FIRST SQUADRON

Senator EAGLETON. As to the delivery of the first squadron, when 12 aircraft would be available I read an excerpt that Senator Andrews had obtained from a GAO report, if you were present in the room when I read that to the folks at Lockheed, do you in any way agree or disagree with the conclusion as reflected in that GAŎ quote. Or do you want me to read it to you again?

Mr. MARKS. We do not disagree with the timing. I think if you check the schedule charts you will find our first flight is very close to what the GAO report says. There is a little bit of difference in the 12th airplane delivery because they used a little bit faster funding in the first year than we did in the chart Mr. McDonnell showed you where we had only the 31.6 in 1982.

So you will see a little difference in the 56 and what I believe is now 61 instead of 56.

Senator EAGLETON. All right. And as to the nature of your waranty, Mr. McDonnell, which you described in your prepared statement, it is a full and complete warranty for the entire aircraft structurally, performancewise and in almost every respect that I can imagine as I heard you describe it.

Mr. MCDONNELL. Yes. That is right. And they call for, by the contract clause and conditions, to be corrected if there is any problem and no change in the contract price.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator EAGLETON. Well, I am going to go on to the other hearing myself because we are all in the Government Affairs Committee as well. So we will-the committee will be in recess until 1 o'clock in this room. And the chairman asked if you could come back at that time.

[Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 1 p.m., the same day.]

(AFTERNOON SESSION, 1:10 P.M., THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 1982)

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

MCDONNELL-DOUGLAS CORP.

STATEMENT OF SANFORD N. MCDONNELL (Resumed)

C-17/C-5 PAYLOAD COMPARISONS

Senator RUDMAN. The subcommittee will be in order.

The chairman is on the way. Because I have limited time we will try to get the hearing going and we appreciate everybody coming back.

I think the chairman may have several questions for you; I have just a few, and if you have covered this with Senator Eagleton, I apologize. I had to leave at that point.

I was curious about several comparisons on the C-17, Mr. McDonnell. What are the payload comparisons between the C-17 as now projected and the C-5?

Mr. McDonnell. I would defer to Mr. Marks.

Mr. MARKS. The design payload on the C-17 is 172,000 pounds. And that is a payload with a 2,415 nautical mile range. The payload out to something over 4,000 miles is about 120,000 pounds. And the other range is a couple hundred miles over 5,000.

Senator RUDMAN. What about the landing and takeoff requirements?

Mr. MARKS. The landing capability of the C-17-obvioulsy landing is put in many kinds of terms. There are critical field lengths, there are what are called emergency wartime operations, or simply what is the ground rule. So when you start to talk about landing distances, our takeoff distances, that needs to be clarified.

Senator RUDMAN. I understand the terminology. Let's just talk about a standard day, and a full gross on a hot surface runoff.

Mr. MARKS. Full gross weight on a hot day, that is a full payload and a full load of fuel, the takeoff distance, critical field length is 7,500 feet.

In the, what we would call the intra theater kinds of mission, where the payload is around 100,000 pounds, with fuel to get in and then take it out of the combat zone, the takeoff critical field length is 3,000 feet. Comparable landing distances, that go along with those missions are 3,000 feet for the full payload and fuel required to get out of the war zone, down to about 2,000 feet critical field length at lighter gross weights and lighter payloads.

Senator RUDMAN. Now, I know that these figures tend to be difficult and probably mathematical, but what was the last current 1981 dollars cost on the size originally contemplated by the Air Force?

92-385 0-82--11

Mr. Marks. in terms of the flyaway cost without amortizing the R&D, but flyaway cost for the force size that was proposed on the competition, the 1980 price, unit flyaway was $40 million.

AIRCRAFT WARRANTIES

Senator RUDMAN. What warranties were there with that aircraft?

Mr. MCDONNELL. I will defer to Mr. Marks again?

Mr. MARKS. The warranties that have been negotiated with the Air Force and for which we have signed the original contract at no change to the contract price, included the warranty of a reliability number, a maintainability number, and an availability number. I know in terms of transports past, those are well in advance of what they currently have.

It also includes warranty of the total system performance as determined by the specification compliance test.

It also includes structural life of the airplane, with a design to 30,000 hours tested to over 60,000 hours.

It includes an aircraft structural warranty for 10 years after the delivery of each airplane.

And the engine has a warranty as well as service life policies that include the uninstalled, the installed, the spare parts, and all of the data that give the Air Force the most favorable terms and conditions that are offered to any of their commercial customers.

OUTSIZE CARGO CAPABILITY

Senator RUDMAN. Finally, I think you touched on this somewhat, Mr. McDonnell did in his testimony. If we could just review the outsize cargo capability of this aircraft, I believe it would be useful in this discussion.

Mr. MARKS. Well, basically, within its payload capability of 172,000 pounds, the C-17 was designed and configured to take all of the outsize equipment that is used by the Army and the Marines. The tank, the 5-ton trucks, which they paid special attention to architecturing the internal dimensions of the airplane so that it could load two full-height, five-gun trucks, for example, side by side. It can carry all except, I believe, one item of outsize that can be carried by the C-5 and if I recall, Joe, that is a bridge?

Mr. VAN DYKE. A bridge launcher.

Mr. MARKS. Other than that I think we carry every vechicle.

LOADING SYSTEM ON C-17

Senator RUDMAN. What is the loading system on the C-17? Mr. MARKS. That was specially designed for that purpose and has both logistic capability and the tactical capability within an intergral cargo system in which you can load the pallets, any of the outsize vehicles. It was, I like to say, specially tailored to the modern Army that was defined for us in the C-X competition.

It also has full air drop capability. It has full container drop capability. The outsize heavy air drop was designed for 50,000 pounds, with the opening in the aft designed so that the infantry