Editing Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (section)

===Development difficulties===
A static test of the C-17 wing in October 1992 resulted in its failure at 128% of design limit load, below the 150% requirement. Both wings buckled rear to the front and failures occurred in stringers, spars, and ribs.<ref>[http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/Audit2/93-159.pdf "Technical Assessment Report; C-17 Wing Structural Integrity."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120328005836/http://www.dodig.mil/Audit/Audit2/93-159.pdf |date=28 March 2012}} ''Department of Defense'', 24 August 1993. Retrieved: 23 August 2011.</ref> Some $100 million was spent to redesign the wing structure; the wing failed at 145% during a second test in September 1993.<ref>[https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19930914/1721000/c-17-wing-fails-again-probe-is-sought "C-17 Wing Fails Again; Probe Is Sought."] ''Seattle Times'', 14 September 1993.</ref> A review of the test data, however, showed that the wing was not loaded correctly and did indeed meet the requirement.<ref>[http://documents.blackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/5/767.pdf "Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Independent Review Team."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120310080544/http://documents.blackvault.com/documents/dod/readingroom/5/767.pdf |date=10 March 2012}} ''US Government Executive Independent Review Team'' via ''blackvault.com'', 12 December 1993.</ref> The C-17 received the "Globemaster III" name in early 1993.<ref name=norton_p12-3/> In late 1993, the [[United States Department of Defense|Department of Defense]] (DoD) gave the contractor two years to solve production issues and cost overruns or face the contract's termination after the delivery of the 40th aircraft.<ref>Evans, David. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24383613.html?dids=24383613:24383613&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+29%2C+1993&author=David+Evans%2C+Chicago+Tribune.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Pentagon+to+Air+Force%3A+C-17+flunks&pqatl=google "Pentagon to Air Force: C-17 flunks."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121107202533/http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/access/24383613.html?dids=24383613:24383613&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Mar+29%2C+1993&author=David+Evans%2C+Chicago+Tribune.&pub=Chicago+Tribune+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Pentagon+to+Air+Force%3A+C-17+flunks&pqatl=google |date=7 November 2012}} ''Chicago Tribune'', 29 March 1993.</ref> By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion on the program's development phase.<ref name=RL30685/>

In March 1994, the Non-Developmental Airlift Aircraft program was established to procure a transport aircraft using commercial practices as a possible alternative or supplement to the C-17. Initial material solutions considered included: buy a modified Boeing 747-400 NDAA, restart the C-5 production line, extend the C-141 service life, and continue C-17 production.<ref name="gao-nsiad-94-209">{{cite web |url=https://www.gao.gov/products/nsiad-94-209 |title=NSIAD-94-209 Airlift Requirements: Commercial Freighters Can Help Meet Requirements at Greatly Reduced Costs |publisher=United States General Accounting Office}}</ref><ref name="gao-nsiad-97-38" /> The field eventually narrowed to: the Boeing 747-400 (provisionally named the [[Boeing 747-400#Government, military and other variants|C-33]]), the [[Lockheed C-5 Galaxy#C-5D|Lockheed Martin C-5D]], and the McDonnell Douglas C-17.<ref name=gao-nsiad-97-38>{{cite web |title=NSIAD-97-38 Military Airlift: Options Exist for Meeting Requirements While Acquiring Fewer C-17s |url=https://www.gao.gov/assets/nsiad-97-38.pdf |publisher=United States General Accounting Office}}</ref> The NDAA program was initiated after the C-17 program was temporarily capped at a 40-aircraft buy (in December 1993) pending further evaluation of C-17 cost and performance and an assessment of commercial airlift alternatives.<ref name="gao-nsiad-97-38" />

In April 1994, the program remained over budget and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload, and range specifications. It failed several key criteria during airworthiness evaluation tests.<ref>[https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/19910528/1285732/air-force-letter-to-douglas-spells-out-75-defects-for-c-17 "Air Force Letter To Douglas Spells Out 75 Defects For C-17."] ''Los Angeles Times'', 28 May 1991.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE8F93D6E54ED8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "C-17 fails engine start test."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070008/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE8F93D6E54ED8&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''Press-Telegram'', 12 April 1994.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB6CC1343F2E14F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Parts Orders for C-17 far too high, GAO says."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070228/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB6CC1343F2E14F&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''Charlotte Observer'', 16 March 1994.</ref> Problems were found with the mission software, landing gear, and other areas.<ref>[http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151473.pdf "The C-17 Proposed Settlement and Program Update."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090906113020/http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151473.pdf |date=6 September 2009}} ''United States General Accounting Office'', 28 April 1994.</ref> In May 1994, it was proposed to cut production to as few as 32 aircraft; these cuts were later rescinded.<ref>Kreisher, Otto. [https://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sandiego/access/1242506621.html?dids=1242506621:1242506621&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+25%2C+1994&author=OTTO+KREISHER&pub=The+San+Diego+Union+-+Tribune&desc=House+rescinds+cuts+in+C-17+program+%7C+Vote+may+help+thousands+retain+jobs+in+Long+Beach&pqatl=google "House rescinds cuts in C-17 program."]{{dead link|date=July 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} ''San Diego Union'', 25 May 1994.</ref> A July 1994 [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) report revealed that USAF and DoD studies from 1986 and 1991 stated the C-17 could use 6,400 more runways outside the U.S. than the C-5, but these studies had only considered runway dimensions, but not runway strength or load classification numbers (LCN). The C-5 has a lower LCN, but the USAF classifies both in the same broad load classification group. When considering runway dimensions and load ratings, the C-17's worldwide runway advantage over the C-5 shrank from 6,400 to 911 airfields. The report also stated "current military doctrine that does not reflect the use of small, austere airfields", thus the C-17's short field capability was not considered.<ref name=airfields>[http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf "Comparison of C-5 and C-17 Airfield Availability."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183044/http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/152088.pdf |date=27 September 2007}} ''United States General Accounting Office'', July 1994.</ref>

A January 1995 GAO report stated that the USAF originally planned to order 210 C-17s at a cost of $41.8 billion, and that the 120 aircraft on order were to cost $39.5 billion based on a 1992 estimate.<ref name=gao>[http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf "C-17 Aircraft – Cost and Performance Issues."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184250/http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95026.pdf |date=30 September 2007}} United States General Accounting Office, January 1995.</ref> In March 1994, the U.S. Army decided it did not need the {{convert|60000|lb|abbr=on}} [[low-altitude parachute-extraction system]] delivery with the C-17 and that the C-130's {{convert|42000|lb|abbr=on}} capability was sufficient.<ref name=gao/> C-17 testing was limited to this lower weight. Airflow issues prevented the C-17 from meeting airdrop requirements. A February 1997 GAO report revealed that a C-17 with a full payload could not land on {{convert|3000|ft|m|sigfig=3|abbr=on}} wet runways; simulations suggested a distance of {{convert|5000|ft|abbr=on}} was required.<ref name=GAO_Joint_Endevour>[http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pdf "C-17 Globemaster – Support of Operation Joint Endeavor."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930184336/http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97050.pdf |date=30 September 2007}} ''United States General Accounting Office'', February 1997.</ref> The YC-15 was transferred to [[309th Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneration Group|AMARC]] to be made flightworthy again for further flight tests for the C-17 program in March 1997.<ref name=BFS>Bonny et al. 2006, p. 65.</ref>

By September 1995, most of the prior issues were reportedly resolved and the C-17 was meeting all performance and reliability targets.<ref>[http://www.afa.org/media/press/windall.asp "Air Force Secretary Says Modernization, C-17 on Track."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070914103934/http://www.afa.org/media/press/windall.asp |date=14 September 2007}} ''Air Force magazine'', 19 September 1995.</ref><ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE901FCF584869&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Future Brightens for C-17 Program."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070312/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE901FCF584869&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} ''Press-Telegram'', 31 March 1995.</ref> The first USAF squadron was declared operational in January 1995.<ref>[http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB082E680DBFA28&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM "Air Force fills Squadron of C-17s ."] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110609070320/http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SL&p_theme=sl&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB082E680DBFA28&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM |date=9 June 2011}} Associated Press, 18 January 1995.</ref>