The University of Texas at AustinStudies in Ethics, Safety, and Liability for EngineersKurt Hoover and Wallace T. FowlerThe C-5 GalaxyA Question of Need?TABLE OF CONTENTSBackgroundThe Need for the C-5The Ultimate Cargo AirplaneThe ContractCompetition for the C-5 ContractPoliticsThe Need for the C-5 (reexamined)Problems with the Airplane and the ContractEngineering DifficultiesUnderbidding and Run BLockheed's Financial DifficultiesA No-Win SituationThe LosersLockheedThe United States Air ForceThe PublicEthical IssuesReferencesC-5 Galaxy AssignmentsAssignment AAssignment BAssignment CAssignment DAssignment EThe University of Texas at Austin Studies in Ethics, Safety, and Liability for Engineers Kurt Hoover and Wallace T. FowlerThe C-5 GalaxyA Question of Need?The C-5 Galaxy is the largest airplane in the free world. It can haul 250,000 lb. of equipment; it is 246 ft long and has a wing span of 233 ft. The enormous tail reaches as high as a six-story building and when the airplane lands the pilot is still three stories off the ground. The interior cargo compartment is as big as an eight-lane bowling alley and longer than the Wright brothers' first flight. To many people who equate size with greatness, the C-5 is a worthy triumph of American aerospace engineering. At the time of its creation, it was lauded by both Lockheed and the USAF as the best America could create. However, from its conception to the present day, the C-5 has provided examples of many of the worst problems with the weapons procurement system in this country. Today, the C-5 is an airplane with a greatly diminished and restricted mission, unable to fulfill the role for which it was designed. Despite the best intentions of all those involved in its design and production, the C-5 will never play more than a token role in the defenseof this nation. TABLE OF CONTENTS- Background - The Contract - Problems with the Airplane and the Contract - The Losers - Ethical Issues - References - C-5 Galaxy Assignments BackgroundThe Need for the C-5The idea for the C-5 originated in the early 1960s; a fleet of giant cargo aircraft would allow the United States to move large quantities of troops and equipment to any place in the world in a matter of days. No longer would large numbers of U. S. troops have to be garrisoned abroad in distant lands to maintain America's military presence. With several C-5 squadrons, America could project its military power anywhere, anytime, without the expense of maintaining permanent facilities overseas. Of course the USAF (United States Air Force) was not without cargo planes in the 1960s.The most successful was the C-130 Hercules. This turboprop-driven airplane, designed and built by Lockheed, could land, release its cargo, and then take off in only 3800 ft. The C-130 is a very versatile aircraft, and today over 1800 of them are still serving the Air Force as gunships, cargo transports, and tankers. Despite the fact that it was designed in the 1950s, the C-130 continues to be one of the most useful aircraft in the USAF inventory. As military planners considered the available cargo aircraft in 1960, they determined it was necessary to have a larger jet-powered cargo airplane. In 1964, the USAF began acquiring the C-141 Starlifter. Unfortunately Army paraphernalia continued to grow in size and by 1964 only one third of it fit through the C-141 cargo doors. In order to help the Army deploy rapidly, the USAF needed a larger cargo aircraft to haul the really big equipment. The Ultimate Cargo AirplaneTo satisfy the increasing airlift needs, the USAF developed an RFP (Request For Proposal) in May of 1964. The new aircraft was to be the ultimate transport aircraft. Its ability to land fully loaded on dirt runways no longer than 4,000 ft. would allow combat and support equipment to be delivered right to the front lines. A complex system of slats and flaps would allow the aircraft to accomplish short take-offs and landings. The specifications called for the airplane to operate in temperatures ranging from -65oF to 120oF. A built-in malfunction detector was to monitor 600 critical systems and provide recommended fixes for any system failure. A special system was proposed to deflate and re-inflate the tires to facilitate landing gear stowage and to facilitate landings on unpaved runways. Built in ramps were included to facilitate rapid loading and unloading through both the front and rear cargo doors. The ContractCompetition for the C-5 ContractThree companies, Boeing, Lockheed, and Douglas, bid for the C-5 airframe contract. Theoriginal proposal called for a fleet of 115 planes. Each company received money from theUSAF to develop its proposal. When the proposals were finally submitted, Boeing set thecost of the program at $2.3 billion, Douglas at $2.0 billion, and Lockheed at $1.9 billion. A USAF team consisting of 400 officers and civilians evaluated the proposals and selected the Boeing design based on its technical superiority. However, this decision wasoverruled by high level DOD (Department of Defense) managers and the contract given to Lockheed because of its lower bid. At the time the C-5 contract was awarded, there was great concern within DOD about thecost of weapons systems. A 1962 study of twelve major weapons systems showed that theaverage program ended up costing 220% of the original estimated cost. To counter the trend of over-budget programs, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara developed the Total Package Procurement procedure (TPP). Under this procedure, a contractor was required to incorporate all costs in the bid, including initial design, final design, manufacture, testing, training, and spare parts. The central idea of the procedure was to required a company to submit a bid for all these components. The company was to be held to this price by the USAF, eliminating cost overruns. However, almost nothing in the military industrial complex is simple. One of the major reasons that Lockheed was awarded the C-5 contract was DOD's desire to retain Lockheed as a viable defense contractor. In Marietta, Georgia, production on the C-130 and C-141 was winding down. Had Lockheed not won the C-5 contract, thousands of people at Lockheed Georgia would have been laid-off. The giant defense contractor, which was also the sole source of Polaris and Poseidon missiles, would have been in serious financial trouble. Although Lockheed's bid was the lowest, there was no guarantee that their costs would remain