Actual values for MC surpassed the 100,000 flight-hour standard specified in 1993; however, the standards were increased in the 1998 ORD when it was felt that higher rates were attainable. The MC rate hovered at approximately 90 percent in 1997 before spare shortfalls and other difficulties caused it to drop. The measures for FMC, although all well below the 1993 and 1998 ORD objectives, have been trending upward. FMC is primarily being impacted by the Head-Up-Display (HUD) and the on-board inert gas generating system (OBIGGS), which provides inert gas to the empty space within the aircraft fuel tanks. Extensive downtime was due to a lack of equipment to re-boresight and realign HUD mounting trays to correct the problem. A HUD alignment program is in work and is scheduled to be completed in January 2000. OBIGGS upgrades are improving reliability, but are also causing long downtimes awaiting improved parts. An OBIGGS improvement program is scheduled for FY00.

Additional OT&E and subsequent report preparation was transferred to the 33 FLTS at McGuire AFB, AMC's parent test organization.

Ongoing DT&E will continue at Edwards AFB under the heading of the follow-on flight test program (FOFTP). This effort is budgeted to continue through FY08. AFOTEC-Det 5 at Edwards AFB will maintain involvement through ongoing communication with the Program Office and the C-17 Test Team resident at Edwards AFB.

Upon conclusion of FOT&E, nearly all items (deficiencies, inadequacies, recommendations and deferred tests) identified during IOT&E are expected to be closed. The most highly visible challenge currently facing the program is the effort to reduce strategic brigade airdrop formation spacing and subsequent drop zone pass time. The current 40,000-foot formation element spacing was established based upon the criteria of no allowable paratrooper interactions while under canopy. A model developed by the Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT), to simulate vortices behind formation aircraft and predict paratrooper interactions, has facilitated convergence on an acceptable formation spacing with an acceptable interaction probability. The U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army developed a test plan to evaluate spacing, and test started in January 1999 at 28,000 feet spacing between aircraft formation elements. Interactions at this spacing, although within model predictions, were judged to be more severe than Army evaluators expected. The element spacing was moved to 32,000 feet spacing and limited data was collected before testing was deferred to December 1999 due to operational needs. Some DOT&E concern still exists regarding the fidelity of the AFIT model and the quality of the data used to support the model. Data from over 3,000 mannequin drops have been analyzed; however, the majority of the data has been qualitative data collected via observation. Very limited vortex mapping data has been collected.

An additional concern discovered during recent testing may also impact Strategic Brigade Airdrop. The apparent limited ability to perform simultaneous dual-row airdrops (release of two rows of cargo positioned side-by-side in the aircraft) necessitates a sequential release of special 88-inch wide by 16-foot long platforms to prevent collisions of the cargo platforms in the air. The resultant effect is an increase in delivery time and required drop zone length; however, the number of aircraft required to drop equipment has been significantly reduced. The overall effect on strategic brigade airdrop execution time is impacted by both the dual-row airdrop and the reduced element spacing.

The Program Office is developing a new TEMP that will address continuing flight tests, particularly the Follow-On Flight Test Program at Edwards AFB and continued operational testing by the 33 FLTS at McGuire AFB. The current TEMP was approved in 1995 and contained substantial information on FOT&E. The 1995 TEMP is being updated to better address FOFTP at Edwards AFB and operational testing by the 33 FLTS. In addition, an updated OT test plan will be submitted. The updated plan will focus on the transfer of OT management responsibility to the 33 FLTS and planned testing for the next four years in greater detail.

Challenges to developmental and operational flight testing in 2000 and beyond include constraints to individual project budgets, test resources, and aircraft availability for test. Only a single dedicated aircraft exists for developmental flight testing. Requests for flight test time on operational aircraft are in stiff competition with high operational mission demands. These challenges may affect the amount of testing conducted for aircraft modification and upgrade.