[mad_as_he$$]

C-5’s are a maintenance nightmare and do not have access to large parts of the world due to runway construction. C-130’s are just to slow and too small for large lifts. Most of our logistical problems in the current wars were because not enough stuff and personnel could be moved fast enough. The battle in Tora Bora several years ago was delayed because of supply problems.

[Vaquero]

C-5’s are a maintenance nightmare and do not have access to large parts of the world due to runway construction. C-130’s are just to slow...

OK...well that sounds like a reason to continue it.

I do not know any more than I see on the Military Channel. I was just floating the possibilities....and I was also bringing up the point that even rock ribbed conservative presidents....(we only have had one in the past century or so and he was Reagan)...have cut back on what was construed as duplication or waste....

just saying....that's all.

[jnsun]

C-5’s are a maintenance nightmare and do not have access to large parts of the world due to runway construction. C-130’s are just to slow and too small for large lifts.

The C-5's are an absolute reliability nightmare, plus only limited destination facilities. Always seemed to me the C-17 and C-130 are a good mix, new C-130 J models still being produced, and a few C-17's keep coming.

I guess the military question is how much logistical capacity is optimum for the global long term, a complicated question; and retention/refinement of the manufacturing capability which can be lost by termination of a program, e.g. the F-22.

There are legitimate issues, sometimes ignored by the politics (employment) of it all.

The C-17 is a reliable potent aircraft with military capabilities well beyond commandeering the civil fleet (which is done routinely in conflicts). And there are no alternatives.