[mark502inf]

The Army and Marines are told to make tomorrow’s combat vehicles fit into the C- 130’s tight hold. That’s backward. We need to design the fighting systems we need, then build planes to lift them.

The tail is wagging the dog.

[Mr Rogers]

So - who's going to pay for hundreds of C-130 replacements to carry the vehicles that don't fit because they were designed without regard to airlift?

The Army knew what size to make a Stryker - ignoring it has caused problems. But you cannot replace an entire fleet of aircraft just to make an Army vehicle fit after it was mis-designed.

[sauropod]

I'm glad that finally someone in the press understands the problem well enough to actually state it.

[Theophilus]

The Army and Marines are told to make tomorrow’s combat vehicles fit into the C- 130’s tight hold. That’s backward. We need to design the fighting systems we need, then build planes to lift them.

The tail is wagging the dog.

The problem is not that the planes are too small or the vehicles are too big. In my opinion, the problem is the notion of "rapid deployability". Why do we need it? Do we need it so that the next Clinton can insert us into a place like Rwanda??? The lives and exertions of our servicemen deserve the endorsement of Congress by means of a deliberate declaration of war, when combat is required. This should be followed by a deliberate and overwhelming use of force including heavy armor to offset drugged enemy suicide infantry and the ultimate and original robotic combatant: the land mine.

I honestly don't think we will ever declare war again, because it's politically incorrect, which means that Congress has forever abdicated it power and responsibility. And tragic and wasteful expeditions like Somalia will continue, all so that liberals can prove they care and are not afraid to use force.