[Paleo Conservative]

NATO should order some more. The Airbus A400m is years away from flying.

[Paleo Conservative]

If you want on or off my aerospace ping list, please contact me by Freep mail.

[SkyPilot]

The commander of USTRANSCOM, Gen Schwartz, and the commander of Air Military Command, Gen McNabb (who I used to work for) both said they wanted less than the 191. They concluded this due to an in depth analysis of the airlift surge we have been undergoing since OEF and OIF. They wanted to money earmarked for the KC-X tanker replacement instead.

With all respects to Rep Talent, this wasn't a "victory" for the US military or the nation. It was a "victory" for his Congressional district.

Furthermore, Congress has needlessly driven up the cost of the C-17 fleet by insisting the Air Force base them in places the Air Force said they didn't want them based (Hawaii, Alaska, and Mississippi). It costs millions in military dollars to put those aircraft there because the Air Force has to spend money for infrastructure assocated with the C-17. Sen Stevens (R-Alaska), Sen Inouye (D-Hawaii) were just playing pork barrel politics with a strategic airlifter that has no business being stationed there.

[sukhoi-30mki]

Isn't the A-400 more of an aircraft in the class of the C-130(an advancement over it) than the C-17???

[AFreeBird]

The government watchdog group Project On Government Oversight has called Talent's provision an example of wasteful spending. The group says Congress is forcing the military to purchase weapons it doesn't want.

Typical ignorance. The C-17 is not a weapon, it is a transport. And I can't see any military planner, not wanting a robust fleet of transports to keep the supply lines open, especially in the environment of dwindling overseas bases from which to draw on.

Personally, considering the number of hotspots around the world, and the need to get men and meterial to those spots quickly, we should probably have twice as many transports.

[hattend]

Good, we need lots more than 10 extra though.