Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Argentina barred US landings, overflights during Bush's tour
Buenos Aires Herald ^ | Thursday, March 22, 2007 | Staff

Posted on 03/22/2007 10:23:51 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative

WASHINGTON — Argentina barred US C-5 Galaxy transport aircraft from landing or overflying during a Latin American tour by US President George W. Bush for fear they would get stuck there, the secretary of the US Air Force said yesterday.

"This is really a slap in the face to your America’s air force," Michael Wynne, the service’s top civilian, told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee weighing the air force’s US$110.7 billion fiscal 2008 budget request.

The C-5 fleet is built by Lockheed Martin Corp., the Pentagon’s biggest supplier. Designed to carry outsize and oversize cargo, it is one of the world’s largest aircraft and the backbone of strategic airlift in every US war from Vietnam through the US-led invasion of Iraq.

Bush toured Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico from March 8 to 14. It was not immediately clear why Washington sought landing rights in Argentina as part of the trip. The C-5 is sometimes used to ferry bulletproof limousines and other heavy cargo during White House missions.

"Right now, we’ve had an incident where Argentina refused to have C-5s land in their territory because the last time we landed C-5s there, they all broke down and they could not leave," Wynne testified.

He said Argentina also turned down overflight rights for the giant transports in a diplomatic note to the US Embassy tied to Bush’s Latin American tour.

Argentina’s Embassy in Washington did not return a telephone call seeking comment on Wynne’s account. Thomas Greer, a spokesman for Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, said the company would not comment on an operational issue or incident involving the C-5, which it is upgrading and modernizing.

Wynne used the C-5 tale to illustrate what he called the problem of "geriatric maintenance" of the air force’s aging and increasingly unfit inventory of about 6,000 aircraft.



TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: aerospace; c5

1 posted on 03/22/2007 10:23:52 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: COEXERJ145; microgood; liberallarry; cmsgop; shaggy eel; RayChuang88; Larry Lucido; namsman; ...

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


2 posted on 03/22/2007 10:25:06 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I care a lot less about Argentine policies that I do about C-5 reliability.


3 posted on 03/22/2007 10:32:28 AM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

good to see you back! missed your posts


4 posted on 03/22/2007 10:34:11 AM PDT by fontoon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
I'm not sure I understand what Michael Wynne is so upset about.

"Right now, we’ve had an incident where Argentina refused to have C-5s land in their territory because the last time we landed C-5s there, they all broke down and they could not leave," Wynne testified.

Well, considering that history, I'm not sure I blame them. If the C-5s that broke down were ferrying around things for a Presidential or other high level political trip, there was probably a good bit of security involved with them, and their breaking down was likely more than a minor inconvenience for that Argentinian airport.

If refusing to allow us to land C-5 there again is a slap in the face, I'm not sue it is an undeserved one. It seems pointless to get pissed of at Argentina for reacting to a genuine past problem.

He said Argentina also turned down overflight rights for the giant transports in a diplomatic note to the US Embassy tied to Bush’s Latin American tour.

If "they all broke down" last time would you really want them flying over your country? I'm also curious why they would need to fly over Argentina if they aren't going to land there. Where would they be headed, the south pole?

It is shameful that our planes broke down last time they landed there. I expect (and sure hope) that we have addressed the issue that caused that.

Maybe this is a less than polite reminder of how we screwed up last time, but it seems like we have more of a reason to be embarrassed than offended.

Am I missing something?

5 posted on 03/22/2007 10:46:50 AM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rogue yam
I care a lot less about Argentine policies that I do about C-5 reliability.

The Air Force has a program to modernize the avionics and then to re-engine the C-5 fleet. The big question right now is whether the C-5A fleet will get re-engined. Two C-5B's have already been re-engined and are being tested. One C-5A is being reengined and will be tested to determine the cost effectiveness of re-engining the remaining C-5A fleet.

6 posted on 03/22/2007 10:49:11 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
"Right now, we’ve had an incident where Argentina refused to have C-5s land in their territory because the last time we landed C-5s there, they all broke down and they could not leave," Wynne testified.

Whut?

7 posted on 03/22/2007 10:51:16 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner ("Si vis pacem para bellum")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

Is Michael Wynne one of ours or one of theirs?


8 posted on 03/22/2007 10:51:42 AM PDT by HIDEK6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Bush toured Brazil, Uruguay, Colombia, Guatemala and Mexico from March 8 to 14. It was not immediately clear why Washington sought landing rights in Argentina as part of the trip.

Do these reporters know how to look at a map? Uruguay is across a river from Argentina. The closest major alternate airports to Montevideo are probably in Argentina. Even the Pentagon needs to plan what to do if something goes wrong at the main landing site.
9 posted on 03/22/2007 10:59:46 AM PDT by conservative in nyc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I understand Saddam Hussein had many misgivings about the C-5's reliability. I understand they were resolved in due course.


10 posted on 03/22/2007 4:09:43 PM PDT by tanuki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
Fill 'em up with fine Argentinian wine and bring 'em home!

Maybe make a stop in Chile for the same reason.

11 posted on 03/22/2007 7:53:22 PM PDT by Tainan (Talk is cheap. Silence is golden. All I got is brass...lotsa brass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson