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

Skip to comments.

C-17: Unwanted Cargo to US Budget
Defense Professionals ^ | 7/2/2010 | Alex Bland

Posted on 07/02/2010 7:54:04 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld

As Congress begins consideration of the FY 2011 Defense Appropriations bill, the US Project On Government Oversight (POGO) hopes that they will support the Pentagon and President by passing such waste-reduction initiatives as an amendment to strip funding for unneeded C-17 cargo planes.

The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they have no use for new C-17 aircraft, and that their current fleet is substantial and sufficient. This claim is confirmed by the Pentagon's most recent completed analysis for air transport needs, the 2005 Mobility Capability Study, which stated that 180 C-17s are all that are necessary within an acceptable measure of risk. [In late 2009, US House of Representatives has passed a $636.4 billion defence spending bill which also funds the procurement of additional C-17s bringing the total fleet of 223 aircraft. This increases the original 2007 planning of Congress by 43 C-17s – Ed.].

However, when it comes to the C-17 program, Congress has earmarked with reckless abandon. In 2007, the conference committee more than tripled the number of additional C-17s requested by House and Senate authorizers and appropriators. In 2009 Congress continued to fund the production of C-17s with a $2.5 billion appropriation, despite the strong objection by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Obama.

Ashton Carter, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics, stated earlier this week that “delivering better value to the taxpayer and improving the way the Department does business” is an “important priority.” Purchasing more planes that the United States do not need is by no means better value for the taxpayer, especially in the current economic climate.

(Excerpt) Read more at defpro.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aerospace; c17; cargo; cargoairplanes; dfens; globemaster; pentagon; usaf

1 posted on 07/02/2010 7:54:07 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

It’s not that they don’t want more C-17s, it’s that there are other things they want more. They should have both. There would be plenty of money for it, if Congress and the Administration weren’t spending to put drunken sailors to shame, on things not made the responsibility of the federal government by the Constitution


2 posted on 07/02/2010 8:05:22 PM PDT by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: El Gato

I agree


3 posted on 07/02/2010 8:07:22 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld (It is not the size of the dog in the fight, its is the size of the fight in the dog-Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
The Pentagon has repeatedly stated that they have no use for new C-17 aircraft, and that their current fleet is substantial and sufficient.

Not so fast there, Bubba. I'm pretty sure the next president is going to need a whole lot more carrying capacity for the 30 million illegals we'll be drop-shipping to Mexico.

4 posted on 07/02/2010 8:17:16 PM PDT by Windflier (To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

C-17 Cargo Plane

5 posted on 07/02/2010 8:18:23 PM PDT by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove

Well this POGO group seems to be pretty far left. There Board consists of NYT journalists, a contributor to Nation magazine and a few Democrat underlings. Not sure that’s the best group to render a verdict on military hardware.


6 posted on 07/02/2010 8:28:28 PM PDT by blue state conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blue state conservative

I agree


7 posted on 07/02/2010 8:30:44 PM PDT by ErnstStavroBlofeld (It is not the size of the dog in the fight, its is the size of the fight in the dog-Mark Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sonofstrangelove
stated that 180 C-17s are all that are necessary

Because, I suppose, if the situation is so bad you can't fix it with 180 C-17s, just send a B-52 with a nuke.

/johnny

8 posted on 07/02/2010 10:29:41 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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