Posted on 06/24/2010 3:28:11 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
Most despotic nations rarely require large and expensive military hardware. They only require enough weapons to protect themselves and their largess from the ever present threat of their divided and impoverished citizens.
Never road in a C-17. Have had many hours in C-130 web seats (avoid the wheel well). Never road in a C-5 that didn’t spend at least 6 hours being repaired at the end of the runway!
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.
Have you noticed the advertising GE/RR and P&W has been doing over this engine debate?
Well, what’s the point in having a logistical delivery vehicle idealy suited to short runways and thin air... when the Kenyan just says “no” when commanders in the field request supplies needed to WIN the war?
The Berger King doesn’t need C17s - his Opium can be moved via mule train.
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.