Posted on 06/24/2010 3:28:11 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar
The Air Force’s C-17 Globemaster cargo jet once had a comfortable ride as a project the Defense Department rarely requested but Congress continued to fund — an arrangement that allowed the military, lawmakers and lobbyists to share in the largesse year after year.
But the terrain appears much rockier for the Boeing-made plane in fiscal year 2011, as Congress looks for ways to trim the deficit and, more important, Defense Secretary Robert Gates digs in hard against the plane, securing a veto threat against funding for it from President Barack Obama.
“He’s made this a manhood issue,” a defense industry official said of Gates.
The Pentagon has bought or ordered 223 C-17s since the 1980s. Initially, the picture for funding at least a few more planes was promising. Defense industry officials were hopeful the House would add money for five Globemaster aircraft — and that the Senate wouldn’t oppose it in conference.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a longtime backer of the program, told Defense Daily in May that the House was likely to include funding for the aircraft and that senators “usually go along with” that kind of request.
But there was already one noticeable difference. Gates’s assault on the cargo jet was much more robust than his first attack last year. That seems to have scared off some support in the Senate, which supported a measure to add C-17s last year.
Now, opponents of the plane, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have more traction, and defense industry officials aren’t sure they’ll have the votes to add funding for it to the defense authorization bill.
Neither bill pending in the House and Senate gives the Pentagon the authority to spend money on the plane.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
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.