Future of C-17 looks shaky

politico ^ | Jun 24, 2010 | JEN DIMASCIO

[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.

[Vaquero]

I should think the extant c-5s and c-130s should cover our needs....

[ClearCase_guy]

Navy ships? Don't need 'em.
F-22's? Don't need 'em.
F-35's? Don't need 'em.
Cargo jets? Don't need 'em.
Amphibious Marine landing capability? Don't need it.

It must be nice to live in a peaceful world where you don't need weapons.

[Red Steel]

“He’s made this a manhood issue,” a defense industry official said of Gates.

Cutting defense is "a man issue" with Hussein.

[SES1066]

Without being pro or con on this issue, this demonstrates why the political equation makes it so hard to balance the National Budget (when they bother to pass or even debate it). Like the move to balance local government budgets, the first 'victims' are always police, fire or education. The obvious rationale is that if you get resistance to these cuts, you can smile (as a government bureaucrat) and not bother with any of the harder social program cuts.

Here it is the same logic, you put defense spending up for cuts and when you have resistance it keeps the much more politically risky social cuts from having to be considered. Maybe the C-17 fleet does not need additional units, but does the government need more artists for the National Endowment for the Humanities?

[Cindy]

Obama stands “squarely behind” Gates.

#

Quote:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2524484/posts

Obama Backs Gates in Budget Debate
DEFENSE.gov (AMERICAN FORCES PRESS SERVICE) ^ | May 28, 2010 | n/a
Posted on May 31, 2010 2:47:38 AM PDT by Cindy

NOTE The following text is a quote:

Obama Backs Gates in Budget Debate

American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, May 28, 2010 – President Barack Obama today promised to veto any legislation that includes funding for an alternate engine for the F-35 joint strike fighter or more C-17 cargo jets, expressing his “strong support” for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates’ budget-reform effort.

“As the Congress continues its work on funding bills for the Department of Defense, I want to reiterate my strong support for the reforms Secretary Gates is advancing at the Pentagon,” Obama said in a written statement the White House released today. “He has kept me fully apprised of his efforts to reform how our military operates and bring needed efficiencies to the Department of Defense.”

Obama said he stands “squarely behind” Gates’ position on the second F-35 engine and the C-17 program.

“As the statement of administration policy made clear,” the president said in his statement, “our military does not want or need these programs being pushed by the Congress, and should Congress ignore this fact, I will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions.”

[octex]

Gates is nothing but a kissass to the Obama regime. He is gutting the US military with all of his cuts, which include Navy warships.

I really despised Dick Cheney years ago when he was SecDef and kept trying to kill the V-22 Osprey program, as well.

I’m a big Cheney fan, but I just don’t get why he (and now Gates) would try to reduce the military superiority. We are falling behind to others in the world and it will likely bite us in the ass.

[rbg81]

I should think the extant c-5s and c-130s should cover our needs....

---

Are you joking? Aircraft DO wear out you know. All through the
1990s, I read how our critical airlift capability was wearing out.
If that’s somehow changed, I must have missed it. I know a C-5 avionics
upgrade was scrapped some years ago.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to procure a new aircraft from scratch? Try
20 years (or more). So...when you actually field one, its important
to get it in the quantities you really need—cause the replacement
won’t be coming anytime soon (if ever).

[Cindy]

Speaking of Gates...

Off Thread Topic:

http://www.truthusa.com/IRAN.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2532380/posts

“Gates: Nuclear Weapons Would Make Iran Less Secure”
DEFENSE.gov (AMERICAN FORCS PRESS SERVICE) ^ | LONDON, June 8, 2010 | By John D. Banusiewicz
Posted on June 11, 2010 2:20:34 AM PDT by Cindy

#

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2530932/posts

“UN to slap fresh sanctions on Iran (Oh Yeah. That’ll work.)”
AFP on Yahoo ^ | 6/9/10 | Gerard Aziakou
Posted on June 9, 2010 8:29:41 AM PDT by NormsRevenge

#

www.defense.gov//News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=59558

“Obama Applauds New U.N. Sanctions on Iran”

By Donna Miles
American Forces Press Service

SNIPPET: “WASHINGTON, June 9, 2010 – President Barack Obama today lauded the U.N. Security Council’s decision to impose new sanctions on Iran for violating its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations.

“This resolution will put in place the toughest sanctions ever faced by the Iranian government, and it sends an unmistakable message about the international community’s commitment to stopping the spread of nuclear weapons,” Obama said in the Diplomatic Room at the White House.”

[Yo-Yo]

Then there's this:

Boeing Eyes Narrower C-17

Boeing plans to provide more detail on its C-17FE concept at Farnborough.

The “FE,” for fuel efficient, would have a narrower fuselage by several feet than the aircraft now in production. It also would involve lightening of the structure through use of composites, says Tommy Dunehew, Boeing’s C-17 business development representative.

The goal is to meet the nominal Joint Future Theater Lift program. The concept "is fairly advanced," with the same engines, tails, and wing, Dunehew says.

The Army and Air Force would impact the design as requirements would evolve. But the goal is to meet 99% of the JFTL requirement with the C-17FE.

The concept effectively supplants the C-17B concept.

[Vaquero]

NO I dont know the strategic reason for this particular piece of equipment. or if they can refit existing pieces to serve that purpose....I know we have been refurbishing and re-building B-52 since the early 50s. I love the BUFF.

I was po’d when fighter jets were cut by zer0, like the f-22. I know Reagan and Bush Sr. cut back on certain military uneccessities...even closed bases... We need to cut back things that are not necessary in a recessesion. I know the ‘messiah’ has a political agenda to destroy the military...but I do not necessarily agree that one MATS cargo plane design would be doing that.

[LibLieSlayer]

Nukes... don’t need them... Generals... don’t need them either... 1.2 trillion for union thugs and street punks... we need that sh!t!

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

It will be brought down by a daisy bb gun and it will break in two pieces if it has to land where a C130 has steep decline requirements... other than that... it will be great!

LLS

[Tainan]

I just read somewhere, some mil site I subscribe to I guess, that the C-17 overseas sales look good thru 2013. Also, that the domestic sales, while slower, are still going on.
Since inception the C-17 has been talked about like a red-headed step-child. One of the most politicized a/c I've ever seen.

Good a/c that fits a specific envelope;but it ain't everything to everyone...and that is what keeps it being bad mouthed...IMO.

[Notary Sojac]

I agree that aircraft need replacing. The question as I see it is, would we get more airlift for the buck by buying more C-130Js, or a smaller number of C-17s?

[mad_as_he$$]

C-5’s are a maintenance nightmare and do not have access to large parts of the world due to runway construction. C-130’s are just to slow and too small for large lifts. Most of our logistical problems in the current wars were because not enough stuff and personnel could be moved fast enough. The battle in Tora Bora several years ago was delayed because of supply problems.

[Vaquero]

C-5’s are a maintenance nightmare and do not have access to large parts of the world due to runway construction. C-130’s are just to slow...

OK...well that sounds like a reason to continue it.

I do not know any more than I see on the Military Channel. I was just floating the possibilities....and I was also bringing up the point that even rock ribbed conservative presidents....(we only have had one in the past century or so and he was Reagan)...have cut back on what was construed as duplication or waste....

just saying....that's all.

[mad_as_he$$]

Remember C-141’s were scrapped and the 17 was suppose to be their replacement. In addition, the amount of stuff now required to support a soldier in the field has skyrockted from the VN era. Moving bottled water alone is a monumental task.

[Vaquero]

I suppose....I'm more of a C-47...M1 Garand kind of guy.

I tend to live in the past...you know, like when you go to war you go to WIN...Unconditionally.

I also highly recommend saturation bombing over smart bomb technology....it breaks the spirit....just ask the Japanese. See what they have to say about reforming a full time aggressive army (not their little policing army)....we cooked them 65 years ago and they are still cooked.

[hoskinsr3106]

I have been stuck in so many places waiting on a C-5 to get repaired, never been stuck with a C-17.