[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[PJammers]

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.

[LomanBill]

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.