New C-17s request in war funding bill

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by sickpup

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/15/po...5military.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniont...15convoys.html




A-10C
C-5 RERP
F-16 CCIP
F-15 APG-63 Upgrade
B-1 Conventional Munition Upgrade
KC-135 Reskin and Engine Upgrade
B-52 Targeting Pod Addition
etc, etc, etc...

Sickpup, both your references are very dated. 2004.

HP

[sickpup]

Originally Posted by Greasel_burger

The fact that the airport i'm living next to had a pair of Antonov's land each week with these Markings

And i know from one of my former schoolfreinds who works loading planes there that the flights were loaded with US military supplies to iraq. Mainly because they had the FOB addresses marked on the crates.

So, in other words, we just have to rely on hearsay? No thanks.

Sickpup, both your references are very dated. 2004.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...131-afpn02.htm

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123027940

[Greasel_burger]

So, in other words, we just have to rely on hearsay? No thanks.

Admittidly, he was drunk when he told me which FOB...

[Sgt Ken]

i think there,s more to this than we know the US military wants to be able to resupply a larger force in the future ,allso they might be wanting to put this new laser on some of them for attack aircraft?

[Sgt Ken]

Allso the C-17 is a multi-role aircraft can be used as a Bomber or a refueler by changeing the rear ramp for both.so ypu get more for your buck refuler are the big factor here,as i said some of the other aircraft are getting older and you cant compare a C-130 to a C-17 faster more load longer range.

[iron]

I've read through this thread top to bottom; I feel the situation can be summed up as follows:

The healthy debate of the previous four pages quickly focused in on the same tired theme; sexy fighters vs. everything else with wings.

Minimal funding (with the express purpose of maintaining) of the C-17 production line is a good (and very necessary) thing...

...once they shut down Long Beach you can bet your bottom dollar it's gone forever!

Recent purchases by NATO, RAAF, RAF and the CAF have allowed the "powers that be" to sidestep this issue for the last couple of years, but it's coming back to the forefront again; this is a vital capability to possess (heavy military airlift production), purchased for untold Billions of taxpayer dollars.

Personally, I'd like to see my country do more than it already has to this end, stepping up to purchase at least another four "tails"...as it sits, the four that we now have operational are burning through their service lives at an incredible rate (I believe that 701 and 702 are currently "down south" receiving their LAIRCM mods, as we speak).

*This info comes from "the horses mouth"- so to speak; the "Lead aircraft Commander" of the Canadian C-17 programme posts regularly on another forum (dedicated to the Canadian Military, Army.ca) under the handle "Globesmasher"; as he puts it: (this in response to the question, Did we purchase enough of them?)

QUOTE:
"No we didn't. However, all we could do is take the chunk of money that was given to us by the Govt for the "project" and spend it as wisely as we could. 4 jets plus the spares, training and 20 (years) of service support was all we could afford with the money we were given...snip...

With only 4 C-17s (CC177s) you will ALWAYS see an Antonov or an Illushyn parked in Trenton hauling cargo for us - we'll never be able to do it all ourselves with only:
5 Airbus
4 C-17s
17 C-130J

Such is life.

4 is much better than 0."
END QUOTE

I personally feel that pressure on NATO should be stepped up as with regards to more funding for a further C-17 order...four aircraft?... Sufficient...? gimme a break!

All that said, the really big thing that's being overlooked by everyone in this "debate" is the fact that the USA already has a massive air transport capability, waiting in the wings in the event that things go totally sideways. The domestic airlines will be grounded and ruthlessly commandeered in the case of a serious national emergency.

...Unfortunately, there is no comparable fleet of modern fighter aircraft waiting to be commandeered, in the case of such an eventuality!

While you can't do STOL tactical delivery to a battle zone in a 767 or A340 you can certainly use them to free up a large number of the C-17's (that are currently tasked with some of the hauling between the major airheads).

In summation...the C-17 production line is vital...it's the only source of this capability for the western democracies (don't bother trying to equate the A400M...apples and oranges...if it ever flies!). Ten years down the road we'll likely be here lamenting the day that they shut Long Beach down...

...if EADS doesn't get their sh*t together soon with the A400M, I can forsee the RAF making further acquisitions for their C-17 fleet. I wish I could say that Canada would buy more, but we've only recently begun to rebuild our military, and we've got many more pressing Military Aviation needs...(C-130J, CH-47, Maritime Patrol, CF-18 upgrades/replacement, FWSAR [fixed wing, search and rescue]...and a crumbling (1950's) airbase infrastructure too boot)...and this is only the Air side of things

Does the USAF need more C-17's, right this minute?...probably not.
Does the West need the continued availability of new build C-17's?...absolutely.

Unfortunately, the USAF also needs new fighter airframes in large numbers...the trick is to figure out how to balance these requirements within a fixed budget. If sneaking it through congress via the "back door" was the only available option, it still had to happen...what will happen in a couple of more years is anyone's guess...

Cheers, Ron

[sickpup]

Nicely put together post, iron. I agree, except for one minor thing...

Originally Posted by iron

All that said, the really big thing that's being overlooked by everyone in this "debate" is the fact that the USA already has a massive air transport capability, waiting in the wings in the event that things go totally sideways. The domestic airlines will be grounded and ruthlessly commandeered in the case of a serious national emergency.

I've actually pointed this out multiple times. The airlift system is designed so that all of the military airframes don't meet 100% of the demand. It's more cost efficient to rely on the commercial carriers for certain types of airlift.

The commercial airlines promise to make X percent of their fleet available for military use when needed, and in return, the government allows the participating airlines to bid on other government-related cargo/passenger hauling.

This allows the military to focus more on the specialized airframes.

[sickpup]

Another upgrade coming online this year - putting a Sniper targeting pod on the B-1.