GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Senate rivals agree to seek study of military airlift needs

• 29193
  

  Most of your comments are true, but there are three very important aspects being neglected. First, is that a modernized C-5 (AMP and RERP) is much more efficient and more reliable than prior to modernization. The C-17 is still more flexible and cheaper to maintain, but it makes it close. Second, the C-5A has had all the wings replaced so NONE of the active C-5 aircraft have even used HALF of their lifecycle. Third, the AF does not own enough C-17 to park the C-5 so it would have to buy additional C-17 to replace the C-5. Think of it whether or not to buy a new car. When is it CHEAPER to buy a new car than to keep driving your servicable older model. It is like trying to tell your wife you traded in the 01' Expedition with 60,000 miles for the '07 Land Rover to save money. The Hummer is less likely to break down, it will get better gas mileage, it is more versatile, and it is a lot nicer to drive and ride, but the Expedition is paid off, provides more cargo space, and has plenty of serviceable years left on the drivetrain.

  William Korkki Posted July 24, 2007 9:28 AM
• 28775
  

  Boeing has a deadline and will shut down the line if the USAF does not order more C-17's. Lockheed Martin wants the Air Force to continue investing in the C-5 upgrades of both the A/B models. Boeing will only make 10 white tails C-17's. NATO has placed an order for 3 C-17 and that will leave 7 C-17's available for purchase. The House has voted to buy 10 C-17's.

  Congress should fully fund the 10 C-17's as replacements for 40 year old C-130's retired due to structural issues, proceed with the study on C-17/C-5 alternatives which will tell us in February 2009 which aircraft we should buy in optimal numbers.

  James Goodwin Posted July 19, 2007 12:42 AM
• 28749
  

  This is a perfect example of pork barrel politics driving military spending. Senators are proponents of the C-5 and C-17 soley on the basis of money flowing into their constituencys. The C-5 is an old rotting monster that should be kept around in the fewest numbers possible to simply satisfy our oversized strategic airlift needs. There is no comparason between the two airplanes, the 17 is the only heavy airlifter we need. I hate how Senators dismiss four star generals advice as inadequate simply because they change their opinion at times. These men will take a professionals opinion only when it benefits their state monetarily, while you'd think they'd weigh a generals opinion MORE because he isn't driven by ulterior motives.

  K. Stone, 1LT, USAF Posted July 18, 2007 1:43 PM
• 28653
  

  Maybe the American tax payer will find out the European aerospace company EADS has an all new A400M airlifter that can do tactical and stratigic airlift that is just starting it's production run as opposed to decades old aircraft made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing. The A400M has been developed with the money of European countries who could not afford the C-17 or it's operating costs. It can carry the Army's new Future Strike System, can be used as a tanker, has near jet speed and relatively lower acquisition and operating cost. If the buy is large enough, EADS could set up assembly in the States and hire Americans to build and furnish a majority of the parts.

  Jerry Estepp Posted July 17, 2007 2:22 PM
• 28645
  

  As an Initial Cadre instructor on the C-17 in the early 1990's, I can tell you from first-hand experience that there is virtually no airlift mission the C-17 can't do. It's capabilities are for more flexible that that of the aging C-5 fleet. Although expensive to develop, the C-17 will be the workhorse of the U.S. military for many years to come.

  Vincent L. Murray II, Major, USAFR (retired) Posted July 17, 2007 11:30 AM
• 28637
  

  The C5 vs.C17 issue is a no-brainer. The C5 is a 40 year old strategic airlifter with a high operating cost.The C17 is a modern day airlifter that is both a strategic and a tactical airlifter. Please compare the MICAP (mission capability) rates for both.I will hope that my tax dollars are spent on C17's.

  Bill McGlathery Posted July 17, 2007 10:18 AM