C-17 On The Chopping Block?

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, I’ve decided to give ya’ll an unhappycamper summary of the article and a link to the OP. To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.

To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

(This space reserved for a legally correct snark dump.) It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: The United States currently owns $42.4 billion dollars of Boeing C-17s. Want to see $2.2 billion on the move?

-->

After Boeing finishes building all those shiny new F-15s for Saudi Arabia they may have to actually try to get their 787 Dreamliner off the ground.



The Right Cargo Cut
John Wagner | September 21, 2010

Secretary Gates has proposed cutting the C-17 aircraft from our military budgets. There is some debate about whether this is the right aircraft to cut. It is. There is no debate about the need to cut budgets. Americans understand that our government has vastly over-promised our resources. We are going to have to cut budgets. The bulk of these cuts should come in areas where the Federal government does not have an explicit Constitutional duty or power -- and, indeed, given the numbers of dollars involved, the bulk of the cuts must come from those areas. Unfortunately, the scale of the problem means that even in crucial areas of explicit Federal responsibility, cuts must come. This is true even in the area of national defense.

[zipplewrath]

1. The logic is weak

"The C-5, because of its size and power, can carry things that neither of the other platforms can carry. This is especially important in terms of heavy armor, such as the Abrams tank and the Bradley fighting vehicle. It requires a long runway, but if a long runway can be captured by our forces, the C-5 is capable of quickly moving armored units into position that can control, defend, and bring order."

Yes, the C-5 can carry AN Abrams tank. Exactly one Abrams as I recall. It doesn't do all that well with Bradley's either. So suggesting that we can "quickly mov armored units" is a bit dependent upon the definition of "quickly". The C-5 is very old as well, which has additional costs associated with maintaining the platform. And, it makes some significant presumptions about the need to quickly move armored units around the world "quickly". A special forces dominated military as we are currently seeing in two wars, isn't exactly the top need for armor either. So one wonders about the need for the ability to "quickly" deploy armor at all. And although the C-17 can't land in the same places a C-130 can, it has very good short field capabilities. A C-130 can't land some places that smaller cargo aircraft can, but that doesn't mean it isn't useful. It is a balance of all the capabilities, and the C-130 has some pretty severe cargo limits as compared to the C-17.

I don't have a position on which aircraft should be kept. But it does occur to me that the C-17 is the "youngest" of the airframes, and that the C-5A, while impressive, and massive, exists as much because of some concept of "size matters" as anything else. The C-130 has one over riding factor going for it, there are thousands of them around the world. But that could work against them in the realization that they can be easily "leased" or "outsourced" if the need arose. Otherwise, their work can be split between smaller cargo aircraft, and the C-17.

Quite honestly, one can make a case to eliminate 2 platforms, the C-130 and the C-5A and just keep the C-17, as well as much smaller cargo aircraft such as the Army C-23B.

[CRK7376]

2. As a long time user

of C130s and C17s, this old Jumpmaster loves the C17. Such a stable platform, easy to work inside and outside during airborne operations. Comfy seats with room to work versus painful,cramped cargo net seats. Spend a few hours flying around in a fully loaded C130 in the summer when the A/C is broken, jumpers are tired and nervous and heavy rucks/weapons have been crushing knees, makes the thought of the big old roomy C17 being chopped painful. Don't do it Sec Gates, keep the C17!