You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Senate Bill Drops C-17s, Funds F-22s
2008-05-03
The $542.5 billion defense authorization bill adopted by the Senate Armed Services Committee includes money to buy 20 more F-22 Raptors, but doesn't recommend funding any additional C-17 cargo lifters.

The baseline defense authorization legislation was adopted unanimously by the committee, Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said May 1, adding: "We adopted the numbers that were sent over by the administration."

Those numbers included funding for an additional 20 F-22 stealth jet fighters. The authorizing committee also approved $497 million either for advanced procurement of F-22s or for shutting the manufacturing line down. "That either/or decision will be made by the next president," Levin said.

The Bush administration did not seek any C-17s in its fiscal 2009 budget request "and none were authorized," Levin said. However, the need for additional C-17s tops the U.S. Air Force's Unfunded requirements List. The services placed 15 aircraft worth about $3.9 billion on its FY '09 list.
I'm not smart enough to know what we need more: more F-22s or more C-17s. But clearly funding both is a problem.
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) who joined Levin at a Capitol Hill news conference said he "personally would support that program continuing" but the committee left it "to the next president to determine whether or not that program should continue." And Levin said the decision does not mean the committee thinks the Pentagon has enough airlift capability. "There's a number of options for that. The C-17's not the only option," he said, but did not go into detail.
That might be a reference to the C-5 refit program, which is way behind schedule and way over budget.
The Armed Services Committee also authorized continued funding, $430 million, for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) alternate engine program.
That's the engine the Air Force doesn't want but Ted Kennedy wants for them, and you can guess why ...
But lawmakers also authorized $35 million to Pratt & Whitney, manufacturer of the JSF's original F135 engine, to improve technologies.

The bill also fully funds the administration request for the U.S. Army's Future Combat Systems and adds $87 million to increase the access of Defense Department unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to the National Air Space.

Lawmakers agreed to fully fund the Pentagon's plan to base interceptor missiles and X-Band radar in Eastern Europe - provided the system is successfully tested and the Polish and Czech parliaments approve deployment.
That's a clear and quiet win for the Bush administration.
The bill adds more than $270 million for near-term missile defense capabilities, including $100 million for Aegis BMD and SM-3 missiles, and $115 million for the Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system.
Hard to continue ignoring the success of these programs. The Dhimmis can no longer claim that they can't and won't ever work.
The committee also cut $50 million from the Space Tracking and Surveillance System, another $50 million from the Multiple Kill Vehicle program and $45 million more from the troubled Airborne Laser (ABL) program. The cut to ABL does not remove funds allocated for ABL's long-awaited 2009 shootdown test.
Posted by:Steve White

#16  (2) Humanitarian aid drops into rough / inaccessible country without the need for a trained pilot


You will need a trained operator and I fear it is at least as hard to train as a pilot. Only advantage is that you can recruit people with heart conditions. Cargo pilots don't have the same fitness requirements than fighter pilots but there are some NO, NOs who don't apply for drone operators

Posted by: JFM   2008-05-03 17:58  

#15  Let's go with the F-22. There. All settled :-)
Posted by: Iblis   2008-05-03 17:06  

#14  JFM: One of the big frustrations about cargo air traffic is that most of what pilots do is about as difficult as long haul trucking. Boring beyond boring. Even takeoff and landing should be as rote as possible. So why not automate it? That has been a dream for decades.

If the cargo is special, or the trip is unique or challenging, a piloted aircraft is still good, but the vast majority don't need them.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-05-03 16:26  

#13  Ooops!
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-03 15:21  

#12  How does the saying goes "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-03 15:20  

#11  How does the saying goes "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics"?
Posted by: g(r)omgoru   2008-05-03 15:20  

#10  Do we really need the C-17 when you can just bungee cargo on the back of a (multi-multi-role) Hornet? The F/A-18F Super Hornet variant even has an extra guy to keep an eye on the load.

For really heavy stuff, two Hornets could carry it slung between them, much the same way that a pair of African swallows carry a coconut.


the Genius™ of out-of-the-box thinking from the Army Of Steves ;-)
Posted by: Frank G   2008-05-03 15:08  

#9  (1) Air drops into hostile zones without risking a pilot

(2) Humanitarian aid drops into rough / inaccessible country without the need for a trained pilot
Posted by: lotp   2008-05-03 14:49  

#8  Excuse me but can you tell me why in the hell develop a drone cargo aircrft? Crew and the space needed for it is a tiny fraction of overall weight and you are not goinfd to make high G turns on a cargo plane.
Posted by: JFM   2008-05-03 14:33  

#7  Do we really need the C-17 when you can just bungee cargo on the back of a (multi-multi-role) Hornet? The F/A-18F Super Hornet variant even has an extra guy to keep an eye on the load.

For really heavy stuff, two Hornets could carry it slung between them, much the same way that a pair of African swallows carry a coconut.
Posted by: SteveS   2008-05-03 14:23  

#6  I for one would like to see refitted Phantom F-4's and that tres cool bomb delivery machine - a (refitted) B-58 Hustler!
Posted by: borgboy   2008-05-03 13:21  

#5  Another reason against C-17s is that there is major redesign in progress to develop drone cargo aircraft, which will be as different from C-17s as Predators are from A-10 Warthogs.
Posted by: Anonymoose   2008-05-03 09:31  

#4  No problem. There's plenty of airlift to go around and a huge shortage of air superiorty aircraft. Roumor flows that the Taliban have stolen the blueprints for the S.p.A.D.

Posted by: George Smiley   2008-05-03 07:06  

#3  Finish the JSF. Here in Canada, our F-18's are old enough to fall apart in the hanger. Once the JSF production line is humming, you can afford all of the 22s, C-17s, C-5s, et al, you want. I suspect we'd like some 22s for northern CAP, but that doesn't seem to be in the cards.

If some idiots on Capital Hill want to get in the way, well, there's an election in a few months...
Posted by: Vanc   2008-05-03 05:05  

#2  I got a better idea: Let's dismantle the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

And the National Endowment for the Arts.

Even if it won't buy one more fighter, it's better than watching leftists cut national defense during a war.
Posted by: badanov   2008-05-03 04:42  

#1  Complicated issues here: the F-22 lobby suspects that the JSF procurement will get stretched out (i think so to FWIW) so there is a legit need for an interim aircraft, especially since teh F-15 is encountering fatigue problems.
The JSF group would like to see the Raptor's budget zero'ed out so there can be more $$ put into JSF development and initial low rate procurement.

The C-17 is a solid aircraft and the C-5 and 141's are nearing the end of their original life, the ME has accelerated their usage and fatigue. But trucks aren't sexy like sports cars, so there is no real lobby for the Globemaster III.
The foreign sales of the C-17 haven't materialized, although we are leasing some to UK and the Aussies have bought 4 (i think). The JSF alternate engine program is, or was viable up until the P & W either proves itself or goes south and right now all indications are positive. when the P & W gets all signed off, then pulling the plug on the GE makes sense, but for now i think the GE should stay in play.
Notice how there is no mention of any UAV assets?
Posted by: USN,Ret.   2008-05-03 01:07  

00:00