Hill Fires C-17 Budget Shot

Hill Fires C-17 Budget Shot

In a  bipartisan letter, Hill lawmakers wrote Defense Secretary Robert Gates today, firing a preemptive shot across his bow on the C-17.

The bipartisan letter, authored by Rep. Todd Akin, top Republican  on the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee, and Rep. Laura Richardson, a California Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, asked Gates to reconsider his decision to curtail production of the cargo plane. Akin’s office released the letter a few hours before the Pentagon was scheduled to unveil its detailed 2010 budget proposals.

“Discontinuing production of our nation’s premier tactical transport aircraft would be an enormous mistake and further strain our military’s future airlift capability.  Attempts to restart a closed production line of this magnitude at a time when we know more C-17s are necessary would be a grave fiscal mistake and contradicts strong bipartisan Congressional intent,” the letter says, adding the now mandatory nod to job creation for any defense program under threat. “In addition to compelling national security and humanitarian needs, C-17 production has a national economic impact estimated at $8.4 billion through its support of 30,000 jobs across 42 states nationwide,” the lawmakers wrote.

Gates made the announcement about the C-17 in his resonant April 6 budget speech: “With regard to air lift, we will complete production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year. Our analysis concludes that we have enough C-17s with the 205 already in the force and currently in production.”

The text of the letter follows:

Dear President Obama:

We are writing to express our strong support for the C-17 Globemaster III airlift program and to state our disagreement with the opinion of Defense Secretary Robert Gates that the Department “complete production of the C-17 airlifter program this fiscal year.”

As you noted on your own website, the C-17 is the Air Force’s premier strategic transport aircraft and remains the military’s most reliable and capable airlift aircraft. It currently flies more than 80 percent of all U.S. airlift missions, while comprising only 60 percent of the airlift fleet.  The C-17 has proven capable of delivering more cargo, troops, and non-war humanitarian supplies than any other aircraft.  In 2005 alone, the C-17 was instrumental in humanitarian missions in response to the Pakistan earthquake, the tsunami in Thailand, and Gulf Coast relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina.  Given its strategic capabilities, the C-17 is being used at 172 percent of its planned usage rate.

Discontinuing production of our nation’s premier tactical transport aircraft would be an enormous mistake and further strain our military’s future airlift capability.  Attempts to restart a closed production line of this magnitude at a time when we know more C-17s are necessary would be a grave fiscal mistake and contradicts strong bipartisan Congressional intent.

In addition to compelling national security and humanitarian needs, C-17 production has a national economic impact estimated at $8.4 billion through its support of 30,000 jobs across 42 states nationwide.  With all our efforts to put America back to work through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, massive manufacturing layoffs that weaken our national security and economy are ill advised.

Your Administration has and continues to publicly support the C-17 as an aircraft “which provides the backbone of our ability to extend global power.”  In addition, your Administration has publicly stated its intention to “preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces.”  This statement could not more accurately reflect the benefit of additional C-17’s.

We respectfully urge your support and consideration for the C-17 and we want to work with you to ensure that funding for this critical aircraft will go forward.  We have no doubt that it is in America’s national and economic security to do so.

Respectfully Submitted,

Rep. Laura Richardson

Rep. W. Todd Akin

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

well holy crap… everythings getting cut.… This impacts all services…

Canceling the C-17 would virtually cede the upper end of the military transport segment to EADS for decades. This would be a strategic blunder with enormous untoward consequences for the U.S. aerospace industrial base.

This is one I hope lawmakers succeed in adding. You can never get too much C-17 airlift.

C-17s support both the early and long war.;)

WHAT!!! WHY would they think about cutting the c-17? Are they trying to make a sick joke or something? Well I guess that’s what happens when a DEMOCRAT is put in office.

See what Happens when you have someone Who does Not Understand Steagic AirLift .The United States Air Force needs to keep the C17 in production because its needed to take up the role of the retire C141B Startlifter and the aging C-5 .They say we have enought of them , Well thats a Matter of Discussion , How many of them are used for Combat, Medical evalation, Cargo ‚Special Missions , How many are there in Maintence , Now lets do the Math and I bet you will come up with a number less then the number of plane they said we have 205 .Do this Math for the Active,Reserve,Guard.This Nations needs a Strong Stagtic Airlift since we are at War and we have No idea where the next one will be, Are Airlifter will be the first in with Troops on the Ground for are Nation

Sign
Joseph S.Principe
US ARMY Retired
e-mail ;mountainsoldier47@yahoo.com

Cutting the C-17 production is just plain stupid! It’s a fine platform, rugged and suited for a wide variety of missions. I have been a passenger many times and unlike the C-5, the 17’s almost always make their schedules. We ought to buy 200 MORE. Can’t have too much strat air, especially in Astan!!!

In 1990, Cheney cut 90 C-17 Air Force cargo transport planes. [Newsday, 2/5/91; NY Times, 1/8/91; Boston Globe, 4/27/90; Boston Globe, 1/30/90]. Financial sanity = national security.

gijoe wrote: “Well I guess that’s what happens when a DEMOCRAT is put in office.”

Fact Check: Secretary Gates was originally appointed by President Bush43.

For those you, who are obviously clueless or not Air Force, we don’t need anymore C-17s. We have a full complement filling all the Squadrons in Military Airlift, including the ones still in production.
There’s no need to keep feeding the Defense Contractor dragon and this ludicrous notion of more is better has to end.

For those of you, who are obviously clueless or not Air Force, we don’t need anymore C-17s. We have a full complement filling all the Squadrons in Military Airlift, including the ones still in production.
There’s no need to keep feeding the Defense Contractor dragon and this ludicrous notion of more is better has to end.

When it’s time to run for election our civilian politicians LOVE to campaign on excessive Pentagon spending and assure us that THEY will fight to reduce the burden on the taxpayer when THEY are in office.

Of course that’s during the campaign. We always see what happens after they get elected. Civilian constituents complain about job losses, devastated communities and lowered national defense.

Anyone sense any phony baloney and hypocrisy here besides me?

My USMC calibrated Bull—- meter is pegged!

Senator Murray has introduced an amendment that requires DOD to notify the Congress if pulling a program will adversely affect the industrial base. Smart move. There will be implications for the tanker procurement as well.
http://​www​.heraldnet​.com/​a​r​t​i​c​l​e​/​2​0​0​9​0​5​0​7​/​B​L​O​G​0​1​/​9​0​5​0​7​9​9​7​9​/​0​/​BIZ

Everyone wants to blame the Democrats for the cuts, but who got in this mess in the first place???

Perhaps if our fearless(?) leader would consider moving the $3–8 billion from ACORN to the C-17 it might bring more votes, since that seems to be his prime motivation for anything!

Of perhaps rather than bailing out States for fiscal irresponsibility (CA illegal alien medical, MASS and cars for unemployed) there could be a replacement for AF refuelers!

But then I am not a professional pol like Spector or “I Know Nothing Pelosi”!

I have a clue and in the AF. I plan strat air missions worldwide and the biggest hurdle we have to overcome while accomplishing the missions assigned are the number of tails availible on any given day. Just because we have 200+ in the inventory, doesn’t mean we can use all 200 all the time. We routinely have a low as 10 jets a day to use. AMC runs 900‑1000 msns a day. Do the math.

It’s interesting that nowhere in this story does it mention that the C-17 is not being ‘cut’. By the end of this year the DoD will have bought all of the C-17’s that they planned to buy. That is to say every single plane that the contract was for.

Boeing is crying because Gates feels that there may be more pressing needs than increasing the size of Airforce.

From the Headquarters Air Mobility Command White Paper “KC-X: The Next Mobiliity Platform, The Need for a Flexible Tanker”: “The Mobility Capability Study (MCS) and subsequent excursions in the past year (MCS-06) highlight the nation’s need for strategic and theater mobility capability in airlift and aerial refueling. It’s important to recognize that current plans for future force structure are funded only to support THE BOTTOM OF THE MCS RANGE in each mission area. MCS calls for 292 to 383 strategic tails (C-17s and “fully modernized” C-5s). The US currently has a program for 190 C-17s and 111 aging C-5s.“
==========================================
Call me a country bumpkin Alabama Army advocate, but when I add up 205 C-17s + 111 aging C-5s (forgive me, I don’t have enough fingers and toes) I think it adds up to 316 airframes. 316 airframes is far closer to 292 (the lowside) than to 383 (the highside) is it not? I mean, wouldn’t you much rather have 316 trucks to move your double-wide furniture in a hurry than just 383? But then what do we know. We’re just joint land component C-17 users.

General Barry McCaffrey called for 600 C-17s and said the Army should size its vehicles based on the C-17 instead of the C-130. Because Sec of Defense Gates wants bigger future Army vehicles, does it not follow that we need more C-17 airlift to transport some of those vehicles?

Somehow the USAF was going to come up with enough squadrons for 381 F-22s. Somehow the USAF wants 500 plus KC aircraft at a cost of over $100 billion to support primarily themselves and will find the force structure and funds for that. Something tells me there are a few Airmen out there that could be diverted to flying/maintaining C-17s to support the joint force. Maybe instead of using C-17 pilot to fly UAS out of Creech you could have enlisted guys do that?

But then what do those of know who aren’t in the USAF!!!

Aircraft are designed for a “service Life” measured in hours. When you use them at 171% of design, their life time reduced to only 58% of design.

We must buy more.

The production of aircraft and ships for our military use also creates jobs in the U. S. and the money wasted on bonuses paid to Obama’s supporters in AIG and other businesses, as well as the Labor unions could have easily paid for all of the requested aircraft and the navy ships that were canceled.

Obama promised to strengthen the U. S. Military. He is instead destroying its capability. I see no other conclusion.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement