Home » Air » C-17 Survives McCain’s Best Shot

C-17 Survives McCain’s Best Shot

By Colin Clark Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 8:54 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

The full Senate convincingly snubbed Sen. John McCain, who had fought to strip 10 C-17s added by Sen. Daniel Inouye’s appropriation committee, voting 30–68 against his spending amendment.

The C-17 amendment was not McCain’s only attempt Tuesday afternoon and evening to whack spending from the bill. He tried to cut earmarks with a series of amendments but he failed on all of them. In the end, McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, voted against the full defense spending bill. The Arizona senator has a long history of pushing hard for his authorizing committee to wield as much influence as possible and consistently criticizes his Senate colleagues for their support of what he regards as wasteful spending.

Sen. Inouye, a wily operator, dismissed McCain’s efforts, saying he welcomed “any constructive suggestions on how to improve the operations and efficiency” of the committee’s work as long as they did “not compromise the constitutional principle that the power of the purse is invested in the Congress.” Translation: Hey, McCain — this is what appropriators get to do and authorizers don’t.

The spending bill did not include money for the F136 engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, but Sen. Inouye has made clear he will take that issue to conference where it is expected to be added back in. Inouye avoids a Senate fight over the F136 and can quietly add the money in conference.

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

	Colonial-Marine October 6th, 2009 at 10:43 pm I think McCain is a good man, and a smart man. But I really question his choices when it comes to many different defense projects. Obviously he believes winning in Afghanistan is key and must be our foremost priority, but he seems to be neglecting our military’s other capabilities.
	Aurora October 7th, 2009 at 5:35 am Does anyone think strategically where the infrastructure is concerned? Closing the C-17 line would virtually cede the upper end of military airlift to the Euros and the A400M (when it eventually flies).
	FREDDy October 7th, 2009 at 1:57 pm This notion that some U.S. Senators are making that funding more C-17’s is a national necissity is completely ridiculous. At any one time if you were to go to a U.S. Air Force Base flightline on the East or West Coast, i.e. Travis, Dover, McGuire, you will see wingtip to wingtip C-5’s and 17’s! Even with two wars going on at the moment we are still not even using or for that matter need more C-17’s to move cargo. The bottom line when it comes to making more of these aircraft is that it’s nothing more than a pet project for the Congressmen to get re-elected in which their district has jobs manufacturing them or making parts, essentially ignoring requests from the military to use the money towards better ways,like quality of life for the troops!
	soonergrunt October 7th, 2009 at 11:44 am That’s true, Freddy, but there is another dynamic here. For decades the Air Force (and to a lesser extent, the other services) has played this game of “we don’t need any more planes/ships/what-have-you” while being more than willing to take whatever Congress gives them. The Navy benefited for years of Trent Lott’s congressional leadership because cruisers and destroyers were built in Pascagoula, MS. There are plenty of examples on both sides of the political aisle. Nobody plays this game better than the USAF, though.
	CharlesHouston October 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pm This is one question where I differ with Sen McCain — perhaps he is making a point about earmarks. I must differ with FREDDy, many of the C-5s out there have a lot of hours on them and need to be retired. I recall seeing the first C-5 land at Hickam AFB, Hawaii and that was about 1974 or so?? We can’t keep updating them, and the AF has a LOT of older aircraft now. Such as the B-52! We have refreshed some of our fighters but a lot of the airlifters and cargo planes are getting pretty long in the tooth. I would be happier, naturally, if we could sell the C-17s to the heavy airlift wing in Hungary. That is a good deal for them, for us, etc. We do need more airlift, we end up renting Russian Antonov aircraft too often.
	CharlesHouston October 7th, 2009 at 3:51 pm This is one question where I differ with Sen McCain — perhaps he is making a point about earmarks. I must differ with FREDDy, many of the C-5s out there have a lot of hours on them and need to be retired. I recall seeing the first C-5 land at Hickam AFB, Hawaii and that was about 1972 or so?? We can’t keep updating them, and the AF has a LOT of older aircraft now. Such as the B-52! We have refreshed some of our fighters but a lot of the airlifters and cargo planes are getting pretty long in the tooth. I would be happier, naturally, if we could sell the C-17s to the heavy airlift wing in Hungary. That is a good deal for them, for us, etc. We do need more airlift, we end up renting Russian Antonov aircraft too often.
	ack October 7th, 2009 at 4:54 pm Wouldn’t it be interesting to make these unplanned for aircraft into wind turbines, unmanned aircraft, tanks and needed armaments being used to fight the current and future wars.
	Questions Unanswered October 7th, 2009 at 6:49 pm Would McCain prefer that Boeing sell off the line and tooling to EADS, Anatov or NG so one of those fine companies could make the C-17 for the international market?
	Daniel Russ October 7th, 2009 at 9:15 pm Hate to say it but it does seem like FREDDy is right. Yes, we have a lot of old, planes but airlift capacity is not the biggest priority now. Today the requistions should focus on supporting the warfighters mission on the ground. MRAPS, more CAS for example. I definitely also think the game is rigged. Getting Govt military contracts has more to do with winning elections than winning wars. Respectfully, Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Rich B. October 8th, 2009 at 4:33 am Freddy is ignorant. We need more C-17s period.…there are countless other missions going on at the same time as the two war fronts. We also support disaster relief, humanitarian assistance, force support on all seven continents and islands around the globe.…all this capability requires TRAINING.…and you need air frames to do that in basic qualification courses at Altus and at AMC and at the assigned duty locations
	Airlift October 8th, 2009 at 4:45 am Freddy needs to not count aircraft on the ramp, but those that are flying mission across the Khyber Pass to Kabul AB. When /Al-QaedaTaliban shut down the surface routes, our troops still need ammunition to meet the mission. Afghanistan is essentially an island without air supply.
	smokemifyougotem October 8th, 2009 at 5:11 am While I agree with McCain most times on his efforts to eliminate earmarks and other unnecessary DOD spending, I think he is completely wrong on the C-17 issue. Did we not learn anything when we litterly flew the wings off the 141s during Gulf 1 and just barely survived until we got the –17s on board? And then a fleet smaller than originally requested. We need airlift (and sattelites, and UAVs, etc, etc and a lot of other ‘stuff’) a lot more than we need another hot jock fighter at the moment.
	Bummer October 8th, 2009 at 5:44 am This may be our last big transport. As a retired DAC/BA engineer we no longer have the experince/talent left in the industry to build a similar A/C in the near future. If we shut it down let’s hope the Chinese and Ruskies stay our “pals”
	Leon October 8th, 2009 at 6:01 am I don’t know what McCainis thinking but the C-17 is the go to aircraft when u need to get cargo in and out of places with short runways. The C141 and the C-130 just can’t handle the load. I live near a air force base that just relocated three C-17 squadrons to this area and I know from my own experiences in the Marine Corps, they are a welcome site when they touch down. Cargo capacity is going to always be a concern especially with the new weapon systems and gear being fielded ove the next ten years. Not to mention relief supplies to other nations in times of emergencies. Its these aircraft that are fuel efficient, fast, and can take off from short runways and get out of hot LZ’s fast, that make them a fabolous tool in the Mobile Airlift Command.
	JCitizen October 8th, 2009 at 2:16 am If there were a better design out there I’d go for dumping it, but fact is, I can still see many world scenarios quickly igniting into a world need for large scale fast airlift deployment. What would happen if Pakinstan were over-run by the Pashtun? All of a sudden we got the worst terrorists in the world with atom bombs? What if the PRC invades Taiwan? We gonna lay down and rollover for that? Korea is everybody’s best guess! Instantaneous heavy airlift is the future of large scale conflict; I don’t see any way out of it. Need I remind everyone of Pearl Harbor? We are in the nuke age, there ain’t no going backwards!
	VancBob October 8th, 2009 at 6:39 am I like the idea of a long protracted build schedule of an airplane. In this case we can afford it. Not just the money. The advantages is they won’t need to replace all th C-17’s at once, upgrades can be built in, repair/replacement parts can still be built (wing spar replacements?), the supply lines remain open. No excuses down the road about line shut downs and tooling scrapped out. I just hate it when they close down a program and in two quadrenjnial review cycles they seem to think an all new design is in order to replace the “worn out” current airframe. No reason we can’t continue to build and fly C-17’s for years and years. We need to design tankers (oops!) and transport aircraft to be utilitarian and long term programs. One might argue differently for fighters. Maybe bombers. But we can fly C-17’s for decades with a few comm/nav upgrades thrown in for future technology. Hopefully they engineered the plane to accept future major cockpit upgrades. Somebody for once is doing the right thing in aircraft procurement.
	Curt October 8th, 2009 at 2:56 am It may even end up being cheaper in the long run to keep the line open. The USAF got permission to get rid of the C-5As this year (the ones that were not being re-engined. Since their readiness rate is very low, probably some of the aircraft FREDDy sees lined up on the ramp all the time). If you replaced the 50+ C-5As with something like 60–70 C-17s, you could continue the line using a multi-year deal saving big bucks (and yearly battles), potentially make several more foreign sales, get rid of a high cost maintenance problem for the USAF, and end up with a more capable and flexible force overall that may actually be cheaper. Admittedly, the C-5A can carry more, but they usually don’t and you would still have something like 52 (when the program is complete) C-5Ms that are fully updated to handle the outsized cargo. The C-17s get you into places that the C-5M can’t carrying cargo that the C-130Js can’t.
	klesb October 8th, 2009 at 7:04 am McCain should just retire. He’s done enough damage for a political career. McCain-Feingold, Kennedy-McCain, Obama-Biden — and more! Thank you for your military service! Now Adios, Juanito! Vamonos! Vaya con Dios — but Vaya! Or, if you remember English from the distant past, Anchors Aweigh!
	ANGMSG October 8th, 2009 at 10:17 am Our leaders need to quit dragging their feet when it comes to Airlift capability. I agree with most all except Freddy and most of what he is seeing are the ramp queens. Another reason he see’s them setting is called crew rest you can only fly a crew so long and then they have to park usually for 16 hours, its the same as a trucker. There is also a thing called maint, its just not safe to fly em with working on them. When and if Congress gets there head out of their ass, yeah I know dream on sucker, they need to fully fund the C5M upgrades, these are mainly needed because they cheapend the c5 to start with. They should also apply the C5M upgrades to the older C5A’s as well. That would give us a fleet of over 100 supper heavy lifters for another 40 years. 80% of the life of the C5’s is still there.
	the old man October 8th, 2009 at 11:00 am FOR A SO CALLED PEACE LOVING NATION , AS WE SAY WE ARE IT SEEMS THAT WE DO MORE FIGHTING IN OTHER COUNTRIES,THAN ANY OTHER NATION IN THIS PEACE LOVING WORLD .WE ARE ALL WAYS PERPARING FOR THE THREAT FROM EVERYONE, EVEN THREAT FROM OUR OWN PEOPLE. THAT WE LOSE SIGHT OF OUR BEING. WHAT WE WERE PLACE ON THIS PLANET FOR, NOT TO DESTROY IT OR TO KILL OF IT’S INHABITANTS. OUR DEFITSIT FOR THIS QUARTER IS $1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS .THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY WILL END THE REASON FOR SYSTEMATIC COVERT WARFARE TO PRODUCE TERROR FOR POLITICAL COERCION AND PROFIT. TODAY THERE IS NO WINNERS IN WAR,NOT THAT THERE EVER WAS A WINNER IN ANY WAR,BUT WHAT I SEE TODAY IS YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN DIEING FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY NOT FREEDOM,AND SOME AMERICAN STAY AT HOME RAKEING IN THE BIG BUCKS AND TALKING THAT FREEDOM CARP, WHILE WE BECOME LESS FREE EVERYDAY.
	John Stephens October 8th, 2009 at 7:29 am EVERYONE SHOULD SEE THE OVERHEAD PICTURES OF THE MANY C-5’S AT DAVIS MONTHAN AFB,IF THEY THINK WE DON’T NEED MORE C-17’s. I was on the Source Selection Evaluation of the three(3) manufacturers proposals in 1981. The biggest problem with C-17 is that it needs to be stretched(new version) to better augment C-5’s .Of course that’s just an Engineers opinion.
	Ricochet October 8th, 2009 at 11:53 am The C-5 suffers from a lot of maintenance/maintainability issues. A lot of you have talked about supporting two theaters, what is needed most in OEF is INFASTRUCTURE. The current airfields are too small. The limiting factor is space on the ground to park the airframes! Not debating that buying more 17s is a good idea, everyone just needs to step back and see the big picture.
	Retired AF LTC October 8th, 2009 at 11:58 am First, to “the old man”. As John Stuart Mill said when writing about the American Civil War in 1862 “War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” While respecting Senator McCain’s service, as a Senator he’s always had a thing about Boeing. Take his very recent comment “You can’t walk through these hallways without bumiping into a lobbyist from Boeing.” While probably true, it’s also true of every other defense contractor and big business. I watched the first C-5 land at Yakota back in ’70 while flying those nice new C-141s — they’re old and need replacing!
	LTCDTAN October 8th, 2009 at 8:26 am You will never be able to stop these greedy, self serving congressmen from fleecing the public for their own personsal gain. They need to retain power because most have nothing else since that’s all they’ve ever done.inouye is among many, been around too long and too old. Term limits or age limits since the voting public is to ignorant and too lazy to vote them out. Hopeless.
	Eric October 8th, 2009 at 8:35 am We need more C130’s planes that are cheaper to operate and can acess small airfields, even small dirt strips in the midle of nowhere, we don’t need big fancy aircraft that do half the job!
	Dfens October 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pm McCain is an idiot. He goes on an on about how we don’t need more C-17s, and actual flying airplane, but is completely silent on the C-130 AMP program. You remember C-130 AMP, don’t you? That was the program Boeing “won” by buying government procurement official Darlene Druyun. It was originally a $400 million dollar, 4 year development program, but they were able, through their incompetence, to drag it out for a decade and jack the cost up to $1.5 billion. Then again through their incompetence they were able to get it cancelled before even one modified airplane was operational. Will we ever get our $1.5 billion dollars back? Hell no! But rest assured, Boeing made their $150 million in profit off that program without you getting so much as a sharp stick in the eye to show for it. Where is McCain’s outrage over that one?
	EdT October 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm these posts miss the point… in general, earmarks must stand on there own, and be separate bills in both Houses of Congress… We The People have litte or no knowledge of these earmarks or amendments which means our elected representatives (or lack thereof…) can hide huge spending items which usually have nothing to do with the actual bill. Sorry, earmarks need to go… wishful thinking…
	Jose J Clavell October 8th, 2009 at 1:31 pm Folks: Before you start thinking about curtailing C-17 production, take a good look at a map and at the places that we are engages or likely to be engage on. Unless you can assure me that we go easy access routes, we are going to need airlift and lots of it. I had always considered the AF desired numbers too low, not very surprising when you considered that they are not the main user of the plane.
	SteveG October 8th, 2009 at 1:49 pm Defens: Lockheed manufactures the C-130, not Boeing.
	Ken October 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm What about urging Boeing to develop a civilian version of the C-17? I know UPS and FedEx may be interested if the price can be brought down. If they could manufacture several civilian versions on the same line but with reduced cost avionics, wouldn’t that help keep production going? We need to retire some of the older dogs in the freight industry. Also, one other point, McDonnel, now Boeing had a 1 billion dollar investment to help lower the cost by selected redesigns of the C-17. for example all C-17s afte shipset 70 are now composite (spars, skins) with integrated metal ribs, This was a $50 Million dollar Mantech Program which was designed to lower cost and reduce weight. Every new plane built afte unit 140 makes all that money appear to be well spent. The plane has evolved and can become even more cost effective, as other weapon systems have in the past. I say build them, and sell them to our allies or Cargo companies to help amortize the cost. Ken
	Kenneth Jones October 8th, 2009 at 3:14 pm Seems to me that not long ago, I heard that you can never have enough transport aircraft when you really need them. The C5 fleet is getting long in the tooth, and to talk of cancelling new C17s just doesn’t make sense. Long lines of C5s and C17s on the ramp means aircraft down for maintenance or repairs, to be sure, and some need to be held in reserve. In order to maintain an adequate reserve of aircraft and spare parts, we must acquire those 17 additional C17s.…..and perhaps two or three more.
	BMNT October 8th, 2009 at 3:15 pm I do not agree with McCain. This is yet another idicator that It’s time for change in the leadership in the Republican side of the house.
	flynavy2 October 8th, 2009 at 3:23 pm Let’s face it — John McCain hasit in for The Boeing Company, our Nation’s proud aerospace provider and the largest exporter of American goods/services. He’s been attacking the C-17, as we all know, but recall too that he’s been relentlessly attacking the KC-767 Tanker offering, saying instead that it should go to the Europeans. Boeing has been our Nation’s tanker provider/supporter for well over 50 years. The honorable Sen from Arizona would proudly have that change and become a European provider.
	Racer October 8th, 2009 at 3:28 pm Charles, while you may be right about the age of the aircraft, I think are wrong that they need to scrapped/replaced. Perfect example is the B52…
	monster October 8th, 2009 at 3:36 pm There are alot of ignorant fools in here. Wow, just wow. Anyway, back to the point at hand, you all do understand that McCain was not scrapping the entire C17 line right? He just wanted to remove the additional 10 that were tacked on to the back side of the bill. “Pentagon leaders want to stop C-17 production at current levels (205-aircraft program of record, plus eight more funded in 2009 war supplemental).…. Neither the House nor Senate included funds for more C-17s in their respective Fiscal 2010 defense authorization bills.” –airforce-magazine.com This effectively adds $2.5 billion to the bill and does not include the other ear marks the were added. Right or wrong, that is what he was doing.
	flynavy2 October 8th, 2009 at 3:52 pm From Monster’s post…“There are alot of ignorant fools in here” Perhaps there is at least one liberal democrat in here.
	Bill October 8th, 2009 at 5:02 pm To EdT; Ear marks are a necessary way of doing business in DC. What is needed is not so much to eliminate ear marks but to have open disclosure and debate of them. The thought of individual bills for each and every item to be funded would totally over whelm congress. Earmarks should be related to the issue of the base bill and identified for debate and attachment before passage.
	Lee Spotswood October 8th, 2009 at 5:08 pm Ken has a great idea in developing a commercial varient and maybe even a stretch version. Given its capabilty to enter short and even oscure runways, for such a large AIRCARFT, makes it a one of a kind. and could be used for so releif effort such as Firefighting, Hurricanes, Typhoons, Earthquakes, too many to mention. I say keep them coming.
	Dfens October 8th, 2009 at 5:10 pm C-130 AMP = C-130 Avionics Modernization Program won by Boeing in ’99 C-130J = Lockheed’s current production version of the Hercules which began delivery in ’98
	Dfens October 8th, 2009 at 5:17 pm You know, at least for our $2.5 billion we’re getting 10 airplanes. Hell, they’re the size of a damn skyscraper each. What pisses me off is that we spent $1.5 billion on “modifying” the C-130 and got NOTHING. Who gives a damn about this program, maybe we need 10 more transports, maybe we don’t. I’ll bet they don’t grow a lot of moss just sitting around the base once they’re delivered. When Boeing literally flushes $1.5 billion of your tax dollars down a toilet after peeling their $150 million off the top, ho hum, just another day in paradise? I mean, why the F am I the only one pissed about this?
	cardiff kid October 8th, 2009 at 5:34 pm The C-5 is about at the end of the road. To say it has “maintence problems” is an understatement. Among active duty military that rely on them for transport is the common joke, “I wonder were we are going to beak down?” One of my buddies left for Afghanistan on one last week, after a 48 hour delay for repairs. They made it as far as Germany, where it broke again, another 60 hour delay. On his last trip over, on another C-5, it broke and they had to set down in Rota for two days. One can only hope that when they break you get to spend some time in a nice place. McCain was out of line on this one.
	Robertro2 October 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm this sen.mccain should retire,with the govt. plans now to spend our kids and grandkids money they do not have yet and he is worried about 10 planes ‚give me a break.….lets get them all out and start over before this country is gone.….
	Dfens October 8th, 2009 at 5:46 pm The C-5 AMP and RERP programs fixed most of what’s wrong with the C-5 reliability issues. The C-5 airframes still have a lot of life left in them. Probably due to all the maintenance issues, I don’t know. Eventually all the C-5s will get GE CF6 engines on them, but that program will drag out to about 2017 or so. Right now they aren’t planning on reengining the A models, but that will probably change as the A models got new wings in the ‘80s and have as much structural life as the B.
	70s vet October 8th, 2009 at 6:40 pm Please learn to use lower case letters. All caps are hard for us old guys to read
	Curt October 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm Dfens, Currently there is no plans to re-engine more than the one C-5A that was already re-engined and upgraded to C-5M. Only the one C-5C and the C-5Bs are scheduled to be upgraded to C-5Ms. As I understand it, after the first one, the USAF decided the C-5As were just too expensive to be worth rebuilding.
	Sgt JFK October 8th, 2009 at 3:19 pm Just an FYI Curt, There are 2 C-5Cs. Last I heard the AF was looking to retire the C-5A fleet and convert the rest to “M“s .
	Sgt JFK October 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm Maybe the excess C-17s we buy now might save us some money in the long run when the C-5 fleet as a whole nears retirement. They could stretch some of them like they did with 130s and 141s thus, eliminating the need for a new competition down the road for a new heavy airlifter.
	Leatherneckoif1 October 8th, 2009 at 8:29 pm He wasn’t talking about closing the C-17 line. He was talking about not adding 10 more than what was already in the bill. The C-17 is relatively new so any issues with the platform should be able to be addressed with good maintenance and replacement parts saving the government millions of dollars. Now if the mission overseas requires more C-17’s then I can understand the addition but considering we are leaving Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan we really should need less equipment, even if we add 40k troop to the area. Over all it will be fewer resources needed
	Leatherneckoif1 October 8th, 2009 at 8:33 pm I agree, his heart is in the right place but sometimes you need to pay for projects that focus on future missions otherwise we will not be ready when we need to be. In WWII to be war ready took 2–3 years now-a-days it will take at least double and I emphasize at the very least
	Leatherneckoif1 October 8th, 2009 at 8:34 pm HERE HERE!
	MR Navy October 8th, 2009 at 9:20 pm Well, UPS has parked a lot of cargo airlift aircraft and laid off the people who normally do the upkeep. Money could be saved and jobs recreated if the military used UPS aircraft with stipulations that all the UPS maintenance will be done in the US. Currently UPS sends their aircraft to China and lets untrained mechanics that are not cleared for security do the work for pennies and a bowl of rice. Now could someone offer these workers a couple of dollars to plant explosive devices on the aircraft that would come to the US and be then detonated, (some of these aircraft are the same ones that carry some of our troops by the way.) I would think that the little Chinese Muslim guys that do the work may be tempted by economics and maybe a hate for Americans to take an offer by the Taliban to help with their cause to kill Americans at all costs. There are UPS aircraft in every major city in the US at all times. Keep American Jobs and American People safe tell UPS to keep the unmonitored Chinese off of potential wepons that could destroy the US at any time.
	Concerned Dad October 8th, 2009 at 9:53 pm I don’t know much about airplanes, but the military as a whole has been lax on repairing/replacing their equipment. My son is on a Nuclear sub and almost every time they go out for an exercise, it breaks down. They either don’t get to leave port or have to return to port early. Heaven forbid if we ever actually need them. And yes, he is on an attack sub! With the Trillions of dollars Obama is investing in the banking and auto industry, why can’t we update our military equipment or at least keep it in good repair? This too would create American jobs and help our our economy.
	Louie October 8th, 2009 at 10:38 pm As a retired C-5 aviator and now owner of a sheet metal company that supplies parts for the C-17, I always find myself torn apart between the love for the bird that I flew and the needs of my company and our nation, however, being honest our C-5 fleet is as many put it is “long on the tooth”, we broke almost in every mission that we flew. I disagree with McCain because yes we need to have the Oversize cargo capability that the C-5 brings with it and converting the B and C models would be a good thing but certainly not the A models. The C-17 is very much needed and as someone else suggested for a long multi-year contract, due to many reasons, but the main one is that the C-141 fleet was retired and its numbers were much larger than those of the C-17 and we do need the airlift. This is a national resource that will fly for decades and right now we are pay billions to Ukrainine and Russian companies for added airlift, to be exact over 1.5 B, that would buy about half a dozen C-17 and employ about 60,000 Americans, I would rather see our tax dollars be spent here than overseas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
	Wasamottau October 8th, 2009 at 11:20 pm Why are you SCREAMING!
	Maine Vet October 8th, 2009 at 11:29 pm Very well put, enough said!
	stephen October 8th, 2009 at 11:42 pm in addition to the ‘little Chinese Muslim’ guys, we must also guard against the angry elves of Ireland. No telling how many ways they have to taint a box of Keebler cookies or crackers.
	killer suntan October 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm “If I must choose between righteousness and peace, I choose righteousness.“ –T.R.
	stephen October 8th, 2009 at 11:46 pm “Ukrainine and Russian companies for added airlift” . I was surprised to see Antonovs working out of Charleston AFB. Found them to be taking MRAPS towards battle zones. I couldn’t help thinking how much the world had changed.
	Tennisman October 9th, 2009 at 12:46 am You are so right RETIRED AF LTC, if we don’t choose to fight them we might as well throw up our hands and surrender. There are those of us that choose to fight. As a father of an active duty Marine it sickens me to watch politicians delay and play there games while those who protect us have to wait for anthing, and that includes air support of any kind! If they don’t protect us and take it to the enemy they will be in our backyard, like NYC. Go US Military!!
	Alan October 9th, 2009 at 2:34 am McCain should use his own experiences in the Military and campaign for either crash proof planes or for our enemies to have better military prisons.
	Radarnav October 9th, 2009 at 1:43 pm Retired AF LTC: He was quoting Union General Sherman.
	Dave Bulicek October 9th, 2009 at 1:53 pm C-5’s and most C-130’s are 25–40 years old. To maintain military airlift capability, and capacity, something needs to be done. maintaining the hot C-17 line is the best alternative now. Any modern war is a “come as you are” event. We can not let this capability wain. There may be more cost effective alternatives, but none are visible (Mass recapitalization of older C-130s for example). I agree with McCain on the earmarks in general (they are PORK), but not this time.
	irtusk October 9th, 2009 at 2:17 pm > C-5’s and most C-130’s are 25–40 years old. To maintain military airlift capability, and capacity, something needs to be done. C-5s still have most of their airframe life remaining what needs to be done is the C-5M program
	Dfens October 9th, 2009 at 2:57 pm What the defense contractors want is development money. They like C-130 AMP programs where their capital expenditures and risk are minimized. These are practically free money programs. They don’t mind building a few airplanes if they have to, but they definitely prefer to design the airplanes over building them. That’s why Boeing and Lockheed have bought people like John McCain, to kill production programs and fund development. They can set up a cube farm for engineers with practically no capital investment. Lease a building and some computers and put a bunch of people to work. Award fee profits on this kind of work are usually in the 9%-10% range and with luck you never have to build anything. It’s a cash making machine. The worse the people you hire, the more they screw up, the more money you make. The more you run up costs, the more money you make. The longer it takes, the more money you make. I’d feel bad for the taxpayers, but if they’re stupid enough to pay these defense contractors more money to screw them, then they deserve to be screwed.
	Dfens October 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm Oh, and I almost forgot a key element, hire plenty of subcontractors. The worse the subcontractors perform and the more they slide work to the right the more money both they and the prime contracor makes. Plus you don’t get any direct blame for subcontractor incompetence. Although, if the subcontractors don’t do a bad enough job on their own, you can always hire some idiot procurement people to dick them over and cause them to run up more costs that way.
	Jack Mehoff October 10th, 2009 at 3:19 am If we have so many C-17’s, then why can’t the Air Force manage to fly them to Thule Air Base? They rely on a weekly 47 year old contracted DC-8 and a once a week contracted L-100. They do manage to fly generals up here in thier goverment G5’s, and “Tops in Blue” on a KC-10, now THAT is a waste of taxpayers dollars!
	Jack Mehoff October 10th, 2009 at 3:23 am to “the old man”… freedom carp? Are they tasty with hush puppies?
	macman1138 October 12th, 2009 at 2:02 am I respect McCain for his military service to this country and that is all.
	irtusk October 12th, 2009 at 5:08 am > They rely on a weekly 47 year old contracted DC-8 and a once a week contracted L-100. > > They do manage to fly generals up here in thier goverment G5’s, and “Tops in Blue” on a KC-10 ALL of which are cheaper to operate than the C-17 A GV especially is FAR FAR cheaper to fly than a C-17. I know some generals get a little pudgy, but i’m pretty sure none of them need the load-bearing capabilities of the C-17
	K. Smith October 14th, 2009 at 6:30 pm If we could see the truth, many of the amendmanets to the appropriations have nothing to do with defense spending. It is time to stop this practice.
	CGCG October 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm I love our free nation, we can say and comment on whatever we want to. Bottom line is? It’s going to happen and all will not be happy. Just wait another 20 years when the kids growing up not get to run the country:)