tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post7203030207014444278..comments2023-11-03T09:36:22.100-04:00Comments on In From the Cold: The Airlift Debate ContinuesGeorge Smileyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07049707648660651119noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-85071610898062139302007-11-14T07:38:00.000-05:002007-11-14T07:38:00.000-05:00Even as a Delawarean I have to vote for the C-17. ...Even as a Delawarean I have to vote for the C-17. A dollar spent now on a C-17 will be amortized over the next 30+ years of ops, whereas a dollar spent on the C-5 might get you another 15 years if you're lucky. Also, the next 30+ years of ops are not going to be in places where we can land C-5s all day long. The C-17's ability to drop out of the sky like a rock (and then land safely) also makes it an attractive ride in a MANPADS-saturated theater.<BR/><BR/>In a perfect world they'd retrofit Dover to handle C-17s and move Dover's C-5s to Dayton for cross-country CONUS logistics. Since Dayton already handles C-5s you'd only need to retrofit Dover.<BR/><BR/>Also: even though you (and I) agree with him, Jim Saxton has a horse in this race too. McGuire AFB in New Jersey has C-17s, and ... oh, look! it's in Rep. Saxton's district.J.R.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13913599852443572486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10820485.post-18474145676721341992007-11-13T19:48:00.000-05:002007-11-13T19:48:00.000-05:00Off-topic Spook, but you may want to say something...Off-topic Spook, but you may want to say something about the last DSP launch this week. I posted something, but I (and others I think) would be more interested in your thoughts. <BR/>I would have e-mailed you offline, but you're set up ther same as I am.<BR/> (& no offense taken if you want to remove this head's up.)<BR/>RegardsSMSgt Machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com