Fórum Defesa Brasil

orestespf escreveu:Objeto fálico sempre chama a atenção, mesmo que de forma incompreensível.

orestespf escreveu:Objeto fálico sempre chama a atenção, mesmo que de forma incompreensível.

Carlos Mathias escreveu:Pois é, mais uma vez depois de chuva lá no Nordeste, alguns Mi-26 fariam uma diferença gigantesca, ao invés de ficar levando meia dúzia de coisas em Esquilo.

Jacobs escreveu:Esse Euro Hawk lembra isso aqui:

alcmartin escreveu:

Jacobs escreveu:Esse Euro Hawk lembra isso aqui:

Jacobs, voce antecipou o que eu ia dizer... E o galho é que o concorrente, o Predador, pode falar que passa o rodo no Alien!

Sds!

Future of C-17 cargo jet looks shaky
By JEN DIMASCIO | 6/24/10 4:57 AM EDT


The Air Force’s C-17 Globemaster cargo jet once had a comfortable ride as a project the Defense Department rarely requested but Congress continued to fund — an arrangement that allowed the military, lawmakers and lobbyists to share in the largesse year after year.

But the terrain appears much rockier for the Boeing-made plane in fiscal year 2011, as Congress looks for ways to trim the deficit and, more important, Defense Secretary Robert Gates digs in hard against the plane, securing a veto threat against funding for it from President Barack Obama.

“He’s made this a manhood issue,” a defense industry official said of Gates.

The Pentagon has bought or ordered 223 C-17s since the 1980s. Initially, the picture for funding at least a few more planes was promising. Defense industry officials were hopeful the House would add money for five Globemaster aircraft — and that the Senate wouldn’t oppose it in conference.

Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and a longtime backer of the program, told Defense Daily in May that the House was likely to include funding for the aircraft and that senators “usually go along with” that kind of request.

But there was already one noticeable difference. Gates’s assault on the cargo jet was much more robust than his first attack last year. That seems to have scared off some support in the Senate, which supported a measure to add C-17s last year.

Now, opponents of the plane, such as Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), have more traction, and defense industry officials aren’t sure they’ll have the votes to add funding for it to the defense authorization bill.

Neither bill pending in the House and Senate gives the Pentagon the authority to spend money on the plane.

And Gates has continued his assault, making the plane, along with an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, targets for elimination. His track record is strong: A year ago, he knocked off the Air Force’s F-22 Raptor, made by Lockheed Martin.

This year, the veto threat for the C-17 is much stronger. “I stand squarely behind Secretary Gates’s position on the JSF second engine and C-17 programs,” the president said in a May 28 statement.

“Our military does not want or need these programs being pushed by the Congress, and should Congress ignore this fact, I will veto any such legislation so that it can be returned to me without those provisions.”

And Gates rarely misses an opportunity to remind Congress of the consequences of ignoring the veto threat, as he did last week during a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing. Republican Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri, where Boeing’s defense operations are based, said that if the C-17 isn’t funded, “there will not be a single facility in North America anywhere assembling large aircraft designed to military specifications,” at a time when wide-body C-5A aircraft are nearing retirement.

“What steps are being taken to protect the industrial base in heavy airlift? Strategic airlift,” Bond asked.

Gates dismissed the question, saying U.S. manufacturers continue to make large, wide-body aircraft for the commercial industry and that those aircraft can be adapted for the military when needed. “The C-17 is going to be with us for decades,” Gates said, and he repeated the Pentagon’s consistent position — that its own studies on the size of its strategic lift abilities from 2005 to 2010 show that, despite the demands of war, the nation has plenty of capacity for airlift.

That left Bond, in his words, “stunned.”

“I was stunned to hear the Pentagon shrug off concerns over losing our C-17 line,” Bond told POLITICO in a statement. “Can they really believe all you have to do is rip out the seats of a 767 and have a plane ready for a war zone or humanitarian catastrophe?”

Now problems are arising on the House side, too. Defense insiders said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Wash.), who’s been out front promoting Boeing’s bid for aerial refueling tankers for years, is now trying to shed the label “Mr. Boeing” in his new role as chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee.

“Foreign sales are essential if we are to sustain affordably our domestic defense industrial base, not to mention bolstering strategic alliances with countries like India,” said Bond. “If the worst-case scenario comes true — the real risk of the C-17 line being shut down — Congress may need to act to ensure we aren’t dependent on the Russians for our future airlift needs.”

Mas o F-35 não tem 3000 encomendas firmes e certas?