"The direct answer is, and with all due respect to the President and Dr. Gates, no, they do not 'know something others are not telling us', says Myron D. Stokes. GHH Managing Member.
"Since so many editorials are containing C-17 catch phrases like 'unnecessary', 'not requested', 'The Air Force says 180 (or 205, now 223) is enough', one assumes that such assertions concerning this superlative airlifter which has no true near, mid or long term replacement, are fact checked to ascertain the worthiness of these comments", he said.
These same flawed conclusions have been repeated in the 2010 version of MCS, despite DoD claims of "enhanced fidelity" regarding strategic/tactical airlift analytical matrices.
The comments of a very upset AF General were conveyed to GHH by government associates the day the mandate was implemented: "We keep trying to push these aircraft [C-5s] out the back door, and they [Congress and LMCO] keep pushing them in the front door. From this point on, it's going to be darned difficult to get C-17s at the levels we need them (at least 222, with 300+ quite usable)." (note: as of August 2009, this mandate was allowed to expire, paving the way for the USAF to retire C-5A and B models known for their notorious unreliability; currently, a 56% mission completion rate)
Stokes further says the arguments presented by C-17 antagonists have at best been puzzling, and most certainly to Boeing, since there is no basis whatsoever for their assertions of "We have enough C-17s and buying more is a waste of money, epitomizes 'pork barrel' spending and is a poster child for the extremes of earmarks."
Short story? The data do not exist to support C-17 termination.
C-17's amazing performances, whether humanitarian/disaster relief or conflict support missions, are virtually the stuff of legend... seriously.
GHH further believes there should be a great cause for concern, if not alarm, that China is well on its way to producing a larger version of Boeing C-17 based on stolen data.
IAF in Crisis
It is a matter of record, contends GHH, that the IAF, as a direct result of aging, improperly -through lack of components - maintained aircraft, has an appalling accident rate, and equally disturbing, a profound lack of reliable strategic and tactical airlift capabilities at time when China, by its own design and aspirations, is emerging as a threat to global security. And more ominously, an immediate threat to India and Pakistan -- whether or not the latter understands this reality.
"Ballout believes that 'Oman is poised for larger participation in the geo-economic and geo-political landscape thanks in part to recent changes in US Embassy personnel, inclusive of a new Ambassador whom we understand has the greatest respect for His Majesty Sultan Qaboos and the people of Oman; as do we'".-- 30 --
About Global HeavyLift Holdings, LLC:
GHH Managing Member Myron D. Stokes is a veteran automotive/aerospace industry analyst and spent several years as an industry correspondent for Newsweek, Newsweek Japan and Newsweek International. He is currently Publisher of eMOTION! REPORTS.com (http://www.emotionreports.com/) an automotive/aerospace industries research and analysis site targeting professionals within the academic, media, corporate and government sectors. The site also created a pathway through which white papers and other scholarly works such as "Crisis On Asimov: A Vision of 2085" by national security strategist Dr. Sheila Ronis; "Quantum Parallel: The Saint-Hilaire Quasiturbine as the Basis For Simultaneous Paradigm Shift in Vehicle Propulsion Systems" and "Super-Globalism: Strategies For Maintaining a Robust Industrial Base Through Technological, Policy and Process Improvement", could be presented to a broadened yet specific audience.
Founded in 2002, GHH is a strategic air transport solutions entity that was born of a multi-year public/private effort among forward thinkers in both the private sector and government to mitigate emerging and observable vulnerabilities in the U.S. industrial base global supply chain. Such vulnerabilities are represented by the fact that no ocean-borne shipping is in U.S. hands at present, thus potentially subjecting American corporations, especially automotive, and their global operations to the whims and perhaps economically hostile activities of and by foreign governments. Add to this the risk of terrorist activities, which have, according to the Department of Homeland Security, targeted maritime operations; i.e., ships, ports and ocean containers.