What should be done to save the US’s strategic airlift capabilities. The newest C-17’s are 13 years old and their hours are being racked up as we speak. C-5’s have an availability rate of less than 40%. There are zero active manufacturing lines open for strategic air-lifters open now. What can be done in the short and long term to ensure the US is ready for a war in the pacific in which lots of airlifts WILL be required?
Global debt market won't last long enough for you to worry about any of that, OP.
>>65119976What did she mean by this
>>65119968There are rumors Boeing may spin up a C-17 line after one or more foreign countries has expressed interest in the platform. KC-46 is also capable of picking up some transport duties, and the Air Force is also investing money in Jet Zero, so could very well end up buying BWB aircraft as tankers and transports in the 2030s. However due to the nature of the Pacific battlefield it really isn’t Air Force heavy airlift capacity that is concerning capacity wise, it is Navy sealift that needs the most attention.
>>65119968>The newest C-17’s are 13 years old and their hours are being racked up as we speakI mean, is this actually a problem? It's not as if parts aren't being made, and while I know that the airframe itself has a limited lifespan, 13 years would be surprisingly short for a plane like this.
>>65119968>What can be done in the short and long term to ensure the US is ready for a war in the pacific in which lots of airlifts WILL be required?Americans discover the perils of being dependent on profit maxxing expense minning private war industry the thread.
>>65119968They shouldn't have retired the C-141B.
I would coom so hard if airbus made a (military) cargo version of the A380. Maybe even the elongated A380-900 but they WONT because airbus are KEKS and they HATE COOL SHIT
>>65120189It’s more that the A380 would make for a kind of shit cargo plane
>>65119968put me in charge
>>65119968They need to end the play-pretend tactical low-level and short-field mission and use them solely as the strat airlift they are. Which will extend their usable life from 30-40 years to 60+.
>>65120189It'll be their C-5 equivalent, not many cunts would want a very large airlifter like thatChairbus should instead build their own C-17 equivalent, maybe an A600 or something
Our hope lie in a marketing grift for more wind turbines!
>>65119968>What should be doneTripple the defense budget and just buy more over priced stuff.
>>65121474Is the implication here that the f-16s are going up the ramp under their own power?
one door must close for another door to open, grasshopperhttps://www.cnbc.com/2026/05/01/spirit-airlines-trump-bailout.html
>>6511996813 years old is practically nothing in terms of aircraft lifespans
>>65121927The F-16s crave being vored and going in the dommy plane’s big ol’ gut.
>>65119968>What can be done in the short and long term to ensure the US is ready for a war in the pacificStep one was starting a war in the middle east and moving major parts of your pacific defence structure to the gulf. Step two is yet to be announced
>>65119968C-130J-30. It can fit 8 pallets.
