Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!apple!veritas!amdcad!amdcad!military
From: drn@pinet.aip.org (Donald Newcomb)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Sexy budgets & boring planes
Message-ID: <1991Mar28.032810.2836@amd.com>
Date: 27 Mar 91 05:06:52 GMT
Sender: military@amd.com
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Lines: 30
Approved: military@amd.com



From: drn@pinet.aip.org (Donald Newcomb)

>From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
>The orthodox excuse is that the C-5 is incapable of flying heavy loads
>direct to the front lines, while the C-17 can do this.  Surprise surprise,
>if you look at the original C-5 specs, it was supposed to be able to fly
>heavy loads to the front lines!  There were problems with debris damaging
>engines when operating on soft surfaces, and the USAF was reluctant to
>clear the C-5 for such operations in the end; nothing has been said about
>why the C-17 won't have the same problems.

A few years ago one of our "old timers" was getting ready to retire and
throwing a lot of junk. I should have saved it! In the trash bin was
an instructional booklet on the P.P.B.S. (Planning, Programming Budget
System) written back when McNamara was SECDEF. It touted the
yet-to-fly C-5 as an example of the success of P.P.B.S.  I have it on
the *very* best authority that, when the C-5 flies, it will be the
perfect one-size-fits-all cargo plane. It will make obsolete all
current U.S. military cargo planes down to and including the C-130.
It will operate from short, unimproved runways; require almost no
maintenance and will be cheap to boot. And to think, we owe it all
to the P.P.B.S. ;-). That book should be required reading for every
prospective Pentagon Program Manager on why never to count their
chickens before they hatch.

Donald Newcomb
drn@pinet.aip.org
drn@aip.bitnet