Quote:
I think that the bottom line might also have something to do with that transports aren't sexy and no one really wants to invest in it.
|
Have you seen the A-400 M program? Maybe the USAF don't want to invest in more transports because they know no one can do better than the Herc airframe for the same price, and the C-17 has already slipped on the "more costs, less reliability" side, but they're not alone in the world, though they may think so!
Besides, they still have all those back-payments for the bright 'n shiny F-22 and F-35 development to pay for! Oh, those pretty diamond-tipped stealthy commie-killers!
Quote:
In regards to bias.... Clancy has called the Pentagon one of the most useless job programs in history.
|
Concerning said bias, it sounds like the "tracks rule" logic most of the anti-strykers on the web put their backs upon. Quite the one that has been developped here.
I bet Clancy can find good info, but he is indeed biased on the pro-american side, if only by collecting biased info from biased people. And run the Pentagon and the Army administration down is not what I would call anti-patriotic, particularly in the early 90s (Shinseki era!).
I won't accuse him of wishful thinking, since he seems able to separate his non-fiction from fiction works, the latest being sometimes monuments of geopolitical paranoia and wishful thinking indeed, but the man is far from alone in this branch!
Now to sit back and wait for energic replies...
