Quote:
Originally Posted by rotwein
|
This is just whining without discussion, both the article and your comments.
READ the article. The military didn't want them when it had to make hard choices on what to keep. Congress forced them to continue purchasing it. This should probably go into politics, not Military.
Quote:
The Air Force almost had to buy more of the planes against its will, the newspaper found. A solicitation issued from Wright-Patterson in May sought vendors to build more C-27Js, citing Congressional language requiring the military to spend money budgeted for the planes, despite Pentagon protests.
|
Quote:
The military initally wanted the C-27J because it had unique capabilities,
|
Quote:
But when sequestration hit, the military realized the planes weren't a necessity, but instead a luxury
|
not really a 'luxury', by the way-an operational capability. They ARE better at some things than C-130s...but if you have to make a decision, they were less capable for the money than C-130s...
If I have to make a household decision between rent and phone service, phone service goes. It's a capability I need and can really use, but not as important as a place to live. Not all military expenses that later get cancelled are waste, at the time you ordered them you could afford it and it enhanced our capability. Money didn't seem to be tight in the early 2000s.
Quote:
Ohio's Senate delegation was among the most ardent defenders of the C-27J when a mission at Mansfield Air National Guard Base, and 800 jobs there, were dependent on it. Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio and six other Democratic senators wrote a letter in 2011 urging the military to purchase up to 42 of the aircraft, saying too few planes "will weaken our national and homeland defense.
|
Quote:
Former Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz testified before Congress last year that the military wanted to divest its C-27J fleet to come in line with budget cuts. He said the C-130 can do everything currently asked for and costs $213 million to fly over its 25-year lifespan.
|
Quote:
Now the U.S. Senate is poised to strip the requirement that the Pentagon spend money on new planes from the 2014 defense budget, and Wright-Patterson officials are saying they were told to put a hold on purchasing. Ohio's senators are not opposing the change of plans.
|
Quote:
"When asked why the Air Force can't simply put the brakes on having the other five planes delivered, Air Force spokesman Darryl Mayer responded, "They are too near completion for a termination to be cost effective and other government agencies have requested the aircraft."
|
Now, read that last paragraph again, PLEASE. The key is the word termination cost. Large contracts have a penalty involved with cancellation, so companies with the capability to deliver will make a bid and know they aren't taking risk with, I don't know, last-minute decisions to cancel.
Without those termination clauses, the cost of the product or service is much higher per unit: companies won't take on risk knowing their contract might be cut before they recoup production startup costs.
In other words, it will cost the government more not to build the very last few planes than to just take delivery of them. Simple enough for you? Or are you looking for a chance to post another whining article about how the military fraudulently wasted your money by cancelling a contract and paying an unnecessary termination cost?