Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-11-2013, 09:07 AM
 
Location: Traverse City, MI
167 posts, read 469,398 times
Reputation: 178

Advertisements

Have you seen this?

New Air Force Planes Go Directly to 'Boneyard' | Military.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2013, 10:15 AM
 
Location: New Mexico U.S.A.
26,527 posts, read 51,637,281 times
Reputation: 31324
Do you have anything to say? Or is this a "drive by"?

This is a discussion forum.

The article? The claim is that there are some new cargo planes for the U.S. Air Force which are being delivered straight into storage in the Arizona desert because the military has no use for them. But we really don't know all the pertinent issues.

The article New Air Force planes parked in Arizona ‘boneyard’ also appears here: http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/...oneyard/nbFLq/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2013, 11:29 AM
 
Location: Traverse City, MI
167 posts, read 469,398 times
Reputation: 178
Poncho I think it is a disgusting waste of money!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-12-2013, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Richmond, VA
5,041 posts, read 6,329,712 times
Reputation: 7197
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotwein View Post
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?

Last edited by GeorgiaTransplant; 10-12-2013 at 03:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top