Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Meet the Spartans: 21 cargo planes that the Air Force spent over a half billion dollars on that are going straight from the factory to the boneyard because nobody needs them. Fark: And still more are being ordered   (foxnews.com) divider line 209
    More: Stupid, air forces, cargo aircraft, Dayton Daily News, government oversight, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base  
•       •       •

21040 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Oct 2013 at 12:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



209 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-07 12:34:34 PM  
This is madness!
 
2013-10-07 12:34:57 PM  
Airplanes the Air Force doesn't want, doesn't need, but building them produces so many jobs in so many Congressional districts that Congressmen make sure they keep getting built.
 
2013-10-07 12:35:07 PM  
Can I have one?
 
2013-10-07 12:36:00 PM  
"They are too near completion for a termination to be cost effective and other government agencies have requested the aircraft," [Air Force spokesman Darryl]Mayer told the paper.
 
2013-10-07 12:36:43 PM  
Well by nobody they mean the Air Force proper. The end of the article mentions that they will be repurposed for other organizations in the government. But don't let that get in the way of a good headline.
 
2013-10-07 12:36:48 PM  
The government is the epitome of "hey when you're not spending your own money...who gives a F right?"
 
2013-10-07 12:37:00 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Can I have one?


This. I'll take one. My tax dollars paid for it, might as well let me get some use out of it. Now how d'ya fly this thing?
 
2013-10-07 12:37:11 PM  

meanmutton: Airplanes the Air Force doesn't want, doesn't need, but building them produces so many jobs in so many Congressional districts that Congressmen make sure they keep getting built.


it would be more effective to spend the money building infrastructure in those districts, and help enhance the economy. Instead military-industrial complex lobbyists are raking in the cash at the expense of everyone else.
 
2013-10-07 12:37:16 PM  

LandOfChocolate: "They are too near completion for a termination to be cost effective and other government agencies have requested the aircraft," [Air Force spokesman Darryl]Mayer told the paper.


Yup, seems they're just waiting to be re-purposed.

However, Fox, keep spinning it that the Dems are cutting the budgets.
 
2013-10-07 12:37:44 PM  
That's about right.
 
2013-10-07 12:37:51 PM  
Put an ad up on craigslist. Maybe the drug cartels will take a couple off our hands.
 
2013-10-07 12:39:51 PM  
Slightly more comprehensive version of the story  here

Before FOX News: "But when sequestration hit, the military realized the planes weren't a necessity, but instead a luxury it couldn't afford, he said."

After FOX News: "But with sequestration dictating Pentagon cuts, the planes were deemed a luxury it couldn't afford."
 
2013-10-07 12:39:54 PM  
Wow, time to pick up some bargains at the Boneyard. It would make a cool movie if some druglords bought these planes and it turns out the US imports them just for that!
 
2013-10-07 12:40:06 PM  
www.gstatic.com

The guillotine needs feeding.

Old photo, but I think they were still using it for retired B-52s. Cut them up and lay 'em out for the Soviets.
Probably gonna shrink wrap 'em and store them for future wars.
 
2013-10-07 12:40:25 PM  
they're storing them for use in the coming zombie apocolypse
 
2013-10-07 12:40:26 PM  

meanmutton: Airplanes the Air Force doesn't want, doesn't need, but building them produces so many jobs in so many Congressional districts that Congressmen make sure they keep getting built.


This is probably related to congressional districts so gerrymandered that they resemble a a Mandelbrot set as sketched in urine by a drunk.

/the market appears to be recovering...appearance is key.
 
2013-10-07 12:41:31 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Well by nobody they mean the Air Force proper. The end of the article mentions that they will be repurposed for other organizations in the government. But don't let that get in the way of a good headline.


Exactly, sounds like the air force is taking delivery before they can be titled to other agencies.
 
2013-10-07 12:41:51 PM  

scanman61: This is madness!


i.imgur.com
 
2013-10-07 12:42:21 PM  
What is the role of this thing? I read the wiki page and still can't figure it out.

3/4s the size of a C130, 1/4 the payload, it mainly seems to be an AF purchase in order to make it easier for Lockheed to sell it to foreign nations.

I would take one -- might make for a great flying winnebago.
 
2013-10-07 12:43:05 PM  
So, we are using it to replace an aircraft with twice the payload and costs 1/3 less (and we currently have about 200 mothballed). Seems about right.
 
2013-10-07 12:43:30 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Well by nobody they mean the Air Force proper. The end of the article mentions that they will be repurposed for other organizations in the government. But don't let that get in the way of a good headline.


I realized that after I read the article. If this spending benefits other agencies that need the aircraft even if the Air Force itself doesn't need them, I'm OK with this.  Hell, I'd be OK with sparing older aircraft carriers and battleships for use by civilian agencies in such pursuits as ocean research, ocean exploration, and even ocean mining ventures if they could be refitted and repurposed effectively.

I am saddened by the fact that we as a society have become such a throw-away society. How much money, time, and resources would we save if we built stuff to be rebuilt and reused rather than simply mothballed or scrapped after one use?
 
2013-10-07 12:43:35 PM  
I interviewed with BAE systems about working at their factory that produced the MRAP's near Houston. They were built on a platform that was a materiel transport and were expected to be parkable for 15 years almost zero maintenance.

Two reason's I'm not disappointed to not get that job. 1: The IP contract was such they'd own my wet dreams, this Fark post, and anything else I composed while receiving a paycheck there. 2: Six months later they moved the factory to Michigan.
 
2013-10-07 12:44:05 PM  

pag1107: Evil Twin Skippy: Well by nobody they mean the Air Force proper. The end of the article mentions that they will be repurposed for other organizations in the government. But don't let that get in the way of a good headline.

Exactly, sounds like the air force is taking delivery before they can be titled to other agencies.


But the real question here is, will they be physically at the "boneyard" for longer than the 24 hours that are necessary for me to warglebargle about this with a clear conscious?
 
2013-10-07 12:44:36 PM  

Evil Twin Skippy: Well by nobody they mean the Air Force proper. The end of the article mentions that they will be repurposed for other organizations in the government. But don't let that get in the way of a good headline.


You mean bad headline. Good headlines are accurate.
 
2013-10-07 12:46:12 PM  
You don't want a cargo plane, remember what happened to these guys?
www.projections-movies.com
 
2013-10-07 12:46:19 PM  

RoyBatty: What is the role of this thing? I read the wiki page and still can't figure it out.

3/4s the size of a C130, 1/4 the payload, it mainly seems to be an AF purchase in order to make it easier for Lockheed to sell it to foreign nations.

I would take one -- might make for a great flying winnebago.


If they could retrofit it with the same basic idea as the OSPREY with VTOL capabilities, that would be badass. Fly to a park, set down in a clearing, camp.

I've often thought it'd be pretty neat to retrofit things like the C130 to be like the drop ships from Starship Troopers or Space: Above and Beyond, where the thing swoops in, drops off a full-fitted container that acts as troop housing, cargo storage, etc.
 
2013-10-07 12:46:25 PM  
But with sequestration dictating Pentagon cuts, the planes were deemed a luxury it couldn't afford.

Surely this is Obama's Berlin Airlift!
 
2013-10-07 12:47:11 PM  

jayhawk88: pag1107: Evil Twin Skippy: Well by nobody they mean the Air Force proper. The end of the article mentions that they will be repurposed for other organizations in the government. But don't let that get in the way of a good headline.

Exactly, sounds like the air force is taking delivery before they can be titled to other agencies.

But the real question here is, will they be physically at the "boneyard" for longer than the 24 hours that are necessary for me to warglebargle about this with a clear conscious?


Most likely.  I doubt they'll start handing them out until the entire order has arrived.
 
2013-10-07 12:47:23 PM  

iron_city_ap: So, we are using it to replace an aircraft with twice the payload and costs 1/3 less (and we currently have about 200 mothballed). Seems about right.


This one looks like it can land in places the c4's can't.

Sounds good for like, a natural disaster or something.
 
2013-10-07 12:48:09 PM  
So which fallacious premise should I be mad at in this thread?
 
2013-10-07 12:48:10 PM  

meanmutton: Airplanes the Air Force doesn't want, doesn't need, but building them produces so many jobs in so many Congressional districts that Congressmen make sure they keep getting built.


The part that irks me is that the so-called party of fiscal responsibility that often champions a minimalistic government and a reduction in welfare is often the party most represented when voting for such corporate welfare projects.

I can't wait for the debt ceiling vote to come up and for these guys to call for cuts in everything except for what they got at the trough.
 
2013-10-07 12:49:20 PM  
We obviously need to raise taxes more
 
2013-10-07 12:49:48 PM  
Meanwhile we are running out of fire fighting planes
 
2013-10-07 12:50:05 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Can I have one?


This! Heck I'll live in it
 
2013-10-07 12:50:23 PM  

red5ish: Put an ad up on craigslist. Maybe the drug cartels will take a couple off our hands.


Brilliant.  Then legalize all the drugs.  That'll rustle their jimmies.
 
2013-10-07 12:51:20 PM  

tripleseven: iron_city_ap: So, we are using it to replace an aircraft with twice the payload and costs 1/3 less (and we currently have about 200 mothballed). Seems about right.

This one looks like it can land in places the c4's can't.

Sounds good for like, a natural disaster or something.


And I know, c4 is not a plane.


Hung over.
 
2013-10-07 12:51:52 PM  

RecentGrad: meanmutton: Airplanes the Air Force doesn't want, doesn't need, but building them produces so many jobs in so many Congressional districts that Congressmen make sure they keep getting built.

it would be more effective to spend the money building infrastructure in those districts, and help enhance the economy. Instead military-industrial complex lobbyists are raking in the cash at the expense of everyone else.


Congresscritters are at fault too.  There's no chance for a good photo-op when all you did was replace the signalling on a railway, or dredge a harbor, or re-pave an airport.
 
2013-10-07 12:52:25 PM  

Kit Fister: RoyBatty: What is the role of this thing? I read the wiki page and still can't figure it out.

3/4s the size of a C130, 1/4 the payload, it mainly seems to be an AF purchase in order to make it easier for Lockheed to sell it to foreign nations.

I would take one -- might make for a great flying winnebago.

If they could retrofit it with the same basic idea as the OSPREY with VTOL capabilities, that would be badass. Fly to a park, set down in a clearing, camp.

I've often thought it'd be pretty neat to retrofit things like the C130 to be like the drop ships from Starship Troopers or Space: Above and Beyond, where the thing swoops in, drops off a full-fitted container that acts as troop housing, cargo storage, etc.


To be honest, I understand why you want VTOL, but I'd prefer mine in the form of a seaplane. Set her down and toss a fishing line out.

The wiki page makes it seem as though it's been a fight to find other government agencies that want it. They don't seem all that eager to take it over.
 
2013-10-07 12:52:52 PM  

RoyBatty: What is the role of this thing? I read the wiki page and still can't figure it out.

3/4s the size of a C130, 1/4 the payload, it mainly seems to be an AF purchase in order to make it easier for Lockheed to sell it to foreign nations.

I would take one -- might make for a great flying winnebago.


It can land on a crappy runway per the article.
 
2013-10-07 12:53:14 PM  

fjnorton: Meanwhile we are running out of fire fighting planes


They're adding that mission to more ANG units. Used to be a bunch of civilian companies did that work, now many are out of business. Can't compete with Uncle Sam you know.
 
2013-10-07 12:53:55 PM  

fjnorton: Meanwhile we are running out of fire fighting planes


I was just wondering how these might fare as fire fighting aircraft...
 
2013-10-07 12:54:02 PM  

wildcardjack: I interviewed with BAE systems about working at their factory that produced the MRAP's near Houston. They were built on a platform that was a materiel transport and were expected to be parkable for 15 years almost zero maintenance.

Two reason's I'm not disappointed to not get that job. 1: The IP contract was such they'd own my wet dreams, this Fark post, and anything else I composed while receiving a paycheck there. 2: Six months later they moved the factory to Michigan.


For four years, I worked for a defense contractor called DRS (which used to be TAMSCO, and then ESSI, before we were bought by an Italian company called Finnmecanica). We did a lot of business with BAE Systems, Lockheed, SAIC, etc. Apparently, when we were called ESSI, it came to light that lod William "Bucky" Bush (GWB's uncle) had been on the board of directors for ESSI and his arrival coincidentally happend about the same time that we got a VERY large contract to supply the military with night vision goggles and other equipment. He left right before the news that the contract would not be renewed became public and selling his stock made him a few hundred thousand dollars richer than he would have been had he not had insider information. The SEC investigated...during the Bush administration and "surprisingly", they found no evidence that Old Bucky had cheated or had influenced anyone in the administration to help us get the contract. One week after I read about the investigation, five suits who I we had never seen called us into a meeting in the conference room to tell us that the company was not Finnmecanica, the VP of Finance had been fired, and if we were questioned by anyone, we needed to refer them to one of the suits before responding.


/end CSB
 
2013-10-07 12:54:10 PM  

YouFarkingIdiot: We obviously need to raise taxes more


Yes. We do.
 
2013-10-07 12:54:11 PM  

Big Man On Campus: You don't want a cargo plane, remember what happened to these guys?
[www.projections-movies.com image 400x300]


the one on the left woke up in a cryotank only to discover that miraculously somehow, despite being put into suspended animation, his body suffered from rapid aging, causing him to age 40 years in a day and a half, while the guy on the left was never heard from again?
 
2013-10-07 12:55:07 PM  
So, wait, a plane with a particular feature which was useful when were fighting an unending war in Afghanistan (2007) is kind of useless now that we're drawing down and exiting? And the contract we signed to buy them has us still taking delivery because it'd be more expensive to back out now?

Anybody who ever paid too much money for an early smartphone can sympathize. But they can't tell you because THE KEYBOARD DOESN'T farkING WORK RIGHT. WHY ARE THESE BUTTONS SO SMALL?!?!
 
2013-10-07 12:55:22 PM  
Ya know, a half a billion here, half a billion there begins to add up after a while.
 
2013-10-07 12:55:56 PM  

RoyBatty: Kit Fister: RoyBatty: What is the role of this thing? I read the wiki page and still can't figure it out.

3/4s the size of a C130, 1/4 the payload, it mainly seems to be an AF purchase in order to make it easier for Lockheed to sell it to foreign nations.

I would take one -- might make for a great flying winnebago.

If they could retrofit it with the same basic idea as the OSPREY with VTOL capabilities, that would be badass. Fly to a park, set down in a clearing, camp.

I've often thought it'd be pretty neat to retrofit things like the C130 to be like the drop ships from Starship Troopers or Space: Above and Beyond, where the thing swoops in, drops off a full-fitted container that acts as troop housing, cargo storage, etc.

To be honest, I understand why you want VTOL, but I'd prefer mine in the form of a seaplane. Set her down and toss a fishing line out.

The wiki page makes it seem as though it's been a fight to find other government agencies that want it. They don't seem all that eager to take it over.


The world-wide superchicken nods in approval:

theenterprisereport.typepad.com
 
2013-10-07 12:56:03 PM  
I'd just put it in my yard and dress it up to look like this.

www.peopleswheels.com
 
2013-10-07 12:56:19 PM  
It does have an Italian nose.
 
2013-10-07 12:56:29 PM  

Dinjiin: meanmutton: Airplanes the Air Force doesn't want, doesn't need, but building them produces so many jobs in so many Congressional districts that Congressmen make sure they keep getting built.

The part that irks me is that the so-called party of fiscal responsibility that often champions a minimalistic government and a reduction in welfare is often the party most represented when voting for such corporate welfare projects.

I can't wait for the debt ceiling vote to come up and for these guys to call for cuts in everything except for what they got at the trough.


Let's make a non-partisan issue into a partisan one, because people can't see the world any way other than black and white!

Ohio's senators, Democrat Sherrod Brown and Republican Rob Portman, were both defenders of the C-27J when 800 jobs and a mission at Mansfield Air National Guard Base depended on it. Brown urged the military in a 2011 letter to purchase up to 42 of the aircraft, saying too few planes "will weaken our national and homeland defense."
 
Displayed 50 of 209 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report