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.

(Aero-News Newwork)   Hey General, what do you want us to do with these brand new C-27 cargo planes? H-m-m, ya' know, we really don't have a practical use for them - Just send 'em straight to the aircraft bone yard in Arizona   (aero-news.net) divider line 140
    More: Fail, Arizona, cargo aircraft, Spartans, Sonoran Desert, Air Force Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, aircraft  
•       •       •

16106 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2014 at 9:16 AM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-03 08:01:59 AM  
Stupid, but on the bright side, if we even find ourselves in a situation where we're going to need a shiat-load of cargo aircraft in a hurry (like a major war), we'll have enough until production ramps up.

Of course, it's not the military's fault:  Blame the politicians who use military funding to get jobs for their districts, essentially purchasing votes.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 08:27:23 AM  
They have already served their purpose, so it doesn't matter what happens to them now.

All American taxpayers should be grateful they were allowed to have a role in such a great achievement.
 
2014-02-03 08:43:45 AM  
From the comments (have not verified but might look)

They have all been disposed of or will be on completion. Seven have gone to the US Army for Special Forces trainers. the remaining fourteen are going to the USCG in exchange for seven older C-130H models which are to be completely refurbished by the USAF (including wing boxes) and then transferred to the USFS (as title holder) for use as Air Tankers by private companies under contract to the USFS, probably using the MAAFF2 system.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 08:53:44 AM  

JacksonBryan: From the comments (have not verified but might look)

They have all been disposed of or will be on completion. Seven have gone to the US Army for Special Forces trainers. the remaining fourteen are going to the USCG in exchange for seven older C-130H models which are to be completely refurbished by the USAF (including wing boxes) and then transferred to the USFS (as title holder) for use as Air Tankers by private companies under contract to the USFS, probably using the MAAFF2 system.


Oh, well that's totes OK then.
 
2014-02-03 09:19:05 AM  
Sell them to rich Doomsday Preppers; those would make great flying bunkers.
 
2014-02-03 09:20:45 AM  
China builds residential districts nobody will ever live in, and shopping malls nobody will ever open a store in.

We build planes that nobody will ever fly.

And thus, the illusion that the system isn't broken is maintained for another day.
 
2014-02-03 09:21:08 AM  
In that case, we should probably cut food stamps some more.
 
2014-02-03 09:21:28 AM  
But by all means, GOP, please save 0.05% of this wasted money by cutting the NPR budget.
 
2014-02-03 09:21:38 AM  
This is what happens when you don't listen to the general telling the congressional committee "We don't need that. We don't even want it.". The Army is having the same issue with tanks, it's getting a whole crapload of tanks it neither needs nor wants.
 
2014-02-03 09:22:04 AM  
They can park them next to all the Abrams tanks we don't need.

Be sure to save some space for all the F35s arriving shortly.
 
m00
2014-02-03 09:23:05 AM  

dittybopper: Of course, it's not the military's fault: Blame the politicians who use military funding to get jobs for their districts, essentially purchasing votes.


$567 million for 800 jobs! what a deal! Who wants to bet one of those jobs is CEO, and campaign contributor... and he personally cleared a couple hundred million since 2007?
 
2014-02-03 09:23:09 AM  
Someone create an Ebay page for them.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 09:23:54 AM  

WhyteRaven74: This is what happens when you don't listen to the general telling the congressional committee "We don't need that. We don't even want it.". The Army is having the same issue with tanks, it's getting a whole crapload of tanks it neither needs nor wants.


It's not that they don't listen to them, it's more that money talks and Lockheed has lots of it and Generals don't.
 
2014-02-03 09:23:55 AM  

bloobeary: China builds residential districts nobody will ever live in, and shopping malls nobody will ever open a store in.

We build planes that nobody will ever fly.

And thus, the illusion that the system isn't broken is maintained for another day.


They fly at least twice. Once to test, and once to the boneyard strip.
 
2014-02-03 09:24:19 AM  

lilbjorn: But by all means, GOP, please save 0.05% of this wasted money by cutting the NPR budget.


I don't understand what you mean.  DOD NEVER "Wastes" tax  money.  They purchase FREEDUMBS with it.
 
2014-02-03 09:25:27 AM  

vpb: WhyteRaven74: This is what happens when you don't listen to the general telling the congressional committee "We don't need that. We don't even want it.". The Army is having the same issue with tanks, it's getting a whole crapload of tanks it neither needs nor wants.

It's not that they don't listen to them, it's more that money talks and Lockheed has lots of it and Generals don't.


And that defense contractors are smart enough to ensure the things are using lots of districts to be built. Why buy one politician when you can get several?
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 09:25:54 AM  
But sequestration forced the Air Force to re-think the airplane's mission, and it determined that they were not a necessity, according to an analyst with the Project for Government Oversight.

I like sequestration. It reminded us that budget cuts are not the end of the world, and we can do without some government spending.
 
2014-02-03 09:26:26 AM  
Well, in the first place, it says that they were originally ordered in 2007, and sequestration forced their mission to be reconsidered. This isn't WalMart, they couldn't just get to the Cargo Plane Checkout and say ' I don't want these, you'll need to put them in the GoBacks cart.'. The planes were ordered, they take awhile to be built, and the contract stipulates they get delivered.

In the second place, the "boneyard" has all kinds of planes ready to go in almost no time. Fill up fluid reservoirs, drop engines in on some, remove engine covers on others, throw tires on. A lot of the planes out there are just waiting to be made ready, they aren't "scrapped" in any way, so it's the perfect place to store planes that aren't going to currently get used.
 
2014-02-03 09:30:55 AM  
Mmmm Pork. and fresh from the barrel!
 
2014-02-03 09:31:30 AM  

JacksonBryan: From the comments (have not verified but might look)

They have all been disposed of or will be on completion. Seven have gone to the US Army for Special Forces trainers. the remaining fourteen are going to the USCG in exchange for seven older C-130H models which are to be completely refurbished by the USAF (including wing boxes) and then transferred to the USFS (as title holder) for use as Air Tankers by private companies under contract to the USFS, probably using the MAAFF2 system.


Are they chemtrail spraying equipped?
 
2014-02-03 09:31:50 AM  

ZAZ: But sequestration forced the Air Force to re-think the airplane's mission, and it determined that they were not a necessity, according to an analyst with the Project for Government Oversight.

I like sequestration. It reminded us that budget cuts are not the end of the world, and we can do without some government spending.


Spoken like someone who got a paycheck to feed their family during that time.
 
2014-02-03 09:33:33 AM  
m00


dittybopper: Of course, it's not the military's fault: Blame the politicians who use military funding to get jobs for their districts, essentially purchasing votes.

$567 million for 800 jobs! what a deal!

But obama's 2 Billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment.

/// hypocrites.
 
2014-02-03 09:35:07 AM  
No wonder our youth is borderline potato.  If we switched military spending with education, we'd have the smartest combat force in existence.
 
2014-02-03 09:35:54 AM  
You see, we're already using a Keynesian jobs program to keep the economy afloat. Too bad we didn't do it in a way that created something we actually could use, and with more money going to regular people and less to Lockheed Martin.
 
2014-02-03 09:37:27 AM  
What they can't use it to transport all that Heroin from Afghanistan?
 
2014-02-03 09:38:05 AM  

TwistedFark: ZAZ: But sequestration forced the Air Force to re-think the airplane's mission, and it determined that they were not a necessity, according to an analyst with the Project for Government Oversight.

I like sequestration. It reminded us that budget cuts are not the end of the world, and we can do without some government spending.

Spoken like someone who got a paycheck to feed their family during that time.


"I need my paycheck.That's the bottom line."
http://freakoutnation.com/2013/10/03/house-republican-says-i-need-my -p aycheck-during-the-government-shutdown/
 
2014-02-03 09:41:29 AM  

OnlyM3: m00


dittybopper: Of course, it's not the military's fault: Blame the politicians who use military funding to get jobs for their districts, essentially purchasing votes.

$567 million for 800 jobs! what a deal!
But obama's 2 Billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment.

/// hypocrites.



The difference is that money was paid back.  So, not really the same thing.
 
2014-02-03 09:41:36 AM  
I'm pretty sure some people in Alaska and Hawaii would love to buy these for pennies on the dollar.
 
2014-02-03 09:41:59 AM  
Clearly we need to start culling the herd of defense workers. They are a threat to national security.
 
2014-02-03 09:42:31 AM  
Boy, I'm glad we don't waste our money on socialist pork like infrastructure and technology.
 
m00
2014-02-03 09:42:57 AM  

OnlyM3: But obama's 2 Billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment.

/// hypocrites.


You claimed somewhere that 2 billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment?
 
2014-02-03 09:44:05 AM  

vpb: They have already served their purpose, so it doesn't matter what happens to them now.

All American taxpayers should be grateful they were allowed to have a role in such a great achievement.


It is predominately an Italian aircraft, with only the final assembly being done in the US.

FWIW, if they're going to be used to replace 30-40+ year old firefighting air tankers, then the wrangling was worth it.  Those pilots won't know how to act with a plane that isn't older than the pilots (or in some cases the fathers of the pilots).
 
m00
2014-02-03 09:44:06 AM  

m00: You


who
 
2014-02-03 09:44:11 AM  

Mikey1969: Well, in the first place, it says that they were originally ordered in 2007, and sequestration forced their mission to be reconsidered. This isn't WalMart, they couldn't just get to the Cargo Plane Checkout and say ' I don't want these, you'll need to put them in the GoBacks cart.'. The planes were ordered, they take awhile to be built, and the contract stipulates they get delivered.

In the second place, the "boneyard" has all kinds of planes ready to go in almost no time. Fill up fluid reservoirs, drop engines in on some, remove engine covers on others, throw tires on. A lot of the planes out there are just waiting to be made ready, they aren't "scrapped" in any way, so it's the perfect place to store planes that aren't going to currently get used.


Whoa whoa whoa.  This is fark.  What are you doing using logic around these parts?  We only have room for outrage here.
 
2014-02-03 09:45:28 AM  

m00: OnlyM3: But obama's 2 Billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment.

/// hypocrites.

You claimed somewhere that 2 billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment?


Calibrate your sarcasm detector
 
2014-02-03 09:46:03 AM  
Actually, part of this appears to be an inter-service pissing match:  The US Army wanted the aircraft to replace some of its less-capable, older, and smaller C-23 cargo aircraft.  This probably pissed off the Air Force, which would have seen a growing Army fixed wing fleet as an abrogation of the various agreements dating back to the Key West Agreement, in which the Army is limited.  The C-27J could have been used for assault transports, which is by agreement an Air Force mission, not a military mission.  The Air Force saw it as competition for their bigger, longer-ranged C-130's.

So, the Air Force took over the C-23J fleet, and actually flew them for a bit in Afghanistan, then decided they liked the C-130 better anyway, so they're mothballing all the C-23J's that they mostly didn't want in the first place, but they couldn't let the actual military have their own transport aircraft.
 
2014-02-03 09:46:44 AM  

WhiskeyBoy: OnlyM3: m00


dittybopper: Of course, it's not the military's fault: Blame the politicians who use military funding to get jobs for their districts, essentially purchasing votes.

$567 million for 800 jobs! what a deal!
But obama's 2 Billion for a few GM jobs was a wise investment.

/// hypocrites.


The difference is that money was paid back.  So, not really the same thing.


So was the other, in votes.
 
2014-02-03 09:47:35 AM  
FTFA: "An Air Force spokesman said the program was "too near completion" to be able to terminate the program in a way that does not cost the taxpayers more than building the airplanes and sending them immediately to the boneyard."

Could there be any better indication of how wasteful and self-serving government has become, that they can't just shut down a wasteful program. Even better, according to the article, 21 of these planes cost $567 million, which equals $21 million per plane, yet, "the C-130 can do everything the C-27J can at nearly $100 million less per airplane." This means that Lockheed is willing to pay us $79 million apiece for flying their planes, a real deal, no matter how you slice it.
 
2014-02-03 09:48:55 AM  
Right wing troll accounts:
Please remember this article next time you biatch about wasted government spending and the DANGERS of cutting military spending.
 
2014-02-03 09:49:40 AM  
Your tax dollars at play.
 
2014-02-03 09:49:42 AM  

Mikey1969: Well, in the first place, it says that they were originally ordered in 2007, and sequestration forced their mission to be reconsidered. This isn't WalMart, they couldn't just get to the Cargo Plane Checkout and say ' I don't want these, you'll need to put them in the GoBacks cart.'. The planes were ordered, they take awhile to be built, and the contract stipulates they get delivered.


But they are still, at this moment, making more of them. It's not that they began the process, and once it was done had extra. They are still building the planes, knowing exactly where they will go.

"But the C-27J Spartans are parked in the desert, and more are being built and delivered into storage. An Air Force spokesman said the program was "too near completion" to be able to terminate the program in a way that does not cost the taxpayers more than building the airplanes and sending them immediately to the boneyard. "

I'm wondering how it would cost us more to stop building them, than to build them.
 
2014-02-03 09:49:52 AM  

dittybopper: Stupid, but on the bright side, if we even find ourselves in a situation where we're going to need a shiat-load of cargo aircraft in a hurry (like a major war), we'll have enough until production ramps up.

Of course, it's not the military's fault:  Blame the politicians who use military funding to get jobs for their districts, essentially purchasing votes.


Do you suppose they'll want old planes for their next war, or brand new planes?
I bet money it'll be the latter.

/There are dozens of jobs that could use these aircraft, there's no reason for them to sit.
/Send a few to the Caribbean so we can upgrade our airliners at least.
 
m00
2014-02-03 09:50:17 AM  

pxlboy: Calibrate your sarcasm detector


That sounds like a great idea.
 
2014-02-03 09:52:27 AM  

FatherChaos: No wonder our youth is borderline potato.  If we switched military spending with education, we'd have the smartest combat force in existence.


1. We already do:   Education spending in the US is 5.5% of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 4.4% of GDP.

2. We already do have the smartest combat force in existence.
 
2014-02-03 09:53:18 AM  

dittybopper: FatherChaos: No wonder our youth is borderline potato.  If we switched military spending with education, we'd have the smartest combat force in existence.

1. We already do:   Education spending in the US is 5.5% of GDP, whereas defense spending is only 4.4% of GDP.

2. We already do have the smartest combat force in existence.


Fark didn't like the first URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_on_educati o n_(%25_of_GDP)
 
2014-02-03 09:54:03 AM  

croesius: I'm wondering how it would cost us more to stop building them, than to build them.


Well, considering how big of a contract it is, the early termination fee(With no airplanes to show for it) is probably higher than paying the full cost and actually HAVING airplanes to show, even if they go into storage. That's what I would think the answer would be. Maybe we save $150 million by paying the termination fee, but we've already paid $200 million for the fee, yet don't have a single plane, for example.
 
2014-02-03 09:54:07 AM  

croesius: I'm wondering how it would cost us more to stop building them, than to build them.


Likely there wasn't a termination clause in the contract or that they're not at the level of it yet.
 
2014-02-03 09:55:40 AM  

flak attack: Mikey1969: Well, in the first place, it says that they were originally ordered in 2007, and sequestration forced their mission to be reconsidered. This isn't WalMart, they couldn't just get to the Cargo Plane Checkout and say ' I don't want these, you'll need to put them in the GoBacks cart.'. The planes were ordered, they take awhile to be built, and the contract stipulates they get delivered.

In the second place, the "boneyard" has all kinds of planes ready to go in almost no time. Fill up fluid reservoirs, drop engines in on some, remove engine covers on others, throw tires on. A lot of the planes out there are just waiting to be made ready, they aren't "scrapped" in any way, so it's the perfect place to store planes that aren't going to currently get used.

Whoa whoa whoa.  This is fark.  What are you doing using logic around these parts?  We only have room for outrage here.


Sorry, you're right... Wrong website. My bad.
 
das
2014-02-03 09:55:52 AM  
Thanks Congress-critters.

////Both parties!!!
 
2014-02-03 09:56:07 AM  
I thought conservatives hated welfare programs. All that wasted money.
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report