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.

(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  
•       •       •

16115 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2014 at 9:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-02-03 09:58:03 AM  
It's a bit more complicated than TFA lets on.
Originally, the Army wanted them for special operations missions, but the Air Force threw a hissy fit because they would lose out on doing all of the flying for the Army as it the case now.  So, the AF got the planes, but didn't -really- want them, they just didn't want the Army to have them.

Anyway, as indicated elsewhere, they are going to end up mostly with the Coast Guard, which does need them to replace some older C-130 models and the C-27 fits their mission pretty well. They won't end up scrapped, which is the rage TFA is trying to generate.
 
2014-02-03 09:59:12 AM  
My bro in law retired as a major in the the Air Force a number of years ago. He was nearly run out of the service for calling his superior officer out for egregious wasteful spending like this. It's probably rampant in the service and even more so in congress.

You tax dollars at work.
 
2014-02-03 10:00:07 AM  

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


They'll still be brand new planes.  They won't have any time on the airframes or engines, which is how you measure the age of an airplane, not the chronological age.

It's like buying a new car and putting it in a garage for a decade.  It's still a new car.  Sure, you'll want to change the fluids and maybe the tires, but that's all it would take to make it show-room new.  Same thing here:  The dry desert helps preserve the aircraft in new condition.

Plus, as I pointed out, it takes *TIME* to ramp up production for aircraft (or anything else, for that matter).  If you are set up to crank out an airplane a week, you can't just start cranking out an airplane a day immediately.  You need to hire more workers, get more tooling, more factory space, etc.

That's where this sort of thing can be a help:  It would probably only take at most a day to get one of those mothballed aircraft ready in a national emergency.  Change the fluids, maybe the tires, check out the electronics and controls, and away you go.  Get a few teams of mechanics and flight crews, and you could have them ready pretty quickly.
 
2014-02-03 10:00:24 AM  
Question: how likely is it that these planes are assembled to a substandard condition - either parts, labor, or QA.

How many of them have valuable parts removed once they reach the bone yard, and the parts returned to the production for the next plane?
No one will ever know, huh?

You can bank on it.
 
2014-02-03 10:00:29 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.


It isn't as stupid as it sounds.  Boneyard is a little bit of a misnomer.  Mothball ≠ scrapping.  The place stores, pull parts, and scraps planes, but that depends on the age and condition of the plane.  A new plane will simply be mothball to keep it in good condition until the get the orders to get it flight ready again.  Overspending, sure it is, but it isn't wasteful to properly store them until a plan to use them is made.

Like in wars past, (Korea, Vietnam) when troops were ordered to fight, the boneyards got busy recommissioning the old stuff to handle the new fights.  Case in point, the USS Yorktown.  Built in WWII to handle propeller planes, later got a new flight deck and handled jets.  The USS Yorktown fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.
 
2014-02-03 10:00:57 AM  
It's a crap plane.  As the FTA says, the C-130 is a bigger, more capable and proven plane that costs less than the C-27s. I thought this particular purchase was going to be used to replace the Spooky gunships.  I guess AFSOC will have to make do with what they have, which probably serves them better in the long run anyway.
 
2014-02-03 10:02:47 AM  
Lawmakers take money from corporations and legislate accordingly.
 
2014-02-03 10:05:47 AM  

Billy Bathsalt: In that case, we should probably cut food stamps some more.


Don't forget ACORN. We should totally defund those guys.
 
2014-02-03 10:06:14 AM  

lack of warmth: 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.

It isn't as stupid as it sounds.  Boneyard is a little bit of a misnomer.  Mothball ≠ scrapping.  The place stores, pull parts, and scraps planes, but that depends on the age and condition of the plane.  A new plane will simply be mothball to keep it in good condition until the get the orders to get it flight ready again.  Overspending, sure it is, but it isn't wasteful to properly store them until a plan to use them is made.

Like in wars past, (Korea, Vietnam) when troops were ordered to fight, the boneyards got busy recommissioning the old stuff to handle the new fights.  Case in point, the USS Yorktown.  Built in WWII to handle propeller planes, later got a new flight deck and handled jets.  The USS Yorktown fought in WWII, Korea and Vietnam.


Maybe you missed the part that I bolded above.
 
2014-02-03 10:11:14 AM  

HAMMERTOE: 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.


To ANYONE who has had the displeasure of working with the US government...this story is "same shiat, different day".

The US Government has become so large that they honestly can't manage it anymore.  And please note...this is not a political statement...the size of the US govt has grown massively with leadership from both sides of the aisle on a consistent basis...so it's not the GOP or the Libs fault...they've both done it.

You just can't have a combination of archaic, complex and bewildering org levels, structures, titles, pay grades and union-like work rules AND try to do everything that the US government tries to do.  NO ONE can pull that off...especially when just about every 8 years you get a completely different set of leadership appointed by the current administration who wants to come in and "clean house" and "start anew" (can you tell I've heard that BS line before)?

This doesn't just apply to the US govt, it applies to ANY large organization...it doesn't work.

I actually saw a few govt groups (I work with the DOL the most) start to get their head out of their ass towards the end of 2008 because they had been in their jobs for multiple years, they became smarter about navigating through red tape and bureaucratic BS and the various agencies, departments and committees started to figure our roles and responsibilities through trial and error...then you get a new President from the other side of the aisle and Presto...in months everything was back to square one because the new DOL leadership wanted to blow it all up and "start fresh".

And again...this isn't political...the EXACT same thing would have happened if the Libs were in power and the GOP had come in.  Until our govt start to subscribe to the "core competency" theory...nothing is going to change.  NO ONE can a good organization in this setting...it's not possible.
 
2014-02-03 10:12:07 AM  
they should just leave the planes in poor neighborhoods and let people srcap them for extra spending money.
 
2014-02-03 10:16:19 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.



I think the point is more, we should have better ways to spend $500 million than to purchase planes that will go straight into storage in case we can think of a reason to use them in the future.

The planes had originally been acquired because of their ability to operate from unimproved runways. 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.

So they realized later $500 million worth of planes were not a necessity?  Why the fark did they order them in the first place?  This is the problem with Department of Defense spending, they get to spend like drunken sailors.  It's not what do you need, it's what do you want... and okay now that you got all that you want, what else can you imagine you might possibly want?

Fark the sequestration, why would we spend like that even if we were running an enormous surplus?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:16:36 AM  
JustGetItRight:

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).


Not that much.  That does nothing to solve the problem of politicians serving the interests of businesses instead of their constituents.

The fact that they might end up not being wasted is simply good fortune.  It doesn't mean that it was a logical use of taxpayer money.
 
2014-02-03 10:18:31 AM  
There is waste, but there are also things that need continuous funding, or they loop wildly out of control.  However, we're performing experiments on what happens when bridges aren't maintained.  Articles about the results will likely be popping up on Fark.

Additionally, we're performing an experiment on how poor people with no jobs, no money and no food stamps modify their lifestyles when food is removed from the equation.  Some will get money using leverage provided by handguns, some will explore the "starving to death" lifestyle, and ten years from now, some survivors will have a work ethic and be working at low wage jobs, supplemented by selling blood plasma and/or stolen credit card numbers.  We've already done a few test experiments on cutting corporate welfare, and it turns out that Congress doesn't like the "reduced campaign contributions" effect, so we're continuing with various acquisitions programs.
 
2014-02-03 10:18:41 AM  

HAMMERTOE: 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.


RTFA.  The planes were ordered almost 7 years ago.  That means pretty much all of the $567 million has already been spent.  And believe it or not, shutting down a production line with material in the queue has a non-zero cost.  You don't just drop everything and lock the door behind you.  TFA points out that the early shutdown cost would exceed the cost of finishing the contracted run.
 
2014-02-03 10:19:38 AM  
Use them for fighting forest fires. It's pretty dry out West.
 
2014-02-03 10:20:07 AM  

Salmon: Sell them to rich Doomsday Preppers; those would make great flying bunkers.


"Moving foxholes attract attention."
-Bill Mauldin
 
2014-02-03 10:20:24 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.


If they were really smart they wouldn't have signed on to the military.
 
2014-02-03 10:24:16 AM  
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:25:54 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Clearly we need to start culling the herd of defense workers. They are a threat to national security.


They are, that's what Eisenhower was talking about when he warned of the military industrial complex.

I know you were trying to set up a straw man, but they do need to be brought under control so they exist for our benefit rather than the other way around.
 
2014-02-03 10:25:54 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.


Ah yes, the tried-and-true "But MoOOom!  He started first!" argument.  That one's a real winner.
 
Rat [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:31:29 AM  
Now, Airborne daddy can take a little trip anytime he wants!

™ I know, not a C-130 but I'm on a roll here
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:31:49 AM  
Mikey1969:
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.


It's kind of amazing how strong that knee jerk reaction can be when it comes to the right wing and anything remotely military.

This is precisely the sort of waste that conservatives claim to hate, but if it's anything to do with weapons or wars it's can't be wrong.
 
2014-02-03 10:39:15 AM  
WTF? We can't think of anything to do with these planes? There must be someone we can invade. Did the world run out of brown people?
 
2014-02-03 10:44:08 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.



Problem is, Air Force Generals aren't interested in doing work for the Army, although that is their job.  But then, they also built their empire around being the operators of fixed wing combat airplanes for the Army. So on one hand they argue that the Army shouldn't fly their own airlift, then on the other hand they don't want to support that same job because the planes aren't shiny, sexy and supersonic.   Similar reason they have been trying to get rid of the A-10 almost since it was fielded. 

No, the generals aren't always the final word on what they need, when they have to do a job they don't want to. . But leaving it to congress ends up with new planes going to the desert when sequester gets mixed in.
 
2014-02-03 10:48:10 AM  

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


It was paid back using loans from the Fed. SO basically, the original bailout was paid back with more government money. But hey, don't let that stop you.
 
2014-02-03 10:51:14 AM  
FTA:   President Barak Obama said during a campaign stop in Mansfield during the last election cycle said he promised to "find a mission" for the base there, which led to the transfer of several C-130 airplanes to Ohio.

Not being able to spell the fake President's Kenyan/Muslim name correctly in his sixth year in office is understandable.  He should have changed it to George or something more USA-ish when he dummied up his birff certtimacate to sneak into to the country over the fence surrounding Hawaii.

/jk, no troll, but really?

//yeah, I know barak is an other form of the spelling of the name.  It's also the Hungarian word for a brand of apricot brandy.
 
2014-02-03 10:59:27 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: 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.

If they were really smart they wouldn't have signed on to the military.


As opposed to doing what?  Getting eyebrows deep in non-dischargeable debt for a degree in Art History, then spending the next 20 years paying it off instead of saving for a house or putting it away for retirement?

Never mistake education with intelligence.  The two are only loosely correlated, at best.
 
2014-02-03 11:03:12 AM  

croesius: 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.


Contracts with defense contractors have clauses that require the government to pay them for the shutdown. These programs have a lot of money tied up in parts, tooling, drawings, engineering changes, etc. Not all of which has been billed out yet. The contractor has to make lists of all this equipment and provide it to the government so they can decide how to dispose of it. Also, they get to charge a certain amount for fees, profit, and overhead to support the people and infrastructure to shut it down. This might include the government renting space to consolidate inventory and tooling, etc.

It will most likely take 5 - 10 years (at least) to fully account for everything in the FCS program and make final payments to contractors.
 
2014-02-03 11:13:49 AM  

Nick Nostril: My bro in law retired as a major in the the Air Force a number of years ago. He was nearly run out of the service for calling his superior officer out for egregious wasteful spending like this. It's probably rampant in the service and even more so in congress.

You tax dollars at work.


he should have done like one guy in a unit i was in(that had similar issues with accountability and carelessness) did.

just keep copies of all the purchase orders, receipts, etc, and quietly forward them on to the press or auditing office after a year or two.

in this guy's case, he sent one copy off to each of the main budget offices for the district, area, and fleet, with a note that the press was going to receive copies of the same package in a month.

it was kind of scary stealthy, but all of a sudden we had a 75% new command staff and a new CO in three weeks.

/the enlisted members who were part of it got the book thrown at them.
//the officers for the most part got to retire with no blemishes or loss of pension.
 
2014-02-03 11:18:46 AM  

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


Is it your ignorant assertion that liberal politicians never fight over DOD funds for their district?
 
2014-02-03 11:21:32 AM  

Nick Nostril: My bro in law retired as a major in the the Air Force a number of years ago. He was nearly run out of the service for calling his superior officer out for egregious wasteful spending like this. It's probably rampant in the service and even more so in congress.

You tax dollars at work.


Was this your brother-in-law?

damnstraightpolitics.com
 
2014-02-03 11:23:16 AM  

NutWrench: I thought conservatives hated welfare programs. All that wasted money.


No... they dont like just handing money to some schmuck.

Paying someone to build something is ok.
 
2014-02-03 11:24:35 AM  
C-27's getting mothballed, MC-12's getting cut, F-35's still being built, new long range bomber being developed, JSTARS being replaced....

Lotta ins, lotta outs, lotta what-have-yous.
 
2014-02-03 11:25:13 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: Right wing troll accounts:
Please remember this article next time you biatch about wasted government spending and the DANGERS of cutting military spending.


Nobody could out-troll that one....
 
2014-02-03 11:32:48 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.


The C-27J are made by the Italian company Alenia Aeronautica, not LMCO.
 
2014-02-03 11:33:15 AM  
"But sequestration forced the Air Force to re-think the airplane's mission,"
" 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. "



But, hey, those annoying little facts won't stop all the whiners.  Sometimes the world is not neat and tidy.
 
2014-02-03 11:33:29 AM  

dittybopper: Never mistake education with intelligence. The two are only loosely correlated, at best.



Yeah. Look at me: I've got tons of education and...um...well, shiat.
 
2014-02-03 11:38:13 AM  
Good thinking on someone's part ! Park them all in the same area so when the modifications / upgrades come out they won't have to travel all over the world to get them completed. Smart !
 
2014-02-03 11:44:44 AM  
media.tumblr.com

Going to the Bone  Zone!
 
2014-02-03 11:47:58 AM  

give me doughnuts: dittybopper: Never mistake education with intelligence. The two are only loosely correlated, at best.


Yeah. Look at me: I've got tons of education and...um...well, shiat.


Actually, formal, credentialed education best measures persistence and the ability to work through a long process to achieve a distant goal.

I've known plenty of people with some august credentials that were no better than average intelligence.

This doesn't necessarily apply to those with degrees in the hard sciences and things like engineering, btw.
 
2014-02-03 11:58:24 AM  

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

Is it your ignorant assertion that liberal politicians never fight over DOD funds for their district?


It was management's assertion at the place I used to work, that a democrat controlled government was generally better for business... After 20 years there I found myself agreing with them.
 
2014-02-03 12:03:47 PM  
IAAB (I am a buyer) and we have 4 ways to track replenishment starting before a PO is cut. The computer can tell us to buy something based on preset stocking requirements. We can override the system and tell it to buy something beyond but our ID and the date the override happens is recorded. The person who releases the PO to the supplier is recorded and anyone who edits said PO after the fact is also recorded. Then there's receiving.. so really 5 ways.

Who the hell creates an order for such a large amount of hardware and then lets it ride without finding out if they really wanted it in the first place? Anyone from the above list should be fired. Let them be held accountable.

/you want to fix gov't spending, get rid of these people.
 
2014-02-03 12:08:17 PM  
collapse.com
 
2014-02-03 12:14:53 PM  

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

Is it your ignorant assertion that liberal politicians never fight over DOD funds for their district?

It was management's assertion at the place I used to work, that a democrat controlled government was generally better for business... After 20 years there I found myself agreeing with them.


This is true, as long as your are in a LARGE corporation that has the proper lobbyist and has paid the proper "campaign donation" such that you become a crony.  Check out GE's tax record.  As soon as the Democrats came to power in congress GE's taxes went to zero.  If however, you are an innovative mid sized company your pretty much screwed by the Democrats regulation and tax structure.  They will protect the large corporations that play the game, and actively screw over any one outside.
The sad part is that we could used those 800 workers to build 50 brand new A-10's for the price of these useless Italian POS's.  Such is the main problem with central command economies.
 
2014-02-03 12:16:40 PM  
Maybe some ex-lobbyist/"job creator" can start an airplane demolition company and sell and ship the materials back to Ohio, where they can build more planes.
 
2014-02-03 12:18:47 PM  

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.


No it wasn't. We took a bath.
 
2014-02-03 12:19:33 PM  

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.


Come on fellas lets get him!
 
2014-02-03 12:21:53 PM  

buzzcut73: It's a bit more complicated than TFA lets on.
Originally, the Army wanted them for special operations missions, but the Air Force threw a hissy fit because they would lose out on doing all of the flying for the Army as it the case now.  So, the AF got the planes, but didn't -really- want them, they just didn't want the Army to have them.

Anyway, as indicated elsewhere, they are going to end up mostly with the Coast Guard, which does need them to replace some older C-130 models and the C-27 fits their mission pretty well. They won't end up scrapped, which is the rage TFA is trying to generate.


If they end up with the Coast Guard, those planes will still be flying 50 years from now. Coasties know how to keep old stuff operational because that's often all they have to work with.
 
2014-02-03 12:24:54 PM  
Sometimes I wonder how much of our $700 billion defense budget really goes into 'actual' military procurements and true expenses and how much of it is just pork!

Actually on 2nd thoughts no I don't want to know! It'll probably be a depressing figure for the taxpayers.
 
2014-02-03 12:31:50 PM  

DON.MAC: 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?


Dude! Ixnay on the emtrail-che aying-spray...the greys are beginning to suspect something.

MJ-9 of 12
 
2014-02-03 12:32:10 PM  
But you see, it's the welfare queen that scams the government out of $20 every time she uses food stamps for junk food that is the real problem here.
 
2014-02-03 12:41:01 PM  

ginko: IAAB (I am a buyer) and we have 4 ways to track replenishment starting before a PO is cut. The computer can tell us to buy something based on preset stocking requirements. We can override the system and tell it to buy something beyond but our ID and the date the override happens is recorded. The person who releases the PO to the supplier is recorded and anyone who edits said PO after the fact is also recorded. Then there's receiving.. so really 5 ways.

Who the hell creates an order for such a large amount of hardware and then lets it ride without finding out if they really wanted it in the first place? Anyone from the above list should be fired. Let them be held accountable.

/you want to fix gov't spending, get rid of these people.


Cheetos and Mountain Dew don't count!

/i keed, keed
 
2014-02-03 12:41:27 PM  

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

Is it your ignorant assertion that liberal politicians never fight over DOD funds for their district?

It was management's assertion at the place I used to work, that a democrat controlled government was generally better for business... After 20 years there I found myself agreing with them.


Both parties are bad for pork barreled spending.  However, it's generally Republicans that are hardcore on never cutting ANY Defense spending.
 
2014-02-03 12:42:20 PM  
The bone yard is pretty cool if you ever get bored on google maps.
 
2014-02-03 12:43:14 PM  

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


The first $15 billion that went to GM was given by George Bush the Lesser.

/Obama Derangement Syndrome.   "Damn Obama and his magical time machine!"
 
2014-02-03 12:44:44 PM  

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! Who wants to bet one of those jobs is CEO, and campaign contributor... and he personally cleared a couple hundred million since 2007?


At least we got something tangible out of the deal, which makes it more profitable than Solyndra.
 
2014-02-03 12:46:51 PM  

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.


Except that it all wasn't.
 
2014-02-03 12:54:27 PM  
Isn't Canada always looking for new military kit and whatnot? Why not sell it to Ottawa?
 
2014-02-03 12:58:51 PM  

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.


So the army gives planes to private contractors who they then pay to use the planes to refuel their other planes?
That seems slightly pointless when you could just keep the planes and train your own pilots to do the refueling.
 
2014-02-03 01:09:02 PM  
dittybopper:
That's where this sort of thing can be a help:  It would probably only take at most a day to get one of those mothballed aircraft ready in a national emergency.  Change the fluids, maybe the tires, check out the electronics and controls, and away you go.  Get a few teams of mechanics and flight crews, and you could have them ready pretty quickly.

I'd imagine there's quite a bit more to it that 'just' topping up the oil. Oxidization never, ever, ever stops. You need to recheck all of the rubber and seals. Moreover, many joints and sealings depend upon use for their continued maintenance otherwise these can become brittle and require teardown and replacement. Finally, the aircraft will have 'Nothing' in all of the maintenance entries for a decade. It simply won't get certified for flight until everything is inspected, retorqued and spun up for testing.

There's a big difference between idling the engine on a tarmac and actually having inspectors remove the AOG flag next to its name. Moreover, where are all of the parts going to come from all at once? Where are the technicians and engineers who need to be trained and certified to work on ten-year-old variants going to come from or do you have them in cryogenic suspension somewhere? Sorry, I don't buy the idea that pulling aircraft from the dust is as easy as you make out.
 
2014-02-03 01:11:23 PM  
jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-02-03 01:22:22 PM  

PainInTheASP: MJ-9 of 12



Michael Jackson liked 9-to-12 year olds?

WFT and I reading?
 
2014-02-03 01:32:22 PM  

chachi88: ginko: IAAB (I am a buyer) and we have 4 ways to track replenishment starting before a PO is cut. The computer can tell us to buy something based on preset stocking requirements. We can override the system and tell it to buy something beyond but our ID and the date the override happens is recorded. The person who releases the PO to the supplier is recorded and anyone who edits said PO after the fact is also recorded. Then there's receiving.. so really 5 ways.

Who the hell creates an order for such a large amount of hardware and then lets it ride without finding out if they really wanted it in the first place? Anyone from the above list should be fired. Let them be held accountable.

/you want to fix gov't spending, get rid of these people.

Cheetos and Mountain Dew don't count!

/i keed, keed


Don't knock the fuel that keeps me buying when my system upgrades crap out. Today sucks in the purchasing dept and time for more Dew :)
 
2014-02-03 01:41:43 PM  

croesius: 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.


"when a big government contract is chugging along, there are costs associated with shutting it down rarely taken into account by those poor souls suffering from late stage Deficit Obsession Syndrome. Bills already owed, fixed costs that cannot always be easily unwound, sometimes layoffs and severance benefits ahead "
Link
 
2014-02-03 01:45:08 PM  
Idea: why don't we put guns on them like the Spectre? I'm sure we could use those.

Oh, it would need armor plating then? No problem! Put it on!

Hmm the engines won't be able to lift that craft with the guns and armor? Replace the engines with jet turbines!

What will we have then?

A no-runway cargo jet that needs a runway to land, can't carry cargo and has less armament than a Spectre but is slower. Brilliant!
 
2014-02-03 01:55:25 PM  

gaslight: dittybopper:
That's where this sort of thing can be a help:  It would probably only take at most a day to get one of those mothballed aircraft ready in a national emergency.  Change the fluids, maybe the tires, check out the electronics and controls, and away you go.  Get a few teams of mechanics and flight crews, and you could have them ready pretty quickly.

I'd imagine there's quite a bit more to it that 'just' topping up the oil. Oxidization never, ever, ever stops. You need to recheck all of the rubber and seals. Moreover, many joints and sealings depend upon use for their continued maintenance otherwise these can become brittle and require teardown and replacement. Finally, the aircraft will have 'Nothing' in all of the maintenance entries for a decade. It simply won't get certified for flight until everything is inspected, retorqued and spun up for testing.

There's a big difference between idling the engine on a tarmac and actually having inspectors remove the AOG flag next to its name. Moreover, where are all of the parts going to come from all at once? Where are the technicians and engineers who need to be trained and certified to work on ten-year-old variants going to come from or do you have them in cryogenic suspension somewhere? Sorry, I don't buy the idea that pulling aircraft from the dust is as easy as you make out.


Well, *YES*, but in a national emergency a lot of niceties go out the window, and even if you were to replace all the seals, etc., it still takes less time than building an entire plane from scratch, even in an assembly line situation.

In other words, it would take much less time and resources to service and put into action pre-existing mothballed aircraft than it would to build an equivalent number of new aircraft.

Oh, and it's not like they are just towed out there and abandoned:

An aircraft going into storage undergoes the following treatments:

All guns, ejection seat charges, and classified hardware are removed.

The fuel system is protected by draining it, refilling it with lightweight oil, and then draining it again. This leaves a protective oil film.

The aircraft is sealed from dust, sunlight, and high temperatures. This is done using a variety of materials, ranging from a high tech vinyl plastic compound, called spraylat after its producer the Spraylat Corporation, of an opaque white color sprayed on the aircraft, to simple garbage bags. The plane is then towed by a tug to its designated "storage" position.


In other words, they are prepped for long term storage with an eye to making them flyable again with the minimal amount of effort necessary (assuming they aren't destined for spare parts, etc.).
 
2014-02-03 01:57:44 PM  

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

The first $15 billion that went to GM was given by George Bush the Lesser.


And that means it was a good idea how exactly? Newsflash idiot, both parties are completely capable of doing idiotic things.
 
2014-02-03 02:12:12 PM  
Lets flip the budget for the military and the budget for education and see what happens.
 
2014-02-03 02:16:47 PM  
OK, so I went on Google Earth and took a look around Davis-Monthan.  I found a few gems, including a couple of RB-57's.  Those were obsolete when the U-2 came out, and we're still saving them?
 
2014-02-03 02:18:08 PM  

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

The first $15 billion that went to GM was given by George Bush the Lesser.

And that means it was a good idea how exactly?

Newsflash idiot, both parties are completely capable of doing idiotic things.

It was a good idea.  Loaning GM money saved hundreds of thousands of jobs from downstream suppliers, customers, and various ancillary operations as well as all the other businesses in the towns the plants are in that depend on having thousands of well paid workers.

I was just pointing out to the person that blamed Obama for the bailout that it was actually George the Lesser that provided the $15 billion initial loan.   I'm sure the guy also forgot that George the Lesser signed TARP into law too, but that's common among his type.

/Both sides are bad so vote Republican!
 
2014-02-03 02:18:37 PM  

TheNewJesus: Lets flip the budget for the military and the budget for education and see what happens.


Your cunning plan...
 
2014-02-03 02:22:46 PM  

simkatu: It was a good idea. Loaning GM money saved hundreds of thousands of jobs from downstream suppliers, customers, and various ancillary operations as well as all the other businesses in the towns the plants are in that depend on having thousands of well paid workers rewarded their terrible business practices by putting the burden of covering their losses on the taxpayer. Just like we did when we rewarded the asshole bankers who crashed the economy.


FTFY

simkatu: I was just pointing out to the person that blamed Obama for the bailout that it was actually George the Lesser that provided the $15 billion initial loan.


We know this. We don't care because we aren't partisan farksticks. Bush was scum. Obama is scum for continuing his policies. Is that clear enough for you, tard?
 
2014-02-03 02:25:40 PM  
This program is chump change.   The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the biggest boondoggle ever.   It has a program cost of $1.45 TRILLIONand there is very little likelihood that any of the 3000 planes will ever see any combat.   We haven't needed a single fighter in the last 30 years of warmongering around the world.   We aren't going to be fighting the next war with manned fighter jets.

/But those are good high paying jerbs building them planes (and the work is divided up among almost all 50 states, so every Senator gets a piece of pie).
 
2014-02-03 02:40:24 PM  

dittybopper: OK, so I went on Google Earth and took a look around Davis-Monthan.  I found a few gems, including a couple of RB-57's.  Those were obsolete when the U-2 came out, and we're still saving them?


Love looking at the boneyards on Google Earth.  Really damn awesome, especially their Cold War era stuff like the Canberras.

IIRC, I think NASA and the Coast Guard still have some Canberras flying for weather observation / hurricane testing.
 
2014-02-03 03:08:37 PM  

give me doughnuts: PainInTheASP: MJ-9 of 12


Michael Jackson liked 9-to-12 year olds?

WFT and I reading?


Sorry, I can't say.  You don't have the clearance.
 
2014-02-03 04:30:49 PM  

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.


Ohh you mean a program initiated by Bush, implemented by Obama that was paid back and saved the American Auto Industry (not just one company) that employs roughly 1 out of every 5 Americans?
 
2014-02-03 04:33:44 PM  

dittybopper: 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)



There is no Source that Wikipedia sites for you Education Spending.
 
2014-02-03 06:09:16 PM  

shtychkn: dittybopper: 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)


There is no Source that Wikipedia sites for you Education Spending.


World Bank says 5.4 and 5.6 for the last two years they have numbers:
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/S E.XPD.TOTL.GD.ZS
 
2014-02-03 07:25:04 PM  

shtychkn: hh you mean a program initiated by Bush, implemented by Obama that was paid back and saved the American Auto Industry (not just one company) that employs roughly 1 out of every 5 Americans?


Don't even bother, Conservatives believe that one can magically convert money from the federal reserves discount window into 'stuff'. Industrial policy involves spending money on factories and workers and that's just disgusting and dirty. Libertarians believe that heavy industry grows magically like mushrooms after a warm rain. If wasn't for government interference someone would invint a magical machine that makes cars out of thin air.
 
2014-02-03 07:45:30 PM  

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.


Actually chief, I see US government figures saying that the DoD gets app. $150 billion more per year than all levels of govt. spend on primary and secondary education:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html
 
2014-02-03 07:58:41 PM  

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

They'll still be brand new planes.  They won't have any time on the airframes or engines, which is how you measure the age of an airplane, not the chronological age.

It's like buying a new car and putting it in a garage for a decade.  It's still a new car.  Sure, you'll want to change the fluids and maybe the tires, but that's all it would take to make it show-room new.  Same thing here:  The dry desert helps preserve the aircraft in new condition.

Plus, as I pointed out, it takes *TIME* to ramp up production for aircraft (or anything else, for that matter).  If you are set up to crank out an airplane a week, you can't just start cranking out an airplane a day immediately.  You need to hire more workers, get more tooling, more factory space, etc.

That's where this sort of thing can be a help:  It would probably only take at most a day to get one of those mothballed aircraft ready in a national emergency.  Change the fluids, maybe the tires, check out the electronics and controls, and away you go.  Get a few teams of mechanics and flight crews, and you could have them ready pretty quickly.


The question is if the aircraft will still find a role to fill after you've done all that.  Sitting in the boneyard it may not gather mechanical wear and tear, but its growing increasingly obsolete by the hour as new technology is adding survivability and range to existing platforms.
Soldiers aren't milling hours of experience on these things and no ones learning the details of how to maintain them. You might as well sell the batch before dry rot eats out the plastics, because if you put them back in service in ten years you'll be worse off than if you pulled a couple of hercs from the same field.
Then you've still got the congressional game to deal with, which prefers signing new contracts before pulling old vehicles from the mothballs.
In the end this doesn't seem to be the kind of plane the military was looking for, or they wouldn't have gone unclaimed so easily.
 
2014-02-03 08:06:56 PM  
Any thread in these situations needs this link.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA
 
2014-02-04 08:20:26 AM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: 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.

Actually chief, I see US government figures saying that the DoD gets app. $150 billion more per year than all levels of govt. spend on primary and secondary education:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html


You don't read very well, do you?  From your link:

                                             Fed     Gov.Xfer   State     Local       Total
[+]     Education     141.8     -96.5     285.7     673.0     1,004.0      
[+]     Defense       830.9       0.0       0.8       0.0       831.7



I think you have that backwards.  Collectively, we spend about (1,004-831.7) = 172.3 billion more on education than on defense.

Just in case you need a picture (again, from your own link):

chart.googleapis.com

Education is 16% of the total federal, state, and local spending, and Defense is only 13%.
 
2014-02-04 08:43:44 AM  

way south: The question is if the aircraft will still find a role to fill after you've done all that.  Sitting in the boneyard it may not gather mechanical wear and tear, but its growing increasingly obsolete by the hour as new technology is adding survivability and range to existing platforms.


An available aircraft that is 80 or 90% as capable as a new one that isn't available because it hasn't been built yet is clearly the better choice.

Plus, I think you over-estimate the issues there:  The ability to survive in many cases is through things that are, in essence, "bolt ons" that can be installed in a large aircraft like that with minimal issues.

You aren't thinking "national emergency", which is a large part of the boneyard's raison d'etre.  When the shiat hits the fan, you use everything you possibly can.  We've actually used C-27Js in Afghanistan, so we know they work.  They aren't as big or as long range as, say, a C-130, but sometimes that can be an advantage too:  You aren't putting all your eggs in a single basket, and something like the C-27J can manage to land on fields that the C-130 can't.

The whole idea behind the US purchasing them was to replace the smaller and less capable C-23 Sherpa as a US Army logistical aircraft, because the C-23 was found to be wanting and that placed more of the onus on the Army's helicopter fleet.  As such, it fills a niche that the C-130 is too big for, and the CH-47 shiathook is too expensive to operate*.

The problem in this case, was that the Air Force saw this as the actual military trying to gain a toe-hold in their bailiwick, because this aircraft was larger, faster, and could carry about twice the troops and cargo of the aircraft it replaced.  So they took over the aircraft in the military equivalent of a "hostile takeover", and since they didn't want them in the first place, they retired them.

It's the Gordon Gekko style of military management.

Just trashing the planes would be a waste.  They could be useful later, if we really need them.  So, we take the new aircraft that we've already paid for, seal them up and protect them as much as possible, and then park them in the desert in case we need them later, unless we can find another good use for them (like the Coast Guard, etc.).

*It takes more fuel to use a rotor-winged aircraft to carry a given weight a given distance than a fixed wing aircraft.
 
2014-02-04 10:11:51 AM  
Consider this: education spending safeguards against fascism far better than military spending.
 
2014-02-04 04:43:08 PM  

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


Bomb Garrison Keillor now!
 
2014-02-04 09:10:34 PM  

dittybopper: BolshyGreatYarblocks: 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.

Actually chief, I see US government figures saying that the DoD gets app. $150 billion more per year than all levels of govt. spend on primary and secondary education:

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_education_spending_20.html

You don't read very well, do you?  From your link:

                                             Fed     Gov.Xfer   State     Local       Total
[+]     Education     141.8     -96.5     285.7     673.0     1,004.0      
[+]     Defense       830.9       0.0       0.8       0.0       831.7


I think you have that backwards.  Collectively, we spend about (1,004-831.7) = 172.3 billion more on education than on defense.

Just in case you need a picture (again, from your own link):

[chart.googleapis.com image 600x200]

Education is 16% of the total federal, state, and local spending, and Defense is only 13%.


I think you put university/tertiary-level education in with primary and secondary ed.; that would put you over the DoD budget, thanks in no small part to the ballooning student loan/debt system.

You work for the DoD, don't you?  You seem very defensive, so to speak.  I don't work in education, so I suspect I'm being more objective here.
 
2014-02-04 10:42:43 PM  

BolshyGreatYarblocks: I think you put university/tertiary-level education in with primary and secondary ed.; that would put you over the DoD budget, thanks in no small part to the ballooning student loan/debt system.

You work for the DoD, don't you?  You seem very defensive, so to speak.  I don't work in education, so I suspect I'm being more objective here.


Heh.  I work for a small-ish private college, and something like 70% of our degrees awarded are Education degrees.

I did work for the DoD, back when I was in the Army.  In the late 1980's.

Kinda funny how your assumptions were like 180 degrees wrong:  I'm actually in the education business, and it's the education business of educating educators, for that 'juiced in' double education goodness.
 
2014-02-04 11:15:52 PM  

dittybopper: BolshyGreatYarblocks: I think you put university/tertiary-level education in with primary and secondary ed.; that would put you over the DoD budget, thanks in no small part to the ballooning student loan/debt system.

You work for the DoD, don't you?  You seem very defensive, so to speak.  I don't work in education, so I suspect I'm being more objective here.

Heh.  I work for a small-ish private college, and something like 70% of our degrees awarded are Education degrees.

I did work for the DoD, back when I was in the Army.  In the late 1980's.

Kinda funny how your assumptions were like 180 degrees wrong:  I'm actually in the education business, and it's the education business of educating educators, for that 'juiced in' double education goodness.



Curiosity. Does that include the 'off the books' defense spending. The 'special' appropriations crap that nobody wants to pay for 'in budget'? I'm not talking black ops stuff, just stuff nobody wants to put on the books so they can pretend they're not ballooning the deficit.
 
Displayed 140 of 140 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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