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 54
    More: Fail, Arizona, cargo aircraft, Spartans, Sonoran Desert, Air Force Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, aircraft  
•       •       •

16078 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Feb 2014 at 9:16 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-03 09:20:45 AM
10 votes:
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 09:22:04 AM
8 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 08:27:23 AM
8 votes:
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 09:21:08 AM
6 votes:
In that case, we should probably cut food stamps some more.
2014-02-03 10:11:14 AM
5 votes:

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 09:21:38 AM
5 votes:
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 09:42:31 AM
4 votes:
Boy, I'm glad we don't waste our money on socialist pork like infrastructure and technology.
2014-02-03 09:41:29 AM
4 votes:

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 09:21:28 AM
4 votes:
But by all means, GOP, please save 0.05% of this wasted money by cutting the NPR budget.
2014-02-03 08:01:59 AM
4 votes:
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.
2014-02-03 10:00:29 AM
3 votes:

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 09:58:03 AM
3 votes:
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 09:48:55 AM
3 votes:
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 09:35:07 AM
3 votes:
No wonder our youth is borderline potato.  If we switched military spending with education, we'd have the smartest combat force in existence.
m00
2014-02-03 09:23:05 AM
3 votes:

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 11:18:46 AM
2 votes:

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 10:48:10 AM
2 votes:

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 10:18:31 AM
2 votes:
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 10:16:19 AM
2 votes:

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?
2014-02-03 10:00:07 AM
2 votes:

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 09:59:12 AM
2 votes:
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.
das
2014-02-03 09:55:52 AM
2 votes:
Thanks Congress-critters.

////Both parties!!!
2014-02-03 09:46:03 AM
2 votes:
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 09:41:59 AM
2 votes:
Clearly we need to start culling the herd of defense workers. They are a threat to national security.
2014-02-03 09:35:54 AM
2 votes:
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 09:26:26 AM
2 votes:
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.
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 09:25:54 AM
2 votes:
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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 09:23:54 AM
2 votes:

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 08:43:45 AM
2 votes:
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.
2014-02-04 08:20:26 AM
1 votes:

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%.
2014-02-03 02:12:12 PM
1 votes:
Lets flip the budget for the military and the budget for education and see what happens.
2014-02-03 12:44:44 PM
1 votes:

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 12:03:47 PM
1 votes:
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 11:03:12 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:27 AM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:31:49 AM
1 votes:
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 10:25:54 AM
1 votes:

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.
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-03 10:25:54 AM
1 votes:

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 10:20:24 AM
1 votes:

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 10:19:38 AM
1 votes:
Use them for fighting forest fires. It's pretty dry out West.
2014-02-03 10:02:47 AM
1 votes:
Lawmakers take money from corporations and legislate accordingly.
2014-02-03 10:00:24 AM
1 votes:
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 09:56:07 AM
1 votes:
I thought conservatives hated welfare programs. All that wasted money.
2014-02-03 09:52:27 AM
1 votes:

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 09:47:35 AM
1 votes:
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 09:44:11 AM
1 votes:

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.
m00
2014-02-03 09:42:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:37:27 AM
1 votes:
What they can't use it to transport all that Heroin from Afghanistan?
2014-02-03 09:33:33 AM
1 votes:
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 09:31:50 AM
1 votes:

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 09:30:55 AM
1 votes:
Mmmm Pork. and fresh from the barrel!
2014-02-03 09:25:27 AM
1 votes:

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?
2014-02-03 09:24:19 AM
1 votes:

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 09:23:09 AM
1 votes:
Someone create an Ebay page for them.
 
Displayed 54 of 54 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report