Air Force Sending New Planes to Boneyard, Army Getting Unwanted Tanks

[unokitty]

Air Force Is Sending Brand New Cargo Planes Straight to the Boneyard

The notion of stashing brand new cargo planes in storage alongside thousands of dead aircraft is sad, but it's sort of everybody's fault. Since 2007, the Air Force has spent some $567 million acquiring the new aircraft—only to realize, in the wake of sequestration cuts, that it actually didn't have enough missions for the planes to fly. This was around the same time that President Barack Obama told the airmen at Mansfield National Guard Base in Ohio, one of the homes of the C-27J fleet, that he would "find a mission" for the planes. Well, he didn't, and now they're going to be rotting in a desert, perhaps forever.

The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it.

The Army has about 5,000 of them sitting idle or awaiting an upgrade. For the BAE Systems employees in York, keeping the armored vehicle in service means keeping a job. And jobs, after all, are what their representatives in Congress are working to protect in their home districts.

The Army is just one party to this decision. While the military sets its strategic priorities, it’s Congress that allocates money for any purchases. And the defense industry, which ultimately produces the weapons, seeks to influence both the military and Congress.

“The Army’s responsibility is to do what’s best for the taxpayer,” said Heidi Shyu, the top Army buying official. “The CEO of the corporation[’s responsibility] is to do what’s best in terms of shareholders.”

And the Government urgently need to borrow more money?

The treasury secretary, Jack Lew, said on Monday the US government’s borrowing limit should be extended as a matter of urgency, warning that the country will be unable to meet its debt obligations “at some point very soon”, possibly by the end of the month.

Why can't the government spend that money on something that someone could use?

What's your opinion?
What's going on with buying all of these military resources that the military doesn't want?

Uno

 

[NTMBK]

Massive lobbying efforts from the war industry, politicians looking for pork for their district/state, and not wanting to look "weak on terror" and getting outflanked on the right.

 

[Genx87]

Im surprised Obama couldnt find a mission for those planes. At the very least I figured he could drop drones out of them to bomb brown people on the other side of the world.

 

[dainthomas]

What's crappy is the Navy is talking about getting rid of a perfectly functional carrier (with the fleet already enduring extended deployments). I wonder how that savings compares to the cost of hundreds of unused planes and tanks?

 

[dphantom]

What's crappy is the Navy is talking about getting rid of a perfectly functional carrier (with the fleet already enduring extended deployments). I wonder how that savings compares to the cost of hundreds of unused planes and tanks?

Exactly. we should be adding 2-4 carrier groups, not reducing. Converting the America and Tripoli into a "light" aircraft carrier was also a very good idea.

 

[K1052]

C-27Js have been split between SOC and the USCG (apparently lots of compatibility with their C-130J parts). They aren't going to be sitting out at Davis-Monthan.

 

[Anarchist420]

treasury sec. jack lew can go suck a dairy hick.

 

[thraashman]

Does no other country want to buy these planes and tanks off us? I'm looking at you Canada, you've been awfully quiet at the war mongering game!

 

[Perknose]

treasury sec. jack lew can go suck a dairy hick.

This post adds nothing to the discourse but foul language.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[sunzt]

Part of the problem is that if you don't cancel a contract early enough you will be hit with early termination fees (just like cellphone carriers). Another problem is that you don't know you need to cancel a contract until the ETFs are higher than the remaining contract!

 

[master_shake_]

saw this on the daily show or colbert report...

the army says no, but the military industrial complex says yes!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-7-2013/tanks--but-no-tanks

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/425947/april-30-2013/forced-tank-spending

one of these 2 i can't watch them im in canada.

 

[Lithium381]

And this is why we can't cut the military budget. . .

 

[piasabird]

Air Craft Carriers make great humanitarian crafts. They were used in the Gulf of Mexico after the big hurricane in Louisiana. They could be put to good use as aid ships in areas like Indo-China. I was watching some videos about this new class of lighter faster class of fighting ships designed to go into more shallow waters (Atolls). It looked really nice. They had one version for searching for Mines and another version as a light fighting craft with high speed guns.

They call them Littoral Class Ships. They are currently in development and testing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q98yrPKxmig

Documentary: (1:29:58)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4xak2byBIg

 

[Jaepheth]

Maybe adding infrastructure upkeep/improvement to the military's duties kill two birds with one change?

I'd much rather the US Army build a new highway than more tanks.

 

[Nintendesert]

This is an old argument. I was against the tank retooling until I watched a documentary on the British submarine building industry. They decommissioned and fired all the employees ages ago and when it came time to finally build a new submarine the cost was much higher filled with delays and problems because there were no journeymen or apprentices to do the electrical work, wiring etc.

It got into issues with welding and all sorts of labor and skill intensive jobs that go away and sometimes permanently if you no longer train individuals to do them.

The long term costs of upgrading tanks and keeping people trained to do those tasks may be cheaper than trying to restart those plants and new people trying to learn how to do the upgrades. Once you get rid of the journeymen there won't be anyone to train them.

So the strategic interests of the United States may be to keep a viable workforce capable of upgrading tanks and working on tanks.

 

[Lithium381]

This is an old argument. I was against the tank retooling until I watched a documentary on the British submarine building industry. They decommissioned and fired all the employees ages ago and when it came time to finally build a new submarine the cost was much higher filled with delays and problems because there were no journeymen or apprentices to do the electrical work, wiring etc.

It got into issues with welding and all sorts of labor and skill intensive jobs that go away and sometimes permanently if you no longer train individuals to do them.

The long term costs of upgrading tanks and keeping people trained to do those tasks may be cheaper than trying to restart those plants and new people trying to learn how to do the upgrades. Once you get rid of the journeymen there won't be anyone to train them.

So the strategic interests of the United States may be to keep a viable workforce capable of upgrading tanks and working on tanks.

with all the tanks that the podunk towns in america are getting to "serve high risk warrants" there shoudln't be any shortage of work for them!

 

[Thebobo]

My RC club would take a carrier so we fly model planes on it

 

[Pocatello]

We need to look at another country to liberate. Drop freedoms on them!

 

[Triumph]

This is an old argument. I was against the tank retooling until I watched a documentary on the British submarine building industry. They decommissioned and fired all the employees ages ago and when it came time to finally build a new submarine the cost was much higher filled with delays and problems because there were no journeymen or apprentices to do the electrical work, wiring etc.

It got into issues with welding and all sorts of labor and skill intensive jobs that go away and sometimes permanently if you no longer train individuals to do them.

The long term costs of upgrading tanks and keeping people trained to do those tasks may be cheaper than trying to restart those plants and new people trying to learn how to do the upgrades. Once you get rid of the journeymen there won't be anyone to train them.

So the strategic interests of the United States may be to keep a viable workforce capable of upgrading tanks and working on tanks.

This definitely has some validity, I work in the industry and we always say, "No matter what, the government ends up paying." But it also speaks to the general lack of proper tradespeople in this country. With so much production having been off shored the last 20-40 years, the defense industry is one of the few industries left with American workers who know how to shape metal. Eliminate those jobs, and there goes the need for those tradespeople.

But the government also doesn't know how to effectively do anything. If instead of building new tanks, they spent money on refurbishing and maintaining the current fleet, they'd keep the skillsets, keep the factories running albeit at a lower level, and save money in the process. Operations and maintenance costs make up 90% of the cost of an item during its life cycle, and this cost is neverappropriately funded. Instead, they buy as many as they can up front, and kick the can to pay that 90% for their maintenance and sustainment down the road.

 

[Ryan]

Maybe adding infrastructure upkeep/improvement to the military's duties kill two birds with one change?

I'd much rather the US Army build a new highway than more tanks.

The military doesn't build hardly anything any more. It's almost always contracted out to civilian companies.