A Slobbering Love Affair with the C-17

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Navy1960, Sep 30, 2009.

  1. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    Senators sparred during floor debate on the fiscal 2010 Defense spending bill Tuesday over whether to scrap $2.5 billion added by appropriators to the measure to buy 10 C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes the Obama administration says it doesn't want.

    Senate Armed Services Committee ranking member John McCain, R-Ariz., introduced an amendment to the $636.3 billion bill that would eliminate the add-on for the Boeing Co.-produced plane and redirect the money to the military's operations and maintenance accounts, from which appropriators trimmed $3 billion to pay for other priorities.

    The relentless opponent of pork-barrel spending argued the funding cut from O&M accounts represents "critical sustainment money" for a military whose readiness rates have fallen to "truly worrisome levels."
    Senators clash over C-17 funding (9/30/09) -- GovExec.com

    Senate appropriators on April 4 went a step further than their House counterparts to protect the C-17 aircraft, recommending $227.5 million toward advance procurement for more of the heavy lifters in fiscal 2008.

    The move - part of the Senate Appropriations Committee's version of the latest Bush administration request for supplemental funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and several other efforts such as Gulf Coast hurricane recovery - follows the full House's move last month to appropriate just $100 million for the C-17 (DAILY, March 22).
    Senate Appropriators Boost Funding For C-17, Osprey On GlobalSpec

    Sep. 27--Congress appears headed for a showdown with the White House over Boeing's C-17 program, with the Senate set to approve funding Tuesday for 10 more planes despite objections from top administration officials.

    The vote to include $2.5 billion to keep the Long Beach plant open through

    Boeing C-17 jobs in balance as Congress considers funding: Senate is poised to OK funds for more 10 more C-17 planes, but veto threat looms | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com

    Senate defense appropriators agreed with most of the White House’s plans to curtail wasteful or unnecessary weapons programs – except for $2.5 billion targeted for a transport jet the Pentagon says it doesn’t want.

    The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense put the money in the Pentagon’s 2010 budget to buy 10 more Boeing C-17 Globemaster IIIs.

    While the White House clearly said it didn’t want any more of the big transport jets, it’s not one of the issues that President Barack Obama has threatened a veto over.

    The panel largely went along with the White House’s recommendations on other hot-button weapons programs, ending both a Lockheed Martin Corp.-led effort to replace the White House’s own fleet of helicopters and production of the F-22 Raptor fighter, and it didn’t provide any money for an alternate engine design for the Pentagon’s newest fighter, the F-35 Lightning II.

    California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, whose state includes Boeing’s C-17 plant and its thousands of workers, publicly thanked Sen. Daniel Inouye, the Hawaii Democrat who chairs the subcommittee and the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The funding “will keep this line alive,” Feinstein said
    Boeing Jets Get Funding – Even If Pentagon Doesn’t Want Them - Washington Wire - WSJ

    The Pentagon not only left new C-17 transport planes out of its budget request this year, it set aside half a billion dollars to halt the planes' production. Officially, the Air Force took the same view, swearing off any more C-17s, which cost $250 million apiece.
    Pentagon Submits Budget, And Services Ask for More - washingtonpost.com



    The C-17 for any of you who do not know what it is, is a Military airlifter with multi-mission capability. However, all these articles point to a problem that has not only been going on with DoD for years but also with the Govt. in General. Here you have the US Air Force officially saying they need no more C-17's and the President as well, then behind the scenes you have the Air Force and congress approving additional millions for aircraft that will keep people employed. Then you have the President telling the American people that the F-22 needs to be cancelled to save money even though the 50 plus thousand people employed in it's production seemed not to be an issue to the same people it's an issue with on the C-17. So you actually trust this Govt. to reform healthcare when then cannot even manage a defense program or get the Air Force a Tanker in the last 20 years?
     
  2. MaggieMae
    Offline

    MaggieMae Reality bits

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2009
    Messages:
    24,043
    Thanks Received:
    1,599
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,601
    Navy - I thought at one time you were all in favor of keeping the C-17.

    To your point, there is more waste and fraud in the DoD than any other agency. They can't get at the fraud, but I think it's high time they started addressing the waste. Usually, these requests just zip right through Congress with no questions asked, just whatever the Pentagon budget asks for.
     
  3. Polk
    Offline

    Polk Classic

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    9,752
    Thanks Received:
    569
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Republic of Pequod
    Ratings:
    +569
    The waste will never be addressed, because you go after it and you'll get howls of being "anti-military".
     
  4. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    No Maggie, I am in favor of DoD operating as it should in a professional manner that responds to the "REQUESTED NEEDS" of the Military. I have been aware since 2005 that the Air Force has said many times, present 2009 statements excluded that they have an over capacity in airlift capabilities. If you take into conjunction C130's, the additional 100's of millions on the C-5 upgrade program and the 200 some odd C-17's that are already in the inventory , if the Air Force say's it needs Tankers then that is where the focus of that money should be and not with the C-17. The employee's that work on the line can stay employed with export versions of the C-17 and if DoD had their respective house in order then those employee's could be transitioned to the Tanker Program. I was a supporter and still am if the F-22 because it represents a need that the Air Force has clearlt stated it has for years.

    The problem with DoD which has been for years in purchasing, is a "good old boy" network and a bloated system that favors suppliers and keeps programs running and spends money on development costs for weapons systems that never are fielded. What needs to happen with DoD is competitive OPEN bidding on programs and fixed costs bids with deadlines associated with penalties for non-performance. In a atmosphere that places the needs of the warfighter first and not the needs of the contractor first then you will see the taxpayers money better spent and defense workers employed for longger periods of times.
     
  5. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    The real problem is the only thing the USA still manufactures is weapons.

    When these aern't needed a lot of people go out of work, which is why when people like Barry talk about saving money by cutting defense they actually increase unemployment and make the economy worse.

    Those defense contractors can't produce anything else, they either get gov money or lay off workers.
     
  6. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    It has more to do with Congress not willing to defund projects that will help their states.

    The military tells the DoD what they need and don't need. Now, the DoD is wising up and agreeing with them, but Congress appropriates the money. If the contracter for an aircraft is in a state where votes are needed, Congress will earmark funds in that appropriation for something that is not needed.
     
  7. Lonestar_logic
    Offline

    Lonestar_logic Republic of Texas

    Joined:
    May 13, 2009
    Messages:
    24,318
    Thanks Received:
    2,193
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +3,505
    Seems like McCain has the only voice of reason here.
     
  8. Navy1960
    Offline

    Navy1960 Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,821
    Thanks Received:
    1,188
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Arizona
    Ratings:
    +1,189
    One has to wonder how long Boeing would survive if they only had to exist on commercial aircraft sales. Which up until the recent downturn in the economy was doing quite well with the advent of the 787. In some cases the Military purchasing actually keeps the commercial workers employed, thus one the reasons why Boeing has offered the KC-767 as Tanker for the Air Force Tanker Program.
     
  9. The T
    Offline

    The T George S. Patton Party Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    48,072
    Thanks Received:
    5,473
    Trophy Points:
    1,773
    Location:
    What USED TO BE A REPUBLIC RUN BY TYRANTS
    Ratings:
    +5,502

    What I see is an apparent front to keep some Senator's District Jobs alive and solely for that purpose, while other more critical Military budget items are sacrificed. And all for the sake of politics?

    Sickening indeed.
     
  10. Xenophon
    Offline

    Xenophon Gone and forgotten

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Messages:
    16,705
    Thanks Received:
    3,750
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In your head
    Ratings:
    +3,751
    They would not survive.

    Airbus has been beating them on commercial aircraft for years, the US has often bribed countries into buying boeing planes to keep them above water.
     

Share This Page