• Join FlightAware (Why Join?)
  • Login
  • US Flag 
03:02AM EDT


 

Airport Tracker/Info


-or-


 

Squawks & HeadlinesNew Air Force cargo planes fly straight into mothballs

Back to Squawk list

New Air Force cargo planes fly straight into mothballs

Submitted
The Pentagon is sending $50 million cargo planes straight from the assembly line to mothballs because it has no use for them, yet it still hasn’t stopped ordering the aircraft, according to a report. (www.foxnews.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 28
Put some bladders/tanks in them and send them to the US Forest Service.
zcolescott
Zachary Colescott 3
Now there's an idea!
preacher1
preacher1 2
works for me!
blakerl
Larry Blaker 2
They have tried it three are now in use with the forest service, but are of limited use as they can not hold enouth retadent.
daveblevins52
Dave Blevins 2
Spell check is free.
JetMech24
JetMech24 3
There is a big difference between a misspelling and a typo, it only took me .5 seconds to notice it was a typo and not a misspelling, learn the difference and don't be a douche
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
I was wondering what their capacity would be. Load limit seems to be about 25K lbs. Doesn't the Forest Service have a floor limit of 3,000 gal or so?
Attached is a link to Calif CalFire list of aerial tankers- the aged S-2 which upon which CalFire depends is about 1200 gal. The C-27J looks like it could augment, if not replace them. (I don't know the hourly operational cost of the S-2)

http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/AviationGuide_FINAL_webbooklet.pdf
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 4
Brand-new planes of any capacity that can be counted on to be there in an emergency are preferable to depending upon an aged fleet of insufficient aircraft that don't always make it the fire when dispatched.

When tha squad of elite firefighters were burned alive, the request for 6 tankers was denied. The single tanker that was dispatched had to return to base because of
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
a malfunction.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
Even new planes break... We had one AOG because of a slipped seal that had migrated... Only had 33 cycles from the factory. At 15 cycles it had a seat recline cylinder bad and had to defer a seat...
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
That would be 21000 lbs if water for 3000 Gallons... Dropped all at once... That is a lot of water.
daveblevins52
Dave Blevins 1
Isn't water figured at 8 Pounds per Gallon ? 3,000x8=24,000lbs.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
1. But is the retardant liquid or powder?

2. But no matter if liquid or powder, its' specific gravity will likely vary from that of water sufficiently that it will matter when you're talking in the thousands of gallons.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Quick google search found Specific gravity of various retardant mixes ran 1.05 - 1.09, Drops in Calif (at least) are a slurry. So, a bit more than water.
8# works for back-of-the-envelope calc.
blakerl
Larry Blaker 0
This was a forestry service response, that they wanted to use a few as smoke jumper aircraft. They said the aircraft would require extensive conversions to be used to deploy retardant and would be load limited below the standard they set for new aircraft. What I think is going on is that the forestry service has a purposed plan for the purchase of new aircraft, and that converting the C-27j would derail that plan. But they may be right. I know that with the C-130 when you carry liquid bladders the load weight had to be less than normal cargo.
jpclowes
John Clowes 1
Doesn't the Coast Guard use something similar now. Why don't they give them to the USCG?
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
I think I understand the FS perspective of very large capacity tankers in that they do get the biggest fires. I think there is a need for smaller capacity tankers as well that they are not addressing. I think there are fewer than a dozen MAFFS units for C-130's which also is a limitation. Didn't the FS define their minimum load limit as over 3,000 gal?
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
The rationale is perfectly understandable. But in the mean time they're endangering lives, while they're all having pissing contests.
blakerl
Larry Blaker 0
The report concluded the C-27J could carry 1,850 gallons of retardant if 3,200 pounds of unneeded equipment were removed, including flight deck armor (approximately 1,100 lbs), miscellaneous mission equipment such as litter stanchions, tie-down chains, ladders etc. (approximately 1,000 lbs), and the cargo loading system (approximately 1,200 lbs).
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 2
If that's true then it's an absolutely worthless plane, that should not even be built.

The math doesn't make sense. You have to remove over 3,000lbs of equipment in order to carry under 2,000lbs of cargo (retardant).

So in it's current configuration, the cargo plane can't carry any cargo

Worthless. Absolutely worthless.

Either the plane or the person who made the calculations is absolutely worthless. Sounds like someone had an agenda to push, and the numbers had to support the conclusion that was determined before any numbers were calculated.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
It's called inductive reasoning:
a. select decision
b. create statistics supporting decions
c. find statistical tests to lead to (b) <invent if necessary>
d. bury contrary data

Also known as 'dry labbing'.
blakerl
Larry Blaker 0
We are talking about gallons not pounds. So 1,850 gallons @ 8.35lb each would be 15,447.5lbs
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
Ok, thanks. That makes more sense. So if they don't remove all of that extra weight, they'd still be able to carry somewhere between 12-15,000 pounds of retardant (if your assumption about the weight I retardant is correct). Any amount is significantly more than zero, which is what the plane carries when you leave it in the desert doing nothing.

In the last decade US Forest Service tankers have dropped 75% from 44 down to only 11. A few of these planes converted for tanking retardant would help while the USFS gets it act together and puts a new generation of tankers in service.
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
"And he will beat their swords into" water buckets....
(with apologies to Isaiah)
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
An idea! Used the good old Diesel Three(DC-3) ...carry thirty smoke jumpers and only cost $100,000 and there is still plenty around...OOPS! They are doing just that and have been for 50 years!

Alas, gotta spend all this taxpayer money...so 50 millions each it will be!
mk882004
Matt Kladder 1
Photofinish i accidentally reported this as spam while trying to double click my screen to zoom in and it confused it with the report button, i tried to find a write to the admin but couldn't find a spot
onceastudentpilot
tim mitchell 0
great idea
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
One of these(Fiat G 222), fitted with the MAFF system, crashed in Italy in the eighties...apparently the wing loading is very high and in turbulence, they had a high speed stall and crashed...Then the Air Force General in charge forbade them to fly below 1,000 feet, making the whole thing useless.

Sylvio Berlusconi who was then minister of Civil Security ordered the Canadair 215, who will fly ten feet off the ground if need be and never had a high speed stall.

They called us the Berlusconi Air Force versus the MAFF clowns...we actually were putting out fires in contrast to the MAFF system which is just a way for greedy politicos to fill their pockets with paybacks from Phoscheck and other chemical companies as the country burn!

Even in the US, the C-130 never go lower than 500 feet..another useless exercise as the ammonia then have time to evaporate and only clay dust reach the ground, not bothering the fire the least bit!Phoscheck DO NOT PUT FIRE OUT and is plain ammonia, which is highly toxic...and if it evaporate first, the phosphate clay dust do exactly nothing...it is touted as being a fertilizer...fertilizing burnt husks!!!Fact, the phosphate promote the growth of dangerous and toxic foreign weeds...just like the leftist democrats in the USA!

These planes are going exactly where they belong, the junk yard!
daveblevins52
Dave Blevins 2
Excellent commentary. Thank you.
dcloninger
Dan Cloninger 0
I can assure you C-130s go below 500'. Typical MAFFS drop is 150-200 AGL.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
In LA, we were accused by the Air Force MAFF operators of killing ground personnel for dropping too low...Ridiculous, we dropped on the fire! Anybody there is dead and crispy! No, Air force drop very high, 500 to a 1000 feet...Private operators will drop much lower but they are not allowed to drop on the fire but way ahead of it US Forest Services has bankrupted most of them anyway(Too many bribes to pay!)
PaulN2719
PaulN2719 7
Here's a thought: how about if you're not going to use them, STOP ordering them! We need to work out a way to stop spending money unnecessarily, here's a good place to start!
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon 7
Problem is...its to late, the order has been placed and has been for a long time now.
blakerl
Larry Blaker 5
They could drop the restriction of not selling surplus aircraft to the private sector. The C-27 would be great up north in Alaska and Canada's Northern areas. They would be replacing old WWII cargo aircraft. It's got to be more cost effective.
OhanaUnited
Andrew Leung 1
Yup, we'll gladly take them in Canada
KineticRider
Randy Marco 2
Thank You Repygnant's and the Industrial Military Complex!
flypot
jay Rickmeyer 2
For those of us old enough to remember Senator Goldwater (Reserve AF General) pased legislation requiring Army to give up Caribou & Buffalo aircraft in Viet Nam since it competed with the USAF mission. When it was shown the USAF was not supporting the Army in the 1990s, the Army asked for permission to compete for a transport aircraft which the C-27 won. USAF objected & had congress transfer the program to the USAF. They cancelled it & sent them to the boneyard even though other US Agencies & foreign countries offerred to buy the aircraft.
KineticRider
Randy Marco 2
Thank You Repugnant's and the Industrial Military Complex!
RetAF
RetAF 1
Jay, some minor points.

The decision was made to put the rotary wing aircraft in the Army and fixed wing in the Air Force, happened during LBJ's Presidency. Hence the 'Bou (I flew them in Vietnam) went to the Air Force. The Army still had some fixed wing, (Otter, Beaver, and some King Airs) and the Air Force still had some rotary wing, albeit small numbers. The Buffalo was the turboprop version of the Caribou and I never saw one in service in Vietnam, ('69-'70) as all they ever were was a test & evaluation program that ended in the mid 60s.

http://www.dhc4and5.org/Buffalo.html

The USAF did support the Army and quite well in Vietnam, but by 1990s the 'Bou was no longer in service, as the last units to have it were the Reserves (at Maxwell AFB)and had been removed 1980s.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 1
There is worse, Canadair(then General Dynamics) completed a program with the Convertiplane...for 80 million dollars, five operational airplanes who had double the payload, double the speed and double the range of the Osprey...with the whole research and certification program costing less than ONE Osprey!!!
Moreover, the control mixing box was purely mechanical and totally bullet-proof, versus the Osprey who will crash if a jihadi shoot them a bad thought!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
It appears that it's biggest problem was the lack of a comfortable profit margin for an American Military supplier.
just thinkin'
RetAF
RetAF 1
Randy,

Actually it's the "Military Industrial Complex" and if you read what Ike said, you will also find he pretty much predicted the current regime's "Solyndra" fiasco.

To quote Ike (in the paragraph following the Military Industrial Complex) you will find,

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

•and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite."

Most pseudo intellectual elites conveniently miss the "rest of the story" when ranting about the "military industrial complex".
lmalbright
Larry Albright 0
Sorry, Randy, Sherrod Brown is a big time liberal Senator. The problem is that too many politicians of all political affiliations look at military appropriations as a jobs program; and if there is an actual defense benefit that's icing on the cake.
JENNYJET
JENNIFER JORDAN 1
I cannot see what the problem is here. These aircraft will be available for use at some time unknown but certainly likely to meet that unforeseen emergency when this particular type of ship is needed.

The US may have thousands of preserved aircraft of all types from B1's to B52's to F16's and even perhaps the SR-71 sitting in the dry deserts but what is the betting that some 'incident' may occur that even the best Pentagon analyst did not foresee and the Whitehouse issue the order to deploy? Does one wait for some factory to build them, do you worry about violating disarmament treaties or does one take off the wraps and use the reserve assets?

They are already built, money already expended and now it is perhaps time to make use for the greater good as with the reason for them to be built in the first instance!
jpclowes
John Clowes 1
Doesn't the Coast Guard now use something similar? Why doesn't the Air Force give them to the USCG?
ShortWingDave
ShortWingDave 1
OMG, They won't pay the Vet death benefits, but they have the money ($568.MILLION) to buy these Italian pills of crap!
gmordant
George Mordant 1
vind ik mooie foto's
lesbabs
Les Anderson 1
I live in the UK and this is just the sort of thing we are used to seeing. Any help is usually better than no help surely ?
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -1
Can you please provide proof to back up your statement that these new planes are "pills of crap"?

They are far better then the US built Boeing B787-8 Dreamliner.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon 1
Could you please fecking shut up with the grammar?!?!? We are on a Aviation Forum not a school.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Well, if this is an Aviation forum, can you explain how the following relates to aviation:

"I just saw a pickup with two ARMED rifles in New-Hampshire for God sake!!!!! Who is the nuts guy? I'm not the JERK here, any American that is not ashamed of being one is."

The topic is the C-27 delivery. Kindly stay on topic, or just stay off.
thanx
jdriskell
James Driskell 1
This is a clear case of NIMBY (Not in MY Backyard). The two yardbirds from Ohio just couldn't see their pet project facility shut down so here we are! Unwanted aircraft for an unwanted mission. Why not dust off a few C-123s?
daveblevins52
Dave Blevins 1
The US Forest Circus is one of those GOVERNMENT agencies that needs to be re-organized with a whole lot less people in it's "organization". It is a SERVICE......but way too fat with bureaucrats & regulations. In fact, we could actually do completely without them. And the whole "Dept. of the Interior". What interior? Yes, I may appear to state cynical ideas, but socialism is here folks, and you should be prepared for the "Obamaskis".
boba300cpt
ROBERT AMILIBIA 0
Gov't waste at the max, yet they refuse to give people foods tamps !!!!
SparkyNoPeek
Ron Heywood 0
What the hell do they care. It ain't there money they are pissing away IT"S OURS!!!!!
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 0
It's a good thing the US government is awash in money...

/sarcasm
99NY
99NY 0
I'd heard that some of these C-27's were heading to the USCG for maritime partol duties since their force of C-27's got slashed.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
Is not!. It's our grandchildren's. Ours was spent long ago!
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
Easy solution. Cut all gov't budgets 10% every year automatically. Every year every manager will be trying to do more with less, like everyone else in the real world, moving money from things that are not important to things that are essential.

In 10 years time, all programs without a burning need nor a constituency will get zeroed out, making room for other better uses of the grandkid's money.
SparkyNoPeek
Ron Heywood -4
Good point but cctually it's Chinese money. They practically own the USA now. I hope you who voted for NObama are happy with the way he is ruining this once great country.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 3
Actually the 2 largest foreign holders of US debt (China and Japan only hold a total of about $1.5 trillion out of total US debt which is about $17 trillion. All foreign holders total only about $4-5 trillion. Most US government debt is held by American individuals, banks, institutions and US government accounts.

The Chisese just hold lots of US Dollars from all those cheap goods they've sold Americans over the years. They're going to need all those foreign reserve currencies. They have a fake economy, which is about to implode. Everyone that I know that is working with high-net worth Chinese investors reports that they are desperately trying to get large quantities of money out of China, as soon as possible. They'd rather hold US dollars or any investment (commodities, businesses, assets) anywhere in the world denomated in US dollars or any other foreign currency, than Chinese currency (Rmb) or investments in China with exposure to the impending economic meltdown.

I'm much more concerned about the Chinese meltdown on the world economy, than a bunch of congressmen in DC making noise over trying to bring control to US gov't spending.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -6
I would not worry about China, Chinese are smart where as American are dumb ass idiots.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
You are clueless...
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -6
Nope your the clueless one here.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
Sébastien, quand il pète, il troue son slip...

http://www.gentside.com/s%E9bastien-patrick/sebastien-patrick-quand-il-pete-il-troue-son-slip-paroles-ecouter-la-chanson-en-integralite_art50687.html


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.gentside.com/embed/lFhm54wtsD4bSO1FJXcewQ"; scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0" style="border-top-width: 0px; border-right-width: 0px; border-bottom-width: 0px; border-left-width: 0px; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; border-image: initial;" allowfullscreen="true" webkitallowfullscreen="true" mozallowfullscreen="true"></iframe><br /><a href="http://www.gentside.com/s%e9bastien-patrick/sebastien-patrick-quand-il-pete-il-troue-son-slip-paroles-ecouter-la-chanson-en-integralite_art50687.html"; target="_blank">S&eacute;bastien Patrick - Quand il p&egrave;te il troue son slip : Paroles, &eacute;couter la chanson en int&eacute;gralit&eacute;</a><i> par <a href="http://www.gentside.com"; target="_blank">Gentside</a></i>
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon 0
LOL xD I already knew that song and I love it!
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -9
The USA was never a "great" nation, it always was and always will be just a nation full of egocentric jerks that love guns and to shoot and kill.
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
If you lived in this country, you would know how great it. The US is the Greatest country ever...I would never vote for obama or any other Liberal... I am not a Jerk, but I am a Gun Loving and Toting citizen who believes in my right to bear arms, and will do so freely and use it to defend myself. I do not kill anyone, but if they break into my house they may find them selves committing suicide via Home Owner protecting his life.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -7
I am a American Citizen so shut up will you! Considering I'm a US Citizen I know full well what my fellow patriots are, and they are selfish egocentric gun and killing loving idiotic morons, we have a massive shooting every 3 months, we killed a innocent new mum for no reason,...I am truly embarrassed to be a American Citizen. And nobody except police officers and military personnel should be allowed to have guns. FYI if you love guns and believe in right to bears arms then yes you are idiotic egocentric jerk.
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
You don't sound like it... If you don't like it... Go to another country to where they will take your guns and ration your health care.. Mean while... Keep your childish comments to yourself.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon 3
I moved to Canada...
joelwiley
joel wiley 3
In that case, may I suggest you look into the Canadian laws governing slander and libel when you exercise your American free speech rights in Quebec. Your comments on this venue could be actionable where you choose to live.

just saying
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -2
In Canada they don't look at everything everybody posts....where as the US (NSA) does!
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I wasn't referring to the CSIS, simply an aggreived party and their legal counsel (barrister, solicitor?). Laws governing North of Lat 49 differ-
that's all.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 2
Désolé, la stupidité des gauchiasses comme Sébastien ne fait que les étiqueter comme idiots de village...

Sorry, leftards' idiocy like that of Sébastien only get them to be labeled "VILLAGE IDIOTS"...
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -4
Thanks...JERK
sparkie624
sparkie624 4
Seems you are the JERK, and quite out numbered.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -3
I just saw a pickup with two ARMED rifles in New-Hampshire for God sake!!!!! Who is the nuts guy? I'm not the JERK here, any American that is not ashamed of being one is.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
What is wrong with a rifle or 2 in a pickup truck... Maybe he is going hunting... Did you check his gun...Was it truly loaded... If I were you I would look straight down the barrel to check it out... But I am not you, and not going to look down a barrel... It amazes me that there are people that think guns kill people.... There has never been a gun to get up and kill anyone. Guns are tools. Some tools are utilized in a good fashion, others are not.Hunting and self protection is good to have a gun as a tool, Robbing a bank is not a good use for a gun. No Gun has ever robbed a bank, No Gun has ever killed anyone but plenty of liberals like yourself feel that they do for some reason... Last time I checked on my guns they were right where I left them, and ready to protect me as needed... That does not mean that I kill people, but someone may not survive trying to inflict "Grievous Bodily Harm" then they may die as a result of their actions and my reaction. That is not being a Jerk... It is being an honest, legal, law abiding citizen.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -3
Honest and legal nowhere else then in Dumb Ass USA...and I'm sorry but guns DO kill people! And I know a armed rifle when I see one they armed trust me. What is wrong with two armed rifles in a pickup?
1. They are armed.
2. Give me one reason why a civilian needs a gun that shoots some 100+ bullets a min.?
3. Nobody except Police Officers and Military Personnel should ever be entitled to having a gun point. Civilians are not trained to have guns and it is just a ticking time bomb. If a civilian absolutely needs a defense weapon then get a Tazer but nothing else.
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
in regards to 1, SO WHAT... He certainly did not have them concealed and probably never robbed a bank or killed anyone.. In regards to 2, who said anything about a 100+ bullets... My carry gun has 7... That is all I need and will still have plenty to spare. and 3 is total BS. I have a permit and I have been trained. On the range I shot 50 times in different configurations and hit the bulls eye 49 times... the other one that I missed the bulls eye, but would have been a deady shot at 25 feet was with my week hand. There is training, and many people that carry responsibly are trained. As for a tazer.. They are ok, but Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson do a so much better job.

I remember once that I caught 2 kids (1 15 and 1 18 breaking into my car (on video). I went in behind them, commanded them out of the car, and held them at gun point and called the police. 2 Crimminals in jail. I could have shot them, but I was not in danger of "Grievous Bodily Harm", Referecnce: Grievous Bodily Harm
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -4
You need to go to mental hospital because you are fecking nuts...
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
How do you figure that... I never killed anyone, never robbed a bank, and have a perfect record... But I do believe in protecting myself. However, I have been know to get in to reasonable conversations with unreasonable people as you can see from our chat here. Maybe you should consider going back to your mental hospitals. I am sure you would be an interesting subject for them to study.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -2
Because you like guns, anybody that likes guns needs to go to a mental hospital...
sparkie624
sparkie624 3
Only an idiot would make that kind of statement. I think you need to drink some of the Kool-Aid as you seem to be nothing more than a Bleeding Heart, Tree Hugging Liberal.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -4
Guns kill -> Guns should be banned -> People who don't approve this they should:
a) Go to a Mental Hospital.
b) Go to Prison.
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
I challenge you to give me one instance of a gun killing someone... Would it make you feel better if people killed people with knifes, clubs, Rocks, or pushed people off of tall buildings... At this point I am seeing you as a 100 percent certifiable idiot with no common sense... Do you have someone to help you out of bed and get something to eat, because with you line of thinking, I doubt you could figure it out.
joelwiley
joel wiley 2
With your experience, can your recommend a few?
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -3
Recommend what? Mental Hospitals? Yes...Pinel.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy -1
Wherever guns are forbidden in the USA NOBODY IS SAFE and the mexican and black mobs rule the streets...where open carry is allowed, you have the lowest crime rate in the whole wide world...look at the most dangerous country in the world, Mexico...it is 20 year in jail for owning a gun, only narco and corrupt cops cans have a gun and you see dead people all over the streets.

But dont try logic with obamunists and communist sombre imbeciles!
glenhorton
Glen Horton 1
So, how does this end up in an aviation forum?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
Re your comments:
First, 'then' should have been 'than'
Second, "dumbass' in the way you are using it, is a single word.
Third, how do you differentiate between an 'armed' and 'unarmed' rifle?
To answer your "what is wrong with two armed rifles...." aside from the use of 'armed', in New Hampshire- nothing.
Regarding your overgeneralization about civilians and training- in my specific case, I AM a civilian, and I was trained in the US ARMY. There are quite a few to my personal knowledge with similar histories.

So, put a sock in it.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -1
You are a idiot.
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
and the reasoning supporting your conclusion is.....?
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
Idiots like Sebass see idiots everywhere...life is a mirror!
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
You claim to have been kicked out of the USA and took refuge in Canada(fleeing the muslim invaders in France)
Then explain all the pick ups I see looking out my window loaded with a moose on the hood and the cab full of guns HERE IN CANADA!
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
HA! Ha! New Hampshire!!!

Here's the French author of "Letourneau Used Auto Parts" Carolyne Chute and her husband!
http://outyourbackdoor.com/images/articles/085257_thechutes.jpg

http://www.bookstellyouwhy.com/pictures/32428.jpg

Au Canada et le Maine plus le New Hampshire, on se fout bien de la gueule des sales hippies et des MAUDITS FRANCAIS!!!
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -2
So I don't sound like a US Citizen because I'm embarrassed to be one and that I don't like guns or killing people? PRICELESS!!!!!!!!! I just goes to show how closed minded, egocentric, moronic,...my fellow patriots are! Thanks for proving my point!
JMARTINSON
JMARTINSON 3
Let's see...

Everybody is a dumb ass egocentric selfish egocentric gun and killing loving idiotic egocentric jerk closed minded egocentric moronic idiot jerk moron.

Check.

Really likes capital letters and lots of exclamation points.

Check.

Has no idea what the word actionable means.

Check.

Hasn't figured out his rabid frothing at the mouth anti-gun stance does nothing but drive gun sales.

Check.

15 comments and I still have no idea how old you are.

Check.


Sorry, but you couldn't get any more American if you tried.







Hotspur666
Henry Percy 1
Plus con que ce Sebastien, TU MEURS!!!
glenhorton
Glen Horton 1
Then Maybe you should leave.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 1
And you are a communist imbecile, a drugged up hippie filth
Hé, hop, à Cuba, le mal au trou!

La vie à Sébaste, c'est d'la MAAAARDE!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AN98JX7EyM
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
I like the sarcasm font simulator
mpradel
Marcus Pradel -1
the ATF could use a few of these to deliver guns to Mexican Drug lords..
chalet
chalet 0
The U.S. Air Force´s original C-27´s (five of them) were operational back in 1995 and based at Howard AFB in the Panamal Canal Zone were used extensively throughout Central and South America but a few years later the AF decided that it did not want them and sent them to pasture at Davis Montham. Eventually the U.S. Government gave those C-27s away to Colombia for helping in the anti-drug war. Years later the Army wanted a couple of dozen new C-27s but here came the Air Force screaming and kicking like a child saying that the Army has no business flying fixed wing aircraft, only the rotating wing variety and claimed for it the entire program. Go figure.
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
There is a mission for the Fiat 222/C-27
Many areas in the USA are too far from water for the helicopters or water scoopers or single engine bombers, so this very fast and economical airplane would be an ideal first responder, once lightened up and loaded with gelled water...

After of course Barry Hussein and Moshwelle quit taking these 300 million dollars vacations...
JetMech24
JetMech24 0
There are a lot of good ideas on here to make good use of these aircraft, but under the current budget crisis/shutdown, no agency is going to be able to snag these up right now. We'll see if they end up anywhere after the dust settles, but for now, they are stuck. Coming from FOX news, this is nothing more than a stab at the current administration while we are in the midst of a shutdown. The government can't just stop taking these aircraft, because they will then be forced to pay for planes that we are not even getting to complete the contract, which IMHO is much worse.
MrWidgeon
Bill Bailey 0
The USFS doesn't want them, they can't carry enough to meet the Next Gen tanker standards, but said they would make acceptable jump ships & trash haulers.
ihsanushshabri
Ihsanush Shabri 0
wow, $50 million!!
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
It would seem like there is something that could be done with these planes... It is stupid just to park them.
MrWidgeon
Bill Bailey 0
They won't be there that long, somebody will pick them up. They're not bad airplanes, it's more like bad timing.
hamster1436
Hamster Vonk 0
Well the headline is a bit misleading.....Davis Monthan serves other functions than just boneyard and while the Pentagon does not want them, "mothballs" implies that they will be scrapped. But in the last line they do mention "other government agencies" are interested in using them.
chalet
chalet 0
The C-27 was portrayed as the poor man's Herky but at $ 50 million a piece.... no way. As for dusting off a few C-123s there are not any available, the inventory was washed out during the Viet Nam War and even if there were hundreds of them at Davis Monthan the Air Force types would never deign to lower their "high standards" and fly old carcasses using old recip engines, it is only the latest set of wings or nothing.
Scrape
Scrape 0
They never had a mission. From what I read a while ago, these planes were intended for special forces forward supply and transport in Afghanistan. But they ordered too many of them, and their mission was over before we took delivery.
tomcatv1
Tom Rodeheaver 0
And the nimrods in Congress want to cut SS.
trevortcaruso
trevor caruso 0
I will never understand buying military hardware from a foreign country. Tax dollars going to a foreign countries workforce when we could definitely use the manufacturing jobs, and it just seems ridiculous to operate foreign equipment.
Shitehawk
Paul Wheal 0
Well at least they are not being chopped up by the government, the fate that befel the brand new Royal Air Force Nimrods , weeks before we needed them in Lyibia! That's what happen when your country is run by schoolboys like Davie the C
leemarks
Lee Marks 0
THis is realizing that you cannot afford a steak dinner, and instead you ought to be eating Top Ramen, or maybe Mac-n-Cheese (that garbage in a box). You go ahead and order your steak dinner and upon delivery to the table, realizing that you can't afford it, you choose not to eat it - no doggie bag, no panhandler on Division and Third, but straight ot the garbage can next to the dishwasher. Our tax dollars hard at work!
jimmax23
Jim Maxwell 3
Seems more like committing to a 5 year contract with Omaha Steaks, then deciding after a couple of years that you have no need for steaks every month. But the fine print in the contract says that if you cancel early, you must pay the full amount of the contract anyway plus a penalty.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -1
"that if you cancel early" should be "that if you cancel late" I believe.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
No, he was right the first time, as in the contract has not been fulfilled. Canceling late would mean that you canceled AFTER the contract is done and I have never heard of such a thing.
jimmax23
Jim Maxwell 0
Good point... Or just cancel at all!
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
These planes have been on order for a long time. They have been being built and being delivered on an ongoing basis for a while now (years).

You'd think as stewards of public monies, they'd be just as careful with orders for airplanes that will not be needed, as a private airline. In the real world, a buyer (airline) will find a new buyer for the planes as soon as possible, often before the planes are delivered. Airlines don't accumulate brand-new airplanes in the desert.

A government shutdown lasting days or weeks, highlighting the out of control spending, didn't cause this problem of brand-new planes sitting unused for years. Buy it may remind us that we should use all of monies and assets wisely, including brand-new airplanes, that may be useful somewhere.
JetMech24
JetMech24 1
Right now they are costing zero operating cost, the only cost with these planes right now is paying on a contract that we cant just back out of. Even if another agency were to be flying them right now, we would have the cost of buying them AND the cost of operating them, they are much cheaper doing what they are doing right now until someone can find good use for them and make it worth the money to operate, which is not going to happen for a little bit as all of these 5 year olds in DC have their playground stand off.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
At least storing them is much better than dismantling and destroying them as others like the Brits have done in the past.

No commercial airline would carry brand-new airplanes as non-operating non-productive assets on their balance sheet depreciating their purchase price, while not being used to product revenue or some other important mission.

An airline or an invest spending their own money would be more careful to spend money only when necessary. Further if they contacted for brand-new planes years in advance (which happens all the time and is the norm in recent years) find that their airplanes on order are no longer necessary, as predicted at time of signing purchase contracts, or are no longer affordable, they will find a solution. Typically that would be to find a new buyer, who does have a good use for the planes. This often happens BEFORE the plane is even delivered to the original airline.

Why do we make excuses for and allow stewards of taxpayer money to be reckless with the hard earned money of the people?
joelwiley
joel wiley 1
I think the 'going concern' concept of business analogy is not a good fit for military purchases. The military model includes a goal of breaking things- usually on the other side, but there always is collateral damage to consider.

I agree that storing them is a much better strategy. Destroying them is a poor short-term strategy (unless you are in line to build the replacements when needed next month).
STEELJAW
STEELJAW 1
They are only parking them for a short period of time. Just about every branch of the GOV(military and Civilian) can fine a good use for these planes. I'm sure there's going to be a cat fight for them after the sequester/shutdown is over.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 1
With the budgetary realities pressing harder, they don't want to shift budget from other programs to staff and maintain the planes.

But the planes are an asset. They could monetize them eg. by renting them out to the US Forest Service, for the 10-15 years it takes them to figure out their new tanker strategy going forward.

Every forest fire need not be put out. But every time a town or a team of firefighters is in danger of being overrun by fire, a tanker or fleet of tankers should be available to help.
STEELJAW
STEELJAW 0
It's alot that you don't see underneath the table. We probably cut a deal to buy these planes for some favor that the Italians did for use years ago. Sometimes, it's best not knowing the truth.
blakerl
Larry Blaker 0
No agency has a use for 41 aircraft.
sparkie624
sparkie624 0
That is cheap compared to most US Contracts...
DMenscha
Bill Schmiett 0
The FS has it's head up it's ass when it comes to aviation. Always has.
skylab72
skylab72 1
It is NEVER best to not know the truth. It is only truth that can keep you free.
JetMech24
JetMech24 2
Not always, remember, what ever the US public knows, our enemies know as well. Do you really think that the government should tell us absolutely everything so that our enemies can just turn on a TV and know what our military is up to?
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -2
Somebody took a waky pill...
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
So divvy them up. A few here. A few there. Any reasonable use is more respectable than sending brand spanking new aircraft to the mothball desert camps.
STEELJAW
STEELJAW 0
Exactly my point! Thanks PhotoFinish
blakerl
Larry Blaker 0
The Coast Guard will get a few and the Forest service will get some. Past that would you use a C-27 at 50M and its operating cost, to do a mission that a Cessna 182 could do?
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 1
Sebass, there is nothing in here for your feeble mind to comprehend...
You are a troll rat leaving his little toxic dropping everywhere,
a typical Obamunist, a muslim wannabe, not very bright and understanding nothing.
Dont you raton have a goat to fuck before cutting his throat?
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -2
Can you show me a airplane "MADE IN THE USA" that has the capabilities that the C-27 has? If not you have you're answer I believe.
skylab72
skylab72 0
Scale a C-130 Herc to two engines.
zcolescott
Zachary Colescott 0
...and aircraft can sit in the boneyard and look pretty ;)
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -3
[face palm] I meant...IN PRODUCTION!!!!!!!!!!! Of course anybody could get a airplane made in its nation if it developed one you dodo...
honzanl
honza nl -2
Yes, lets buy only US stuff ! But don't be surprised then when foreign countries also decide to do the same, so not buying the F35 but buy Saab's; not buy Boeing but Airbus. Is very good for the US economy, yes ? And of course better stop all regional airlines in the US as they only fly foreign aircraft. Maybe next time first think before write ?
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -2
US Airways has the biggest Airbus fleet in the world...and Airbus planes are 1000 time better then piece of burning shit that come out the Boeing facilities right now.

[This poster has been suspended.]

ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 0
Can you reference a source for that?
joelwiley
joel wiley 0
Right, it's using stealth technology and is exempt from the Debt Limit.
/sarcasm
THRUSTT
THRUSTT 0
He has a family member in a top secret position!
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 1
Ah, that's always a good reference.
Tourillon
Sebastien Tourillon -1
You bet...NOT

Its like my friend told me that his friend told him that his boss told him that his neighbor told him that his F mate told him that her husband told her that Alitalia would order some A380-800's.
PhotoFinish
PhotoFinish 0
He stated that his family member (with whom he was speaking) works in the congressional payroll office. That would be fairly direct info.

Not vouching for the info or the source. Just passing along the claim.
ToddBaldwin3
Todd Baldwin 1
Congressional pay increases are limited, by law, to no greater than the General Wage Increase of the Civil Service. Since we have not had a GWI in two years, neither has Congress. I'm not areal fan of Congress right now, but I dislike disinformation even more
bigkahuna400
bigkahuna400 -1
No wonder John Boehner has a thorn up is Axx......
Moviela
Ric Wernicke -1
It is not waste to be prepared. If an Earthquake, storm, tidal wave, or a hockey match cuts off a community people will be happy to see these cute little prop planes landing on just about any strip to bring essential supplies.

I would rather see them built in America, but there is value to have aerospace relationships with other countries. If one of our plants is destroyed by calamity, we'd have a place to manufacture with already established lines of communication.
preacher1
preacher1 0
Seems to me that AMARC, formerly known as MASDC, aka "THE BONEYARD", is open for all branches of service to draw from. Sad if these brand new AC are having to go through the storage process before being sent to another user. While the desert climate is preservative, they are not just sent in there and parked
preacher1
preacher1 -1
With unruly kids, we call it TOUGH LOVE. Problem in this case is that so many innocents get hurt as they are caught up in the crossfire
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 0
One of these(Fiat G 222), fitted with the MAFF system, crashed in Italy in the eighties...apparently the wing loading is very high and in turbulence, they had a high speed stall and crashed...Then the Air Force General in charge forbade them to fly below 1,000 feet, making the whole thing useless.

Sylvio Berlusconi who was then minister of Civil Services ordered the Canadair 215, who will fly ten feet off the ground if need be and never had a high speed stall.

They called us the Berlusconi Air Force versus the MAFF clowns...we actually were putting out fires in contrast to the MAFF system which is just a way for greedy politicos to fill their pockets with paybacks from Phoscheck and other chemical companies as the country burn!

Even in the US, the C-130 never go lower than 500 feet..another useless exercise as the ammonia then have time to evaporate and only clay dust reach the ground, not bothering the fire the least bit!Phoscheck DO NOT PUT FIRE OUT and is plain ammonia, which is highly toxic...and if it evaporate first, the phosphate clay dust do exactly nothing...it is touted as being a fertilizer...fertilizing burnt husks!!!Fact, the phosphate promote the growth of dangerous and toxic foreign weeds...just like the democrats in the USA!

These planes are going exactly where they belong, the junk yard!
Hotspur666
Henry Percy 1
Correction, Berlu was head or minister of Civil Security at the time in Italy.