Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

GE's $3 Billion Pentagon Boondoggle

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 11:13 AM
Original message
GE's $3 Billion Pentagon Boondoggle
Nearly everyone thought General Electric's F-136 jet engine was a waste of money. So why did it take Congress and the military five years to kill it off?

— By Adam Weinstein

Tue Apr. 26, 2011 12:01 AM PDT
Even by the freewheeling standards of military contracting, the F-136 jet engine was a boondoggle in the making: a piece of hardware that the Pentagon didn't need and didn't really want, built by a megacorporation that pays no income tax, with a pricetag in the billions. And now it's officially history: After years of attempts to kill off General Electric's controversial "second engine" program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the military finally succeeded yesterday, potentially saving another $2.9 billion and pleasing deficit hawks, who'd long wanted to see the project gone.

The Department of Defense appears to have to scored a rare victory for fiscal sanity by taking out the F-136. "It took 2 SecDefs, 2 Admins & 5+ years, but Extra Engine contract finally terminated, saving taxpayers $1M per day," tweeted DOD spokesman Geoff Morrell. But if the Pentagon won a battle for Joe Taxpayer, the episode suggests it's losing the war against wasteful spending. After all, how did it even get to the point where $3 billion was spent (PDF) on a contract of questionable utility that virtually everyone claimed to hate? And what's it say about our ability to control costs on more popular defense projects?

The Joint Strike Fighter may be an especially easy source of cost overruns. Also known as the F-35 Lightning II, the aircraft is expected to eventually become the workhorse of the military's jet-flying services—the Air Force, Navy, and Marines—for the next 50 years or more. (It was planned to join fighter squadrons this year, but testing delays have forced the services to rely on their current geriatric arsenals.) Since the JSF is such a massive program, intended to replace 95 percent of America's fighter stock, any contractor who's in on the action will benefit richly. Any contractor left out in the cold could see its share of defense dollars dwindle.

more

http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/military-ge-f136-jsf-engine
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Phoenix63 Donating Member (93 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
1. 3 billion flushed down the drain.
Swell.

Greg Palast talks about projects like this in Armed Madhouse. We spend a fortune on useless weapons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KeepItReal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. +1 for Armed Madhouse
Eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 12:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. R'd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wilms Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-26-11 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. GE will claim it as a tax deduction. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 05:32 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC