The DOD just gave away more of your Money.

[mrklean]

Pentagon Awards $294.9 Million in Defense Contracts
By Rich Smith | More Articles | Save For Later
April 21, 2014 | Comments (0)

The Department of Defense awarded $294.9 million in funding via 14 separate defense contracts Thursday. Of these, Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) won two:

A $14.7 million contract modification to supply the U.S. Air Force with initial spare parts for 42 C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft and 22 HC/MC-130J Combat King II combat search-and-rescue and Commando II special mission aircraft purchased under a five-year option contract. Delivery dates on these parts will vary, the Department of Defense said in its press release, "depending upon the lead time to procure."
A $7.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order to repair 12 common cockpit items in U.S. Navy H-60R/S Seahawk helicopters. These repairs are to be completed by Jan. 12, 2016.
Separately, Boeing (NYSE: BA ) was awarded a single contract worth $43.3 million, which modifies an existing contract to provide training and support to U.S. Army units receiving CH-47F Chinook helicopters through Feb. 29, 2016.

[Ibanez]

Pentagon Awards $294.9 Million in Defense Contracts
By Rich Smith | More Articles | Save For Later
April 21, 2014 | Comments (0)

The Department of Defense awarded $294.9 million in funding via 14 separate defense contracts Thursday. Of these, Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) won two:

A $14.7 million contract modification to supply the U.S. Air Force with initial spare parts for 42 C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft and 22 HC/MC-130J Combat King II combat search-and-rescue and Commando II special mission aircraft purchased under a five-year option contract. Delivery dates on these parts will vary, the Department of Defense said in its press release, "depending upon the lead time to procure."
A $7.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order to repair 12 common cockpit items in U.S. Navy H-60R/S Seahawk helicopters. These repairs are to be completed by Jan. 12, 2016.
Separately, Boeing (NYSE: BA ) was awarded a single contract worth $43.3 million, which modifies an existing contract to provide training and support to U.S. Army units receiving CH-47F Chinook helicopters through Feb. 29, 2016.

The $7.3M FFP DO isn't bad, we're talking about repairs. If those SeaHawks crash due to maintenance issues, you'd be calling for the heads of all those involved.


And I guess we shouldn't train our troops to operate and maintain it's equipment and fleet.

Do you disapprove of the amount of money being spent or that these tasks are being contracted out?

[CAA Flagship]

Pentagon Awards $294.9 Million in Defense Contracts
By Rich Smith | More Articles | Save For Later
April 21, 2014 | Comments (0)

The Department of Defense awarded $294.9 million in funding via 14 separate defense contracts Thursday. Of these, Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) won two:

A $14.7 million contract modification to supply the U.S. Air Force with initial spare parts for 42 C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft and 22 HC/MC-130J Combat King II combat search-and-rescue and Commando II special mission aircraft purchased under a five-year option contract. Delivery dates on these parts will vary, the Department of Defense said in its press release, "depending upon the lead time to procure."
A $7.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order to repair 12 common cockpit items in U.S. Navy H-60R/S Seahawk helicopters. These repairs are to be completed by Jan. 12, 2016.
Separately, Boeing (NYSE: BA ) was awarded a single contract worth $43.3 million, which modifies an existing contract to provide training and support to U.S. Army units receiving CH-47F Chinook helicopters through Feb. 29, 2016.

The $7.3M FFP DO isn't bad, we're talking about repairs. If those SeaHawks crash due to maintenance issues, you'd be calling for the heads of all those involved.


And I guess we shouldn't train our troops to operate and maintain it's equipment and fleet.

Do you disapprove of the amount of money being spent or that these tasks are being contracted out?

No, no, no. You got it all wrong, Ibanez.
He is saying that the $294.9 million should be spent on entitlements for the undeserving. Do you know how many government dependents you can buy with that kind of money? Do you know how many votes can be secured with these handouts? This can change the course of history for our nation, but instead, we will spend the money on keeping planes in the air. It's just wasteful.






Did I get that right, kleany?

[mrklean]

Pentagon Awards $294.9 Million in Defense Contracts
By Rich Smith | More Articles | Save For Later
April 21, 2014 | Comments (0)

The Department of Defense awarded $294.9 million in funding via 14 separate defense contracts Thursday. Of these, Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT ) won two:

A $14.7 million contract modification to supply the U.S. Air Force with initial spare parts for 42 C-130J Super Hercules transport aircraft and 22 HC/MC-130J Combat King II combat search-and-rescue and Commando II special mission aircraft purchased under a five-year option contract. Delivery dates on these parts will vary, the Department of Defense said in its press release, "depending upon the lead time to procure."
A $7.3 million firm-fixed-priced delivery order to repair 12 common cockpit items in U.S. Navy H-60R/S Seahawk helicopters. These repairs are to be completed by Jan. 12, 2016.
Separately, Boeing (NYSE: BA ) was awarded a single contract worth $43.3 million, which modifies an existing contract to provide training and support to U.S. Army units receiving CH-47F Chinook helicopters through Feb. 29, 2016.

The $7.3M FFP DO isn't bad, we're talking about repairs. If those SeaHawks crash due to maintenance issues, you'd be calling for the heads of all those involved.


And I guess we shouldn't train our troops to operate and maintain it's equipment and fleet.

Do you disapprove of the amount of money being spent or that these tasks are being contracted out?

I disapprove on the F-22 and F-35. The new Navy Attack ship that will cost more to maintain the ship than it cost. Again, you get paid because of shit like this. TYPICAL!!!!!!!!

[Ibanez]

The $7.3M FFP DO isn't bad, we're talking about repairs. If those SeaHawks crash due to maintenance issues, you'd be calling for the heads of all those involved.


And I guess we shouldn't train our troops to operate and maintain it's equipment and fleet.

Do you disapprove of the amount of money being spent or that these tasks are being contracted out?

I disapprove on the F-22 and F-35. The new Navy Attack ship that will cost more to maintain the ship than it cost. Again, you get paid because of shit like this. TYPICAL!!!!!!!!

You disapprove OF not on. Jesus Christ.

And no, I don't get paid b/c of that.

[mrklean]

I disapprove on the F-22 and F-35. The new Navy Attack ship that will cost more to maintain the ship than it cost. Again, you get paid because of **** like this. TYPICAL!!!!!!!!

You disapprove OF not on. Jesus Christ.

And no, I don't get paid b/c of that.

The money we waste on the F-22 and F-35's could be used to rebuild this country. I want to put Americans back to work. Look how many Public works projects we could fund with that money.

[Ibanez]

You disapprove OF not on. Jesus Christ.

And no, I don't get paid b/c of that.

The money we waste on the F-22 and F-35's could be used to rebuild this country. I want to put Americans back to work. Look how many Public works projects we could fund with that money.

The money we waste on welfare can be used to rebuild this country as well. I'm all for curtailing defense spending, but we can't just limit to that.

[CID1990]

The $7.3M FFP DO isn't bad, we're talking about repairs. If those SeaHawks crash due to maintenance issues, you'd be calling for the heads of all those involved.


And I guess we shouldn't train our troops to operate and maintain it's equipment and fleet.

Do you disapprove of the amount of money being spent or that these tasks are being contracted out?

I disapprove on the F-22 and F-35. The new Navy Attack ship that will cost more to maintain the ship than it cost. Again, you get paid because of **** like this. TYPICAL!!!!!!!!

I'll give you the poor man's translation here, Klean.

Nothing in the article you posted has anything to do with the F-22 and F-35. Also nothing to do with the USS Zumwalt.

It is about spare parts for C-130s- one of the most cost effective military aircraft the US has ever put in the sky. The amount of humanitarian assistance those planes have provided over their life cycles is worth the cost alone.

[mrklean]

I disapprove on the F-22 and F-35. The new Navy Attack ship that will cost more to maintain the ship than it cost. Again, you get paid because of **** like this. TYPICAL!!!!!!!!

I'll give you the poor man's translation here, Klean.

Nothing in the article you posted has anything to do with the F-22 and F-35. Also nothing to do with the USS Zumwalt.

It is about spare parts for C-130s- one of the most cost effective military aircraft the US has ever put in the sky. The amount of humanitarian assistance those planes have provided over their life cycles is worth the cost alone.

When did you become a lib

[Ibanez]

I disapprove on the F-22 and F-35. The new Navy Attack ship that will cost more to maintain the ship than it cost. Again, you get paid because of **** like this. TYPICAL!!!!!!!!

I'll give you the poor man's translation here, Klean.

Nothing in the article you posted has anything to do with the F-22 and F-35. Also nothing to do with the USS Zumwalt.

It is about spare parts for C-130s- one of the most cost effective military aircraft the US has ever put in the sky. The amount of humanitarian assistance those planes have provided over their life cycles is worth the cost alone.

Wait, did you think he read the articles?

[Ibanez]

I'll give you the poor man's translation here, Klean.

Nothing in the article you posted has anything to do with the F-22 and F-35. Also nothing to do with the USS Zumwalt.

It is about spare parts for C-130s- one of the most cost effective military aircraft the US has ever put in the sky. The amount of humanitarian assistance those planes have provided over their life cycles is worth the cost alone.

When did you become a lib

This is your problem, you think only liberal minded people can care about humanitarian causes. That's like thinking all blacks are ghetto thugs and all white people are computer geeks. Humanitarian aid saves countless lives. Just look at Haiti, the Tsunami that hit Japan, any earthquake, hurricane, drought ridden country in the past 30 years. We've all sent troops and humanitarian aid.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Good, I would rather the DOD gets that "welfare" instead of people who choose not to work.

One is a good investment

[Ibanez]

Good, I would rather the DOD gets that "welfare" instead of people who choose not to work.

One is a good investment

I think the DoD can become more lean, agile and effective without sacrificing strength but there are still many people who want to fight a war like it's 1943 or produce for the sake of votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The manufacturing of tanks — powerful but cumbersome — is no longer essential, the military says. In modern warfare, forces must deploy quickly and “project power over great distances.” Submarines and long-range bombers are needed. Weapons such as drones — nimble and tactical — are the future.

Tanks are something of a relic.

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.

I would think, it would be wiser to stop wasting money on tanks, and instead revamp and prepare to produce the next technologies. I get that your voters might lose their jobs, but the voters of one district shouldn't be the reason we continue to make obsolete machines and waste money.

[mrklean]

Good, I would rather the DOD gets that "welfare" instead of people who choose not to work.

One is a good investment

I think the DoD can become more lean, agile and effective without sacrificing strength but there are still many people who want to fight a war like it's 1943 or produce for the sake of votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The manufacturing of tanks — powerful but cumbersome — is no longer essential, the military says. In modern warfare, forces must deploy quickly and “project power over great distances.” Submarines and long-range bombers are needed. Weapons such as drones — nimble and tactical — are the future.

Tanks are something of a relic.

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.

I would think, it would be wiser to stop wasting money on tanks, and instead revamp and prepare to produce the next technologies. I get that your voters might lose their jobs, but the voters of one district shouldn't be the reason we continue to make obsolete machines and waste money.

It should be cut by 1/3.

[Ibanez]

I think the DoD can become more lean, agile and effective without sacrificing strength but there are still many people who want to fight a war like it's 1943 or produce for the sake of votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




I would think, it would be wiser to stop wasting money on tanks, and instead revamp and prepare to produce the next technologies. I get that your voters might lose their jobs, but the voters of one district shouldn't be the reason we continue to make obsolete machines and waste money.

It should be cut by 1/3.

1/3 seems quite arbitrary. What would you cut? OTHER THAN THE F-35?

[CID1990]

I think the DoD can become more lean, agile and effective without sacrificing strength but there are still many people who want to fight a war like it's 1943 or produce for the sake of votes.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;




I would think, it would be wiser to stop wasting money on tanks, and instead revamp and prepare to produce the next technologies. I get that your voters might lose their jobs, but the voters of one district shouldn't be the reason we continue to make obsolete machines and waste money.

It should be cut by 1/3.

Dude it is nothing short of a biological wonder that that peanut you have in your skull can even maintain basic functions like breathing.

[Ibanez]

It should be cut by 1/3.

Dude it is nothing short of a biological wonder that that peanut you have in your skull can even maintain basic functions like breathing.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Social Welfare should be cut by 2/3.

[BlueHen86]

I think we should make all welfare recipients enlist in the Army. Once that is done, we should invade Iraq again. Only this time we never withdraw our forces.

[SuperHornet]

I think we should make all welfare recipients enlist in the Army. Once that is done, we should invade Iraq again. Only this time we never withdraw our forces.

Why specifically the Army?

[Ibanez]

I think we should make all welfare recipients enlist in the Army. Once that is done, we should invade Iraq again. Only this time we never withdraw our forces.

Why specifically the Army?

Because the Army is an invasion/occupation force. The Marine Corps needs to remain small.

[CID1990]

Why specifically the Army?

Because the Army is an invasion/occupation force.

Not anymore

85% support to 15% warfighter ratio

the Army barely occupies its own bases

there's a LOT of fat that can be trimmed without reducing one iota of warfighting capability

[Ibanez]

Because the Army is an invasion/occupation force.

Not anymore

85% support to 15% warfighter ratio

the Army barely occupies its own bases

there's a LOT of fat that can be trimmed without reducing one iota of warfighting capability

The combat portion of any armed force has always been smaller than it's administrative/support portion. That isn't anything new. But you're right, there is so much that can be trimmed and so much that has been trimmed. The Joint Base realignment, for instance, has tried to reduce local redundancies, and from my Point of View, it's been somewhat successful. Combining many aspects of Charleston Air Force Base with the Naval Weapons station caused people (civilian and military) to be laid off, forced into retirement and/or reassigned elsewhere.

[kalm]

Not anymore

85% support to 15% warfighter ratio

the Army barely occupies its own bases

there's a LOT of fat that can be trimmed without reducing one iota of warfighting capability

The combat portion of any armed force has always been smaller than it's administrative/support portion. That isn't anything new. But you're right, there is so much that can be trimmed and so much that has been trimmed. The Joint Base realignment, for instance, has tried to reduce local redundancies, and from my Point of View, it's been somewhat successful. Combining many aspects of Charleston Air Force Base with the Naval Weapons station caused people (civilian and military) to be laid off, forced into retirement and/or reassigned elsewhere.

I'm fine with that. Just don't make cuts at Fairchild AFB.

[Ibanez]

The combat portion of any armed force has always been smaller than it's administrative/support portion. That isn't anything new. But you're right, there is so much that can be trimmed and so much that has been trimmed. The Joint Base realignment, for instance, has tried to reduce local redundancies, and from my Point of View, it's been somewhat successful. Combining many aspects of Charleston Air Force Base with the Naval Weapons station caused people (civilian and military) to be laid off, forced into retirement and/or reassigned elsewhere.

I'm fine with that. Just don't make cuts at Fairchild AFB.

I know you are kidding (at least, I hope) but that's the idea we have to get away from. How many times have we heard someone, oh let's say SC's darling Senator Graham say that we need to cut, reduce, etc. but not in defense and not in my back yard? I'm all for cuts. If it means Charleston loses something, so be it. AS LONG AS the cuts and savings are realized. That's the next problem, realizing our gains and not just shuffling that money to some other money pit like a Bridge to Nowhere, Welfare, foreign aid, etc... It will never happen though. Nobody wants to sacrifice.