"The Pentagon has spent $6.9 billion on the RAH-66 Comanche, an armed reconnaissance and light attack helicopter, since it began development in 1983. More than two decades later, it has only two of the helicopters, officials said."
"Army acquisitions chief Claude Bolton said he expected to incur termination fees of between $450 million and $680 million to Boeing and Sikorsky, far less than some analysts had said. "
I applaud the DOD's decision to scrap the Comanche. However, where did all the money go, and what purpose do the termination fees serve? As dependent as aerospace contractors are on military projects, when we have half a trillion dollar debt, doesn't 5-700 million in termination fees seem excessive? Especially in light of this quote from the Washington Post:
"The Army would have spent $14 billion on the Comanche program through 2011 without getting aircraft significantly more capable than the upgraded Apaches it already plans to buy, Army officials said. "
SO, in summary, the money is spent, there is no improvement over what we already have, and we have to pay half a billion plus to cancel the contract. I need to get into weapons research.
I understand that military equipment takes years to procure and lots of money to develop, but this seems outrageous, especially on the heels of the Crusader cancellation, after 11 billion dollars had been spent (wasted?).
I can't even believe I (generally a big fan of military spending) am saying this, but how far would 18 billion dollars go in our schools?
No comments:
Post a Comment