At the heart of the A-12 legal action are the questions of (a) who caused the delays and cost overruns, and (b) who was minding the store when all of this happened. The issue before SCOTUS may or may not be pertinent to those discussions. Obfuscation, and all that. That's all this was about, not which fighter aircraft we should be buying in 2010.
“…Not every story about military airplanes needs a diatribe…”
True, my point was regarding the issue of cost comparison on what is a benefit vs. tangible waste. At one end of the spectrum we are told this costs too much or that is not needed or something else is a better bang for the buck. Because of political corruption the supposed A-12 super plane was going to be an order of 850 units, yet several proven alternatives have been better choices from the beginning. How is it the government now is in dispute over something they authorized as costing too much. Then turn around and withhold vital information regarding the details on the what, where, when and why’s to prove costs claiming state secrets. If the state controls or owns the supposed secrets then they paid for what they received. If they are disputing the additional payments or now saying they are being charged too much for what they contracted and received…this is wrong. Cost increases are just part of doing this type of technology. If these Bitchaucrats want to make that argument then Congress and these decision-makers have been over paid for the work they do and in fact have not produced at the contracted level for what they have extracted from the citizenry and should return 40% of all their pay and benefits for the last 16 years. Just think about all the trillions spent in the last two years; several billion means nothing in perspective when so much has been wasted by this Government for their political convenience.