Posted on 02/10/2005 7:13:45 AM PST by Jackknife
The Pentagon may not halt production of the Marietta-built C-130J Hercules after all, Sen. Johnny Isakson said Wednesday.
President Bush released a budget proposal Monday that called for eliminating the plane after next year. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has told Georgia lawmakers that the Pentagon is already re-evaluating that decision.
Rumsfeld did not pledge to spare the plane during a meeting with senators Tuesday, Isakson said.
But as soon as Sen. Saxby Chambliss and Isakson asked why the Pentagon was recommending that the plane be scrapped, Rumsfeld was quick to offer assurance that a review of that recommendation was already under way, Isakson said.
"It was a great signal," Isakson said. "It was an ill-fated proposal from the outset."
Rumsfeld also expressed confidence in the F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet, which, like the C-130J, is built at the Lockheed Martin plant in Marietta, Isakson said. But the defense secretary did not offer any assurances the Pentagon would reverse its recommendation that the number of Raptors it buys be cut from 381 to 179.
Chambliss' office said he was not available for comment Wednesday. A spokesman for Rumsfeld could not be reached.
Peter Simmons, a Lockheed spokesman in Marietta, said the company "hasn't been notified by its customer," the Air Force, about any changes in the status of the C-130J.
Lockheed workers build about a dozen C-130J transports annually.
The planes, designed in the mid-1990s, have only recently begun to see regular use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Air Force officials have praised the performance of the cargo planes, countering earlier concerns raised by government investigators who questioned whether the C-130J was performing as it should.
The Pentagon signed a long-term contract to buy the boxy Hercules transports through the end of the decade, and canceling the deal would carry penalties of close to $1 billion, according to people familiar with the terms. Each four-engine transport carries a sticker price of about $72 million.
So far, Lockheed has delivered 121 of the utility planes, with 59 on order. Other C-130J buyers include Australia, Denmark, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Both the C-130J and F/A-22 have a powerful constituency in Georgia because Lockheed directly employs about 7,800 workers. And they have backing around the country, too. About 750 subcontractors in 49 states make Hercules parts — and more than 1,000 subcontractors in 46 states make Raptor components.
So the C-130 IS the Hercules of Howard "the Aviator" Hughes?
This is pork. Pure and simple.
I wish these damn reporters would limit their use of adjectives in their stories.
What a putz. "Boxy", indeed!
Without being told, this guy probably wouldn't know a C-130 from a C-172.
I've lived in the Marietta/Smyrna, Ga. area all of my 40 years, and have always known many people that work at the Lockheed plant. The rumours of cutbacks have always happened, with the results usually being that the cutbacks were minimal. Hopefully, for our military and Lockheed employees, these cutbacks will follow suit, and not be large.
Now if Rummy would only bury the Osprey.
I love the Herc.
It is a fine aircraft that has stood the test of time.
When it comes to hardware like this, I would not call this pork. Granted, our Ga. senators always work to keep Lockheed building aircraft, but I see it more as an advantage for the country and its defenses.
The Herc has, and will continue to make big contributions to our freedom. Time to rethink just how many of these things are really needed. Cripes they are more numerous than bees at a June picnic with aunt Saddie. It is pure pork now--not military necessity.
The Navy tried to terminate the lockheed P3 for about 20 years before they finally overcame the inertia of the defense pork power of the Georgia lobby.
End it and build something useful or develop better equipment for the boots on the ground.
Are you aware that, specially in light of the developments of the last few years, that the task this aircraft does is both common and critical?
well, they do both have wings, tails, and those funny spinning things
Shouldn't you be bothering the Pentagon for its bona fides? Do you think they just might know better than a couple of Senators what they do or don't want for their military?
This does support the troops on the ground. It plays a vital role in logistics. How do you think they get their body armor ? It has to be flown in. Also, there is an armored version of the C-130 that is used in low altitude air cover. These aircraft have tons of moving parts and do get old and die. They have to be replaced. If I for one spending program, it's national defense.
A good airframe is a good airframe...no matter how old it is. (C-47/DC-3) For what a C-130 does, and we here at Hurlburt Field in Florida, can see almost every evening what a C-130 Spectre gunship can do, there is'nt anything else out there that will do the job as well. Sometimes you don't need to fly faster or make it bigger..etc. The C-130, with it's improved engines and props will be a viable aircraft for many years to come.
These aircraft are also used in many humanitarian missions, because of their slow speed, and ease of take-off/landing in a short space. It's a proven design. I can agree that there can be a cutback on the planes, but not the original number proposed. Just an humble civilian opinion.
Giving Congress item-specific control of military spending could be expected to create little but corruption and mismanagement at a $400 billion dollar a year trough.
Congress is composed primarily of lawyers and career bureaucrats who never served in the armed forces and couldn't tell you the difference between a platoon and a battalion. All they know, and all they want to know, is what will get votes and campaign money.
The result is predictable. The Pentagon gets weapons and facilities they often don't want or have any use for. The lawmakers responsible get re-elected. And as always, the taxpayers get the shaft.
Defense money needs to be allocated by the war planners. Give the Pentagon a check and let them spend it as they see fit. No lobbying, no sweetheart deals, no letting traitors like Kerry blow the entire budget on keeping old bases open while cancelling every new weapon new system. Just defending America.
So which is it? Go or no go?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1340289/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.