Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

GE has said they’ve already spent more than $2 billion on the alternate engine and it doesn’t make sense to kill the engine now. How do you answer that?

0
Posted

GE has said they’ve already spent more than $2 billion on the alternate engine and it doesn’t make sense to kill the engine now. How do you answer that?

0

It’s unfortunate that much has already been spent, but that does not mean taxpayers should be forced to throw good money after bad. The Pentagon and two Presidents didn’t ask for this money; it was added by members of Congress as earmarks. GAO thinks another $5 billion and 6 years would be needed to complete development. There is no reason to keep spending taxpayer dollars on something that won’t save taxpayers money or improve military readiness, especially if it means taking 53 additional planes out of the program. That will also increase the per-unit cost, something else that taxpayers don’t need.

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123