As a retired USAF pilot, I am personally convinced that the upper brass gets all hopped up over the latest shiny toy often to the detriment of “what works”. Unfortunately for the grunts on the ground, and many others, the latest shiny toy is ALWAYS very costly, gets bought in limited numbers, then gets restricted in where it can go and what it is allowed to do because of the cost, complexity and availability.
In 1974, CSAF Gen Brown ordered the demise of the T-29, the C-131, the C-118 and all other “piston engine” aircraft. Okay, his reasoning was to limit the cost of providing both avgas and jet fuel. Even though plans were underfoot to convert them all to turboprop’s ( jet fuel!) he nixed those plans because he wasn’t in favor of props. That eliminated a very rich source of moving small to midsized groups of people / parts / cargo over short to midrange distances. I flew those aircraft and they would have filled niches very nicely in the transport needs. They could have all gone to the guard or reserves and still be flying today. Note: studies proved they had an almost unlimited life span.
They did the same thing with the C-141 in 1994. They, and Congress, rejected the Lockheed overhaul / upgrade, fixed price deal with a 25K hour guarantee on the work because they wanted more shiny new C-17s. The -17 is a good aircraft but is finally getting near the weight-range specs in the original contract after years of work and tons of money. Oh, and to add to the issue, the C-141 met it’s contract specs on day one and could carry items that are too long to fit on the C-17. Note that that required use of the C-5M vice the C-17 to carry those items. I also flew the C-141A & B for 6600 hours.
Congress screwed up the C-5A from the git-go and the AF brass screwed up the B model when it came out. The AF insisted on using more of the under powered engines already on the “A” even though they knew that most of the “As” were getting re-winged after the “Bs” were out. Lockheed wanted to use the CF-6-50E2 already in use and proven on the 747 and KC-10. Nope, can’t do that. Years later, they did that at much greater cost…
Nope… between Congress and the military brass, common sense will in no manner affect how business is done.