I mean seriously, you really believe this?
It’s a bit like doing a custom PCB design and fabrication run for personal reasons. It’ll be $10 worth of components, but a half dozen might cost you $1k if you want someone else to set up a run on their machines to make ‘em.
The Stinger missile example further down seems more egregious. edit: Maybe less egregious than I thought; its original microprocessor is now obselete. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIM-92_Stinger#Replacement
Edit:
Yes obviously they are concerned about targeted attacks.
And where do you live that hardware store sells trashcans that verifiably comply with all requirements to be put on a custom military Boeing 707 and not f things up in some costly way? By definition any such trashcan is ripe for targeted attack because no one except US defence would have a use for it.
If you are concerned about targeted attacks, head down to your local hardware store and buy one of the thousands they have in stock.
It's for a highly specialized 707 airliner. It'll be metal, rated for fire resistance if someone sneaks a smouldering cigarette into it, wheeled for servicing, lock into place during flight, etc. You can't buy it at Home Depot, and intelligence agencies are constantly making smaller and harder to detect devices for bugging items.
Funny, HN was up in arms over Titan's use of a logitech controller just a few days ago. But somehow using something from best buy on a freaking expensive plane like an E-3 is a good idea. Well, folks, that way of thinking actually sank the Titan and cost five lives.
I guess the equivalent is putting the flimsy $1.25 trash can from Dollar Store in your spacecraft, instead of a $8 trash can.
Good example with pillows causing a (still!) missing nuclear weapon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Thule_Air_Base_B-52_crash
Are pillows essential to the plane's operation? No, but them not catching fire is.
https://www.govexec.com/federal-news/1998/12/the-myth-of-the...
If US gov bought cheap plastic stuff from another country instead there can well still be corruption expressed in their choice of suppliers etc.
Naive or not, this turns out to be true surprisingly frequently.
> When the 707 fell out of use in the United States, the trash can was no longer a “commercial” item, meaning that Boeing was not obligated to keep its price at previous levels
So now one can look why it cost "mere" $300 before, unless Boeing losing money back then the price hike may be shady behavior and then someone should change supplier asap.
Because what I think is not what you claim.
You defending corruption and fraud is just so far fetched it's hard to take your OP seriously.