I didn't understand the article using the term "penny-pinching" about the USCG effort to rebuild their MH-60T fleet using new "hulls" from Sikorsky (the subject of an earlier thread).
If USCG is constrained to a small budget and has the skilled in-house workforce to progressively rebuild helicopters at a lower cost, then what is wrong with that?
Having said that, I would have expected all drivetrain components to have much shorter service life than the airframe, so it really seems like the only saving USCG can make is using its own workforce to assemble the helicopters rather than paying Sikorsky for supplying complete machines.