
Opinion: U.S. Military Aircraft Fly Toward A Waterfall - protomyth
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_12_30_2013_p15-650072.xml
======
ryanackley
Um...anyone ever heard of the term "military-industrial complex"[1]? I would
opine that the decline of this is a good thing. You might be able to trace a
bunch of evil things to it. For example, NSA spying and the invasion of Iraq.

I assure you that the chances of the defense industry running out of things to
produce in the USA are wildly exaggerated. The article sounds like a shill
piece for the defense industry.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_com...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex)

~~~
javert
> You might be able to trace a bunch of evil things to it. For example, NSA
> spying and the invasion of Iraq.

That is hand-waving. You might be able to. You also might be able to trace
JFK's assasination to a jilted lover.

The problems you speak of are more likely ideological, although the NSA issue
might just be pure careerism (as there is no modern ideology that claims that
1984 is a utopian book).

~~~
ryanackley
I think it's reasonable to assume that some of the political pressure to go to
war or fund overreaching government programs is based on the corporate
interests of government contractors.

I didn't think I needed to connect the dots between corporate interests,
federally funded jobs in legislators home districts, and American policy. It
should be obvious but that is just my opinion.

~~~
javert
So you are saying that a majority of the legislators and the executive are all
pursuing foreign wars... because some voters in their districts work for
defense companies? I don't think that argument holds water because it's not
true that defense employs an overwhelming number of people in the average
legislative (Senate or Congress) district.

Or are you saying they are directly being bribed large sums of money to do it?
If so, please provide evidence. That doesn't seem plausible in the US where
direct bribes are rare and can be caught.

> It should be obvious but that is just my opinion.

Oh, right. The reason your argument is not specific and empirical is because
you are appealing to the "obvious" i.e. "your opinion." And I must be stupid
to not see that your opinion is just obvious.

~~~
ryanackley
That isn't what I'm saying but I'm not going to argue with you. It's my
opinion. I don't understand why you seem so angry about it.

------
a_c_s
Isn't buying things for the military out of concern for industrial needs
rather than strategic need the definition of the military-industrial complex?

The sooner this 'post-Cold-War day of reckoning for military aircraft'
happens, the better.

~~~
ars
Having the ability to produce heavy machinery IS a strategic need.

The military will not let all those factories go under because it wants to
ensure the domestic ability to produce military equipment.

It's expensive though, you either pay factories to exist but not do anything,
or you build unneeded machines, or you figure out how to make a "modular"
factory that can be converted in a time of need.

~~~
lmm
If the military needs some factories, why don't they buy some factories, and
run them as profitably as they can? Buying stuff they don't need from
contractors is a strange, inefficient way to keep industrial capacity if
that's what they really want.

~~~
ars
It's not strange at all. First the military is a military, it's not a
contractor. It's just not what they do.

Additionally privatization is usually pretty efficient. Among other things it
also lets the factory owners do other things with the factory which can bring
cost savings.

And finally one of the unwritten goals of the military is the economy.

~~~
Jtsummers
> Additionally privatization is usually pretty efficient.

By some measures of efficiency. It also means that the military _can 't_ do
in-theater activities they used to do. They can barely cook their own meals
anymore. That said, they have no real role in the manufacture of systems other
than as customers and future maintainers, that's where the private industry
belongs. State-side, many bases are guarded by private contractors who had
(for a time, this changed) the physical fitness requirement of having a pulse.
Aircraft maintenance is a combination of public (military run depots, mostly
staffed by a combination of civil servants and contractors) and private (NG or
Boeing or whoever run facilities). Both have issues, but the latter is quite
effective at lobbying to continue to get their incentive pay even after
destroying an aircraft [1]. I'll note, FOD damage occurs at military run
depots as well. But they don't get their incentive pay for destroying an
aircraft, they risk being put at the top of the next BRAC list.

[1] [http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-
trash...](http://defensetech.org/2012/01/27/a-basic-mistake-that-trashed-a-
jstars/)

------
pilom
I worked for one of the big defense contractors until recently. One of the
most enlightening things I got to see while there was a tour of the F-18
assembly line. While the fear about what would happen to the jobs and the
facility after the end of production was palatable, it was amazing to see the
facility.

The challenges faced by big assembly line manufacturing were so foreign to me
coming from a computer programming background. For instance while as a
programmer, my bugs might crash a computer, for them, an unused rivet hiding
in the bottom of an engine might clog a fuel line and crash a plane. Made me
appreciate the manufactured goods in my life more.

~~~
Spearchucker
It's an educational experience for sure, and has some bearing on how we build
software. Imagine using scrum to develop an F18. Or a heart monitor you strap
to your wide to monitor your kid's heart beat during labour. How stable or
even coherent would Excel be if it was built using eXtreme Programming?

~~~
bane
What's interesting is that in the early days of the jet age, fast protyping
and testing _was_ the norm when designing new aircraft.

The dozens of experimental planes from that age are fascinating stuff.

~~~
Spearchucker
Prototyping is a technique that addresses some of the shortfalls in waterfall.
Amusingly, other than names for things there is nothing new in agile
methodologies like scrum and XP. They've been around since the early '80s.

If you're into process, try and get your hands on a copy of (it's a mouthful)
-

Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions: A Catolog of Modern Engineering
Paradigms: A Catalogue of Modern Software Engineering Paradigms (Yourdon Press
Computing), by Peter DeGrace and Leslie Hulet Stahl.
[http://www.amazon.com/dp/013590126X](http://www.amazon.com/dp/013590126X).

------
chiph
From a strategic sense, we would want to have (at least) 2 competing aircraft
makers so that they compete against each other and innovations continue to be
made. However, the cost of new aircraft is absurdly high, to the point where
this might be unsustainable as a nation.

In a way, we have become victims of our own success. During the 1st and 2nd
Gulf Wars, we lost very few aircraft. Mostly because of their superior
technology and design, and ability to counter the threat of Iraqi defenses. In
the future, we might face a more challenging opponent - either because they
produced better air defense systems, or because we allow our aircraft to
become obsolete.

Because our aircraft have been so good, it's tempting to mission-overload
them. Build fewer, more-capable aircraft (or now, drones). But that increases
the percentage loss of capability for each aircraft that is destroyed. Lose
one plane out of two hundred, that's 0.5%. Lose one plane out of 50, that's a
2% reduction in airpower.

So it might make sense to build more planes/drones, each of which costs less
(and is individually less capable), and run the assembly lines at a slower
pace. The cost then becomes more predictable and more even over the years (no
huge expenditures in one year, and nothing the next). It'd take longer to
fully staff a squadron, but would also ensure that new aircraft enter service
each year so that the entire force would be, on the average, fairly new.

------
mcguire
I seem to recall an adage about "you don't get to fight a war with the army
you want; you fight a war with the army your predecessor wanted", probably to
fight the previous war.

The next war the United States gets into (and I mean "war", not "trivial
intervention into some random third-world country") is going to be a lulu.
Someone ought to hope that it lasts long enough to build up the army that is
actually needed.

Unfortunately, any solution that starts with "prioritizing industrial-base
concerns" is unlikely to improve the situation.

------
jgeada
If the US would just stop procuring "perfect" aircraft that are all things to
all men, the aircraft might just be cheap enough that we could afford to buy
them. As it is we end up in a cycle of funding too-expensive aircraft with
never-before combined features, fail expensively and require an even more
ambitious program to fill the gap. A great recipe for the industrial complex
that feeds off this cycle, but not so great for our defensive capabilities or
our budget.

To be honest, right now, I couldn't give a damn if we didn't buy any more toys
for the damn armed forces to play with. We already nearly outspend the rest of
the world combined and it isn't enough? Give me a break.

------
bonemachine
_Yet the past few months have seen stark harbingers of looming pain._

Strange notion of "pain", there. Coming from an industry whose main purpose,
basically, is to drop fire on people.

~~~
ars
No, that's not the main purpose. It's the stated ability, but the main purpose
is to scare others into not even thinking of attacking, and the secondary
purpose is to provide jobs.

~~~
bonemachine
Well, its real, main purpose is to provide a gravy train to its various first-
tier stakeholders (elected representatives, and white collar defense
contractors). As a side effect, it creates a lot of blue collar jobs, also --
but these are of secondary importance (i.e. they don't wag the hound nearly as
much as the first tier).

After that its purpose seems to be to make Americans _feel_ "awesome" and
"safe", in approximately equal measures. In that sense "kicking ass" (i.e.
dropping fire on people for no good reason) seems to be about as important as
making "feel safe."

Whether the industry actually _keeps_ us safe from external violence to any
appreciable degree (i.e. that would be anywhere near worth the expenditure of
blood and treasure devoted to that industry) seems to be highly debatable (and
as a benefit, of at most tertiary significance, in this scheme).

------
bane
The best part is how, after the production runs are terminated, all of the
specialized equipment needed to build those aircraft are also destroyed, so
the lines can never be resurrected. This results in a new competitive bid for
an all new aircraft design when the existing aircraft get too old. It takes a
couple decades to bring a new modern aircraft from blueprint to regular
production run. The F-22 program, started in a competitive process in _1981_.
It's literally the very best of late '70's mature technology with some very
early 1980's hi-tech tossed in.

Another point, the South Korean acquisition of the F-35 (called the F-X 3 in
the article) may be one of the dirtiest acquisitions that's ever been publicly
reported. _Before_ the competition was even let, Lockheed had greased enough
palms and secured a sure "win". Unfortunately, South Korea put in place an
independent agency (DAPA) and legal framework to control defense acquisitions
and the Lockheed bid lost badly (overbudget, not enough extras to juice it,
they were sure of the win why not gouge the customer a bit?).

The award went to Boeing and an all new custom variant of the F-15 that
offered greater mission capability at a lower price, and involved significant
technology transfer to South Korean industry (the aircraft would be majority
built _in_ Korea ramping up domestic expertise for future home-grown aircraft
design). It was underbudget, more mature and featured several nice extras in
the purchase package. There were so many positive points in favor of the F-15
acquisition that only an idiot would have turned it down and it would still be
generations ahead of anything North Korea or China could throw at it. I
believe they met every single one of the RFP requirements to the letter or
better. I think they would have even gotten 20 more aircraft under the Boeing
deal!

The original officials who were bribed for their approval of the f-35 created
all kinds of chaos and essentially overwrote the acquisition agency's legal
award. They then setup a new "competition" and of course the award went to
Lockheed.

I've been following the story for a while and it's interesting that now that
Lockheed won the final contract, the previous dirtiness of it all is barely
reported.

[http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-
Wires/2013/092...](http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-
Wires/2013/0924/F-15-Silent-Eagle-Why-South-Korea-rejected-this-jet)

 _Boeing 's F-15 Silent Eagle had been in the box seat to win the 8.3 trillion
won ($7.7 billion) tender - as the only bid to fall within budget - but former
military top brass and even the ruling party's lawmakers had criticized the
plane as it lacked crucial stealth capabilities._

~~~
throwaway374658
"The original officials who were bribed"

There is just no end to the things US does abroad. It is a shame. American
people believe in freedom and honor while their officials will just do
anything even for simple commercial interests.

Here is an example from Turkey. There is this cult called "Fethullah". They
infiltrate to police and courts to advance their cause in the state. Their
goal is to bring an Islamic state to Turkey. Ironically, the cult works with
CIA on many levels to help each other.

In the last decade, Turkish navy started making their own ships and equipment,
changing a hundred year of tradition of buying from US. The result? The cult
put all of the generals, officials, and engineers who worked on the new ships
and equipments behind bars.

Everybody knows that CIA is behind this since the cult have no reason to do
this on their own. Nobody knows what they've got from CIA in exchange though.

~~~
rossjudson
Keep in mind that this is _two different_ US companies fighting against each
other (Boeing and Lockheed).

With regards to the 'cult' \-- there are plenty of reasons that cults put
thinkers and doers behind bars. They don't like all that messy fact-based
thinking, and they don't like competition for hearts and minds.

I can reuse your argument. The CIA has no reason to bring an Islamic state to
Turkey. That means the cult made these arrests on their own.

------
velodrome
These companies can re-purpose themselves to fill other needs.

For example, Boeing lost an important military contract to build a heavy
transport plane. Looking for another source of revenue, they ended up building
the Boeing 747 - one of the most popular airplanes on the planet.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747)

~~~
a8da6b0c91d
Modern fighter aircraft need large single piece titanium parts, and this is
essentially the only demand for the pressing facilities. If you don't support
the presses somehow, the capacity goes away. This is just an example of how
military industrial needs are specific.

------
khafra
Is this why Skunk Works announced they're 5 years away from practical fusion?
Is Lockheed Martin looking to make up their revenue shortages by switching
from the DoD to the DOE?

------
DanielBMarkham
"... Rather than procuring 48 planes per year for 10 years, why not 36 per
year for 13 years? .."

Or how about forcing military aircraft producers to use smaller domestic
partners to do subassembly, thereby "unbundling" the purchase? This would also
create higher unit costs, but would also create an ecosystem of small
manufacturers.

I agree there is a strategic problem at play here, but the answer is forcing
more competition instead of paying more to huge conglomerates. Manufacturing
is set to take off over the next decade or two, and it's not going to be BigCo
manufacturing. If we wish to address this strategic problem, we need more
emphasis on mom and pop manufacturing.

~~~
protomyth
"use smaller domestic partners to do subassembly"

That's actually a problem with government projects. Every congressional
district needs to supply a part it seems. Unbundling is basically a bribe and
corruption in our system.

