4 ms·

Most government agencies that do 'research' funnel grant and contract money to private entities. Having scientists or building things directly is 'communism' a

Most government agencies that do 'research' funnel grant and contract money to private entities. Having scientists or building things directly is 'communism' and we're against that. After all, a government employee manages to be both expensive and incompetent, so why not save money by hiring contractors to do their work? /s I think going all in on the F-35 has to do with the some kind of power struggle between the air force and the army. The F-35 is the air force's baby, but it's a ground support role, which means the army is the organization that benefits from it. It's ground support as the air force prefers: fast, stealthy, light, in-and-out and not as the army prefers: slow, heavily armed, lingering for hours. As far as I can tell, the air force doesn't really care to do ground support the way the army would prefer. I assume they resent the idea that they're a support organization and not the principal actors. I don't know, maybe it's tied up in the old idea that pilots are the knights of the skies? Of course, I'm no expert - everything I know I learned here: http://www.jqpublicblog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresents-combat-records-campaign-retire-10/ http://www.jqpublicblog.com/lying-win-air-force-misrepresent... here: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-budget http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/a-10-f-35-air-force-... and here: http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/12/fallows_chart/35e182a0b.png http://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/media/img/posts/2014/12/fa... http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-tragedy-of-the-american-military/383516/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/12/the-trag...

rayiner 12y ago
At least with DARPA it's not about communism but wanting to avoid bureaucracy. They don't even own their own building and program managers are kicked out after four years. Basically they don't want to become NASA.
- monknomo 12y ago
  It's true that ending up like NASA would be unfortunate, but it seems like there is a better way. Also, my crack about communism was not meant to be from DARPS's viewpoint. I see it more that it is easier to fund something that spreads money to private business across many districts than it is to fund generic government activity.
dubyah 12y ago
No, the reason why is because the F-35 is a multi-service and multi-national project. Couple that with large production numbers trying to leverage the advantages from economies of scale, you have a very heavy program. It's strange how many people hold the F-35 as solely the Air Force's fault when considering the branches and countries involved and especially considering how much the STOVL requirement on the part of the Marines compromised the design for all other variants. The whole F-35 vs A-10 satisfies a lot of tropes; government bureaucracy gone wild, old vs new, Air Force doesn't care about CAS, etc.. The fact is, guided munitions have changed the nature of close air support to the point that most CAS missions have been performed by other aircraft for a number of years now. The A-10 operates well in such asymmetrical environments as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Air Force concern is towards less permissive environments and having an inventory of planes that can multitask vs single-task. The A-10 has always been known to operate only in permissive environments and MANPADS are an emerging threat (Su-25 in Ukraine, for example). Yes, the A-10 is highly survivable, but there is case to be made in not being hit in the first place. I would prefer if they kept the A-10 (and to be honest, prefer if they start fielding A-29 or some other LAS/LAAR craft in such permissive environments), but their argument against the A-10 (essentially, "we prefer to keep it, but other aircraft can do a pretty good role and it's cheaper to abandon it") isn't without merit.

rayiner 12y ago

At least with DARPA it's not about communism but wanting to avoid bureaucracy. They don't even own their own building and program managers are kicked out after four years. Basically they don't want to become NASA.

monknomo 12y ago
It's true that ending up like NASA would be unfortunate, but it seems like there is a better way. Also, my crack about communism was not meant to be from DARPS's viewpoint. I see it more that it is easier to fund something that spreads money to private business across many districts than it is to fund generic government activity.

dubyah 12y ago

No, the reason why is because the F-35 is a multi-service and multi-national project. Couple that with large production numbers trying to leverage the advantages from economies of scale, you have a very heavy program. It's strange how many people hold the F-35 as solely the Air Force's fault when considering the branches and countries involved and especially considering how much the STOVL requirement on the part of the Marines compromised the design for all other variants. The whole F-35 vs A-10 satisfies a lot of tropes; government bureaucracy gone wild, old vs new, Air Force doesn't care about CAS, etc.. The fact is, guided munitions have changed the nature of close air support to the point that most CAS missions have been performed by other aircraft for a number of years now. The A-10 operates well in such asymmetrical environments as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the Air Force concern is towards less permissive environments and having an inventory of planes that can multitask vs single-task. The A-10 has always been known to operate only in permissive environments and MANPADS are an emerging threat (Su-25 in Ukraine, for example). Yes, the A-10 is highly survivable, but there is case to be made in not being hit in the first place. I would prefer if they kept the A-10 (and to be honest, prefer if they start fielding A-29 or some other LAS/LAAR craft in such permissive environments), but their argument against the A-10 (essentially, "we prefer to keep it, but other aircraft can do a pretty good role and it's cheaper to abandon it") isn't without merit.