Outrage Of The Week - Lockheed Martin!

by Vince?Daliessio

PHOTO: The awesome Lockheed F-22 Raptor, designed to counteract advanced Soviet fighters (whoops), now likely to face challenges from, er,Lockheed F-16s (courtesy Wikipedia)

Recently Playboy Magazine ("I read it for the articles, I SWEAR") exposed (haha) the complete and throughgoing penetration (ahem) of the Bush Administration, and the halls of Congress by representatives of ?ber war-profiteers Lockheed Martin.

In the article, Playboy contributor Richard Cumming (giggle) laid bare (snort) the list of senior management types who have used the revolving door between the defense industry, the lobbying industry,?and government to advance the agenda of Lockheed Martin, which is essentially to get politicians to make the taxpayer buy overpriced devices to murder foreigners with. It's an impressive list.

Today, another aspect of Lockheed Martin's long-term strategy swam into view, this time in a pithy observation by Frida Berrigan of the Arms Trade Resource Center;

?""The Maserati of the Skies"

In 2006, the F-22 Raptor began rolling off the assembly line. The Air Force plans to buy 183 of these high-tech, radar-evading stealth planes, each at a price tag of $130 million, being manufactured in a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. But it turns out that the $130 million per plane cost is just one-third of the total price, once development costs are factored in. The whole program is slated to cost the Pentagon 65 billion big ones. In July 2006, the Government Accountability Office asserted. "The F-22 acquisition history is a case study in increased cost and schedule inefficiencies."

Even if it were a bargain, however, it is a classic case of future-planning run amok. The plane was originally conceived to counter Soviet fighter planes, which haven't menaced the U.S. for more than 15 years. The plane itself is technologically awe-inspiring, reportedly having a twice-the-speed-of-sound cruising speed of Mach 2. (The Pentagon jealously guards its maximum speed as top secret.)

In 2007, the only reason the military might need such a plane is to outfight its predecessor, the F-16, which Lockheed Martin has sold to numerous countries that benefited from the corporation's vociferous lobbying for new markets and our government's lax enforcement of arms-export controls.

In this classic case of boomeranging weaponry, Lockheed Martin has triumphed three times: First, General Dynamics sold F-16 fighters to the Air Force beginning in 1976; second, Lockheed (which bought General Dynamics) sold the planes to Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, and other nations from the 1980s to the present moment; and third, Lockheed Martin (having merged with Martin Marietta in 1995 and adjusted its name accordingly) now gets to produce an even higher tech plane for a U.S. Air Force that fears it might be outclassed by foreign military hardware that once was our own. The Bethesda-based company ended 2001 with a stock price of $46.67 a share ? and began 2007 at a celebratory $92.07.

The Next Generation Fighter

Of course, the lesson drawn from this is to produce yet more futuristic planes. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, built by a team led (yet again!) by Lockheed Martin, made its initial flight on December 15, 2006. The total program could surpass $275 billion, making it the most expensive weapons program in U.S. history. Prime contractor Lockheed Martin is sharing the work and profits with partners Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems (not to speak of scads of subcontractors).

The Air Force already hails the F-35s "transformational sensor capability" and "low-observable characteristics" that will

??? "enable persistent combat air support over the future battlefield. Furthermore, [the] F-35 will help enable the negation of advanced enemy air defenses because it will possess the ability to perform unrestricted operations within heavily defended airspace."

Somewhere in there it is implied that this plane launches missiles that kill people, but it is very deeply embedded. Nowhere does it say that its opponent in the skies could be the F-22 Raptor, once it is sold to all those nations who find their F-16s woefully out of date."

As sitcom character Steve Urkel used to say, wanly, when confronted with a screwup - "Did I do that?"

(Links from LewRockwell.com)

Comments

Hmm, instead of buying more air-supperiority fights, which are actually useless in the new kind of asymmetric wars, the US military should start thinking about their grunts and special forces. Isn't their life more important than some piece of air equipment that is truly not prepared for the future? The equipment of the standard US soldier/Marine or Ranger is outdated, they even don't have enough Kevlar armour to equip everyone sufficiently. In comparison, the under-funded German Bundeswehr may have no military significance whatsoever, but their personnel is better suited may it be the KSK or the normal soldier. So, instead of wasting billions on modern planes, perhaps they should invest in those who die in Iraq and give them some decent gear...

Or maybe we should take a page from Switzerland's survival handook. That is: political neutrality and a nation of largely armed and trained citizens. As I understand it, no nation would dare attempt military control of Switzerland, as it would require at least tens of millions of armed troops, and cost millions of casualties. Last time I checked, Switzerland hasn't been involved in a political conflict (war) in over 200 years. In contrast, the US, with it's enormous standing army, navy & air force, has been involved with well over 100. The US founding fathers desired a well-armed militia, capable of defending against any invasion but completely incapable of overseas military adventures such as WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq1, Iraq2, etc.......

The Cold War is over - we won! Let's demobilize and realize a peace dividend. The problem is that our entire society has been brainwashed, conditioned to think eternal war is somehow normal, that unending mobilization for global conflict is somehow an acceptable status quo. Our institutionalized 'total war' culture is slowly but surely destroying our society from the inside out. The only force on earth that can defeat us is us, and we are doing a smashing job of it!

The article says we haven't been menaced by Soviet fighters in 15 years. I'd like to see an instance at ANY TIME when we've been threatened by Soviet fighters. DS is right. A simple (and cheap) neutral policy toward all other nations would go lightyears toward keep US citizens safe within our borders...and probably everywhere else, too.

This is merely another step in the Pentagon's objective of offering lavish contracts to the arms industry, who in turn proiduce progressively more lethal weapons. The taxpayer pays for all this extravagance, but once obsolescence sets in, they make way for the next generation of weapons by selling off the "discards" to client states - often autocratic regimes with little regard for human rights or civil liberties. No one asks who exactly is the enemy? If there isn't one on the horizon, be sure they will find one soon enough - remember Saddam? Notice also, how retiring Generals tend to supplement their meagre incomes by serving on boards of major weapons contractors. Eisenhower had the foresight to warn his compatriots - beware of the military-industrial complex.

Exactly Shubir - what a pathetic excuse for an "enemy" Hussein was! The real firepower in Iraq was waiting for the US leader foolish enough to march into Baghdad, look at what we are up against now - the death merchants selling us billion-dollar weapons systems that don't work ,to use to kill insurgents on the ground.

Post a Repsonse

Code Image - Please contact webmaster if you have problems seeing this image code?Load New Code
Powered by Web Wiz CAPTCHA version 2.01
Copyright ?2005-2006 Web Wiz Guide