Last dance?

Last dance?

LONDON — “Well this could be the last time. This could be the last time. Maybe the last time – I don’t know.”

So observed one of this city’s best-known defense analysts, Sir Michael P. Jagger. He and his think tank, the Rolling Stones, made their public debut here 50 years ago Thursday.

Jagger and his colleagues’ simple but powerful assessment is just as relevant today, especially for the members of the global aerospace and defense elite that have been camped out this week at the air show southwest of here.


Both public and private statements from the big brand-name defense firms exude confidence: We’re tightening our belts; shifting our focus to exports, sustainment and services; and so long as the worst does not come to pass in Washington or Europe, we’ll be all right.

But what if it does?

Sequestration and the so-called “fiscal cliff” have been the subjects of editorials and columns all week in the newspapers here, where even British commentators agree that Congress must dismantle its own guillotine as soon as it can. Still, despite virtually unanimous agreement that something must be done, nothing is getting done.

Instead, according to reports, House Republicans and the Pentagon fought a duel this week over the numbers of pages DoD may include in the reports it sends to the Hill – and that is not a joke.

The report-page farce probably will only deepen pessimism about the prospects for Washington to get its act together. None of the parties in last summer’s debt ceiling debacle actually wanted the U.S. to lose its sterling credit rating (one hopes) – yet it did. None of the parties trying to save the defense budget this year want it to actually lose some $487 billion in growth over the next 10 years – yet it may. Or at very least, fears that it may are leading to ripples in government and industry that could be destructive in their own right.

Europe is, if anything, an even more complicated problem. Its central bankers and governments and electorates must continue to weather the buffeting of its debt crisis, which could lead to outcomes for the defense industry ranging from bad to catastrophic.

All of this leads back to the unspoken question at the Farnborough Airshow – is this the last dance? There will certainly be air shows in Le Bourget next year and again in Farnborough the year after that, but how will they compare to the enormous, loud, muddy, loved and hated institutions they’ve always been?

There’s no way to tell now. There’s even a case to be made that the real heyday of the airshows is already long past, since the Soviet Union no longer sends its latest warplanes to shock the West with their power and maneuverability. (Or crashes.)

Commercial aviation, “security” and trade exhibitors may keep Farnborough and Le Bourget profitable, but the overall grandness or humbleness of tomorrow’s air shows could be a key unofficial barometer of how bad things ultimately turned out.

Join the Conversation

Mr. Ewing: Nice phrase: “Congress must dismantle its own guillotine.” Good report. TE

Last dance…sure seems so.

In the 1960’s the amount of money we spend on defense today bought marvels of modern aviation unrivaled even by today’s latest aircraft, most of which are slower and don’t perform as well, despite huge advances in technology and materials. The defense corporations themselves would like you to believe that anything or anyone killed the industry other than their own sloth, stupidity, and greed. The truth is, during the Cold War when we used capitalist principles to our advantage when buying weapons, our weapons were the best in the world. Ever since we started putting the US taxpayer on the hook to reward the defense contractors for failure, they have failed and in a spectacular way. But hey, why go back to a method of procurement that worked? Let’s stay the course, confident we are doing the right thing despite all evidence to the contrary, and see where it ends.

3 problems all of which are either in whole or in part responsible for exuburant cost of of systems depending on the system in question.

1) DoD red tape making even simple cost savings changes impossible as their hands are in the nitty gritty.
Get the DoD OUT of the engineering side of the business, NOW. Not completely possible but unless the handcuffs come off the engineers procurement will continue to be horrendously expensive. As when you have several hundred engineers sitting on their thumbs instead of designing and testing, no advancement is made to correct problems that will always be there on new products. Expecting a perfect product out of the gate is naive and stupid. There has never been such a product and never will be.

2) Rewarding companies for failure
So, companies go after contracts instead of products. Before, companies made products then got the contracts. There also need to be ways for companies to LOSE money when they don’t perform. No more guaranteed 15% profit margins.

3) Defense industry is in a very few select companies. All the myriad of smaller companies who were forced to work together and push each other to perform to a higher standard all merged. This derails innovation. Likewise Unions now control who can and can’t do anything in these gigantic corporations so those with ideas aren’t even allowed to create new products or test as horrors you would be invading another union guys so called “turf”. When in a union there is no incentive to actually improve the situation as advancement is based on seniority and not on skill. To fix this monopoly, said gigantic corporations need to be broken up.

All 3 Major problems need fixed.

Mr. Dfens: now that’s really a “Nice phrase”:

Right, because there’s only one person who thinks there’s something wrong with the defense industry. Kill that messenger and everything will be just dandy.

An international milestone
By coincidence, the U.S.-Russian-Japanese crew’s [Soyuz] launch and docking [with the international space station] is coinciding with the 37th anniversary of the world’s first international space mission: the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project.

On July 15, 1975, NASA launched an Apollo capsule and the Soviet Union launched its Soyuz 19 capsule to perform the first international space docking test. The mission set the foundation for the international partnerships that have led to the $100 billion International Space Station in orbit today. — http://​today​.msnbc​.msn​.com/​i​d​/​4​8​1​8​6​9​2​7​/​n​s​/​t​o​d​a​y-t

Isn’t it great to be a capitalist and live in the “free world”? Sure, it just doesn’t get any better than this. Thank you, American defense contractors, for all you have done for this nation and western civilization in general.

You really believe 1960s aircraft outperform current aircraft? You’re absurd and completely lacking in credibility.

Yeah, what do I know? Perhaps you could tell us which airplane has less drag, the F-14 or the F-22? They’re about the same size.

The F-22 is rather sleek and can carry a full load of weapons internally. Even if a clean F-14 has less drag, it won’t once you add the stores it needs to do its job.

The F-14 was an outstanding design, but it was rather underpowered and prone to compressor stalls until the F-14B/D came along. While the F-14 was great at high speeds and altitudes, it can’t compare to the F-22 in terms of raw maneuverability.

Sure, why would we expect the same size and type of airplane that came along several decades later to have less drag? The world is a beautiful place and with each passing day the defense industry shines brighter.

I can’t say for sure but it probably does have less drag. If not consider the different requirements. Internal fuel and weapons bays requires internal space. The F-14 was an interceptor and is quite simply outclassed ny the F-15 and F-22 when the distance closes. The varible sweep wings of the F-14 had disadvantages as well as the advantages most reference. There are reasons only a handful of aircraft use that configuration.

The F-14 is not a 1960s fighter you clod. It’s first flight wasn’t until 1970. Just another reason to doubt anything you state.

It’s first flight was in 1970. They probably designed it that morning.

So there isn’t a 6 in that number anywhere is there?

So we agree that it wasn’t operational in the 1960s, good.

Today, July 20, 2012, marks 43 years since the Eagle landed at Tranquility Base in 1969. There’s nothing wrong with our aerospace industry, but 43 years later we do not have a single rocket that can launch a man into space, let alone land them on the moon. Hell, we’re lucky if we can get a man supersonic in an airplane. We certainly don’t have any of those left that can routinely fly at Mach 3+. But all’s well. Don’t worry your little heads. Watch the grown rich men play kids’ games on TV and don’t worry about where this country is going, because everything is going just fine. Obviously we’re better off having defense contractors design our rockets than we were were NASA designed them, because if we weren’t, the defense contractors, who are making record profits, would have told you so. Obviously we’re better off paying defense contractors $1.10 for every $1.00 they spend designing our aircraft than we were when they funded their own aircraft development programs, because if we weren’t, the defense contractors, who are making record profits, would have told you so. Close the doors at Farnborough, buy rockets from the Russians, spend your children’s money like there’s no tomorrow. After all, you may be right.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.