Is the F-35 program a Death Star? Perspectives from Star Wars

2015-10-23T11:56:09-04:00

"After watching the climactic battle scene in Return of the Jedi for the first time, my 8-year-old daughter said, “They shouldn’t build those Death Stars anymore. They keep getting blown up.” She may be a little short for a stormtrooper, but the kid’s got a point.
Yes, the Empire should stop building Death Stars. It turns out the DoD shouldn’t build them either, metaphorically speaking. What sort of system fits into this category? I’ll resist the urge to give specific examples and instead will simply point out that any enormous project that is brain-meltingly complex, ravenously consumes resources, and aims to deliver an Undefeatable Ultimate Weapon is well on its way to becoming a Death Star, and that’s not a good thing."
http://www.dau.mil/pubscats/ATL%20Docs/Sep-Oct11/Ward.pdf

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 11:57 AM

2015-10-23T11:57:27-04:00

I hope that after all the money we threw at it, they can get the damn thing to work.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 12:07 PM

2015-10-23T12:07:17-04:00

Well ... the different is ... DoD see a different kind of war coming ... so a Death Star maybe right for some type of warfare ... that all I can mount to defend it lol

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Oct 23 at 2015 12:09 PM

2015-10-23T12:09:54-04:00

When it comes to the F-35, I dislike the "technology" but like the "philosophy."

To clarify, having a "common platform" for all Services just makes sense. It does. Like the M16 (et al) is the common platform for the Ground Troop when it comes to Small Arms, we should have a common platform when it comes to aircraft.

The long term benefits of being able to shove any pilot into any bird is just there. We no longer have to worry about having A10, or F16, or F35 pilots. We just have "pilots." Sure they are specialized, but there's commonality.

That said, the F35 "technology" is a "can of worms" that cannot be beaten to death. It's great Philosophy, lousy Technology.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 23 at 2015 12:12 PM

2015-10-23T12:12:22-04:00

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA_GXV-T

I believe this is a complete waste of money and it seems that the tests some the same.

DARPA GXV-T - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) project is an effort to develop technologies and designs to create lighter future armored military vehicles.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Oct 23 at 2015 1:06 PM

2015-10-23T13:06:35-04:00

Interesting analogy MAJ Private RallyPoint Member. Thanks for introducing the discussion by mentioning your daughter's reaction to the evil empire building projects. Out of the mouths of children without guile come some amazing perspective statements.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Oct 23 at 2015 1:29 PM

2015-10-23T13:29:56-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member Imagine if they cut even 10% of that program and gave it to NASA...

Better yet, imagine if they gave it ALL to NASA. We'd be on the moon AND Mars this decade.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Oct 23 at 2015 1:34 PM

2015-10-23T13:34:58-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member great analogy, and picture.

Any system that gets to spend money (or seek results) without having to earn it (or pay costs directly) will be subject to inefficiency. Governments are hugely vulnerable to this. The only check the military normally has is combat. Combat is the destructive force or fire that clears the forest in the military, just as competition and firm death clears the forest in private enterprise.

Communities that face combat have innovative tech and tactic movements in our recent wars (SOF, infantry, land vehicles). The enormous and obvious capabilities increase and costs savings of UAVs have led to their explosive growth even though their role itself is not subject to combat loss, it has been heavily combat-employed.

Air to air combat has not faced combat loss or employment since Vietnam (and then barely) the same applies to decreasing extent to the USMC amphibious landing and to armor on armor combat (desert storm). This leads to slow development times and boondoggles in the associated competencies: multi-role fighters (F35) amphibious assault vehicles (EFV) and tanks (M1A successor?).

The other huge factor is politicians protecting jobs in their districts and campaign contributions from defense contractors over military capabilities. To paraphrase MGen Smedley Butler "(voluntary) war is a racket!"

The system isn't broken, its just behaving how it behaves. We have to either change our expectations, or change the system.

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Oct 23 at 2015 7:27 PM

2015-10-23T19:27:56-04:00

One analogy I saw compared the German battleship Bismarck to the Star Wars Death Star. A powerful weapons system meant to be the end-all of surface vessels, built when battleships where on the verge of obsolescence. What brought it down? The very obsolete Fairey Swordfish biplane torpedo bombers from the new "Queen of the Sees," the aircraft carrier. This also happened to the two Japanese Battleships Yamato and Musashi, the biggest and most powerful battleships ever built.
Moral of the story? Like David slaying Goliath, it's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog that matters.

As I've pointed out before, someone somewhere sometime will devise a counter to your "Technological Terror."