Posted on Oct 23, 2015
Is the F-35 program a Death Star? Perspectives from Star Wars
11.4K
12
13
4
4
0
"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
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
Weapons
F-35
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 8
1
1
0
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."
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."
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
MAJ (Join to see) 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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Darren VanDerwilt
Slight correction to your statement. The 1991 Gulf War saw 44 air-to-air victories, all but six by F-15C's. I totally agree with your UAV analysis. In my view, future air combat will become the exclusive realm of these aircraft.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Interesting analogy MAJ (Join to see). 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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
LTC Stephen F.
Let me add the quote marks... that's actually the beginning of the article.
Let me add the quote marks... that's actually the beginning of the article.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google