How billions vanish into the security industry
thecorrespondent.com
thecorrespondent.com
If you go to the Counter Terrorism Expo in London, you can see this. Dozens of organisations selling effectively the same stuff.
Much of which is actually pure crap from a security/defence standpoint. How do they actually manage to sell it? Connections...hiring people who previously where in side the military/intelligence/Defence Departments etc. The same process as in the US no doubt. The worse thing is that some of the stuff is both expensive, useless and occasionally dangerous for the people who require it.
BAE Systems is the perfect example of this. They are effectively a hidden British government job scheme. They make crap equipment, overly costly and rarely on time. There are many cases where UK tax payer would actually save money by firing the people in the jobs, giving them golden payoffs and buying more effective equipment elsewhere. Meanwhile their troops would be safer. For example the SA80, Westland Apache helicopters costing 50% more than their US-made Longbow equivalents - the list is endless.
I highly recommend the book "Lions, Donkeys And Dinosaurs: Waste and Blundering in the Military" for a quick overview of that.
When U.S. military equipment is considered a bargain... you're in deep doo-doo
There is inherent value in simply having an existing capable defense contractor in your own nation. It isn't about dollars and cents, it's about being capable of fighting a war without outside help (or not being wholly dependent). So you throw money at the local defense contractor to keep it alive. It's expensive to do this, but if you don't you pay for it in other ways because if you buy all of your equipment from foreign defense contractors they can use that as political leverage against you.
A lot of money is spent being prepared for wars that won't happen _because_ everyone is prepared for them.
The industrial world by now is too globalized for this sort of approach to work. We keep pretending otherwise so that money keeps flowing and the general public doesn't freak out, but I bet even the almighty US cannot certify that most of their tech is built at home.
I bet even the almighty US cannot certify
that most of their tech is built at home.
I gotta figure the F-35 is cover for several substantial black budgets at this point, and that it's actually much cheaper than the paper trail would have us believe, simply because I remember reading about the presumed obsolescence of manned warplanes back when the YF-22 and YF-23 were battling for the F-15 replacement program, before the F-22 won.
My rationale being, if pilots are worthless in airplanes, then it doesn't actually matter if the program is properly funded, and it becomes an ideal smoke screen for time and effort diverted elsewhere.
I became even more convinced when I found out the F-22's and the F-35's avionics both were controlled over a firewire bus.
...and what problem would a firewire bus seem to indicate?
(But overall I'd agree that the widely trumpeted F-35 blunder is kind of a PR stunt from the US military for the rest of the world: "look, we've just spent so many billions on top secret military capabilities you know nothing about, so we have super dope secret weapons that will blow you up, and we believe your spies aren't even competent enough to figure out that our secret programs exist, let alone what they do, so we'll "silently" have to brag about labeling it as "spending blunders" for it for some deterrent value"... the problem with this shit is that such an international mil policy strategy with it's possible strategic implications sounds like the prequel of an Apocalypse/WW3 movie... so let's hope this is not the closest variant to the truth or we're all fucked)
They didn't spend extra to develop or patent custom avionics superior to civilian technologies, or even try to lock secret intellectual property into the designs, to create a barrier around the fly-by-wire systems. This is a rare event when it comes to corporations interacting with government programs. Especially when fielding niche high technology line items with decades-long lifecycles.
Whether it was stipulated as part of the government program or one of lockheed's design decisions, there's a sense that the economical option provides breathing room for false compartments, without reducing superficial complexity.
They'll surely have reengineered cables and connectors to survive the aircraft environment, but who wouldn't rather buy a FireWire PHY from Mouser than design and manufacture something similar from the ground up?
Decisions like this will have happened at Lockheed and high up / early in the design phase. (i.e. it's not some subcontractor finding efficiencies but a fundamental block of the system design)
And they even got foreign governments to chip in.
It's not as hard as you think, the contracts and governing laws are big and complicated governing who can do what and know what which is part of why things are so expensive.
The primary business of being a defense contractor isn't building things, it's interacting with the government and farming out work to other companies. A whole lot of that is just compliance.
If there's ever a global conflict where the scope and scale disrupts those global supply lines, it will go nuclear and not matter anymore.
The reality is that we always have to push conflict to the fringes with "Tier 1" states (which I define as people with Nukes). The cold war answer was to fight using proxies indirectly. The modern answer is cyber/information warfare.
The UK learned their lesson on that approach decades ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nassau_Agreement#Skybolt_Crisi...
In the USA, education spending is mostly funneled to cronies. Our elections are well towards being privatized. We blew billions on unnecessary new gear that never worked well and is now landfill. Roads and misc infrastructure is often substandard and overbudget. Etc, etc.
I don't know what the fix is. Maybe more sunshine (transparency, accountability). Like Steve Ballmer's new purpose in life.
This is the key takeaway from the article. Most of the expense isn't making anyone safer, and the advantage is held by the aggressor who only has to be successful once to inflict unpalatable physical, economic and political damage to defending developed nations.
> The question is whether that funding truly advances the cause of the European citizen, or only that of the industry.
The parallels to the drug industry are striking, where often the most expensive drug is the least effective and billions are spent on duplicative competitive approaches.
> Let brilliant scientists get down to work, and leave them alone for five years
It is interesting the advances smaller, less well funded countries, have made in defense spending. Swedish Gotland subs, Israeli Iron Dome missile defense, Norwegian anti-air missles, reputed North Korean advances in EMP weapons, and reputed Iranian advances in fast torpedos, etc.
Sometimes less means more.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADE_651 http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-29459896
http://www.geek.com/apps/tsa-paid-1-4-million-for-randomizer...
Good.