And The MIC Rolls On

[unhappycamper]

Weapons That Will Never Die: We Need to Stop the Expensive Reincarnations (Part II)
Saturday 14 May 2011
by: Dina Rasor, Truthout

In Part I of "Weapons That Will Never Die," I examined the problem of buying a weapon, then modifying it and renewing it and remanufacturing it year after year, even if it had dubious battlefield effectiveness and massive cost overruns. I used the example of the Maverick missile as a weapon that has been modified over and over even though it caused manufacturing problems and even though 69,000 have been manufactured since the Vietnam era and only 6,000 have been used in war. Many of these weapons live on for generations because the companies that build the weapons and the DoD department that uses the weapons push an eager Congress to mindlessly continue to build these weapons, despite war history and life-cycle costs showing it to be ineffective and expensive. A constituency in Congress pushes for these weapons because of the entrenched jobs in Congressional districts and states all across the country that no member of Congress wants to lose.

In this column, I want to offer a basic and achievable solution that will not be a cure for these perpetually reincarnated weapon systems, but a starting place to see if they are worth remodeling and buying more compared to a new weapon system. But first, to further illustrate the problem of flawed systems and how this problem effects the DoD and the Congress, I would like to take the reader on a history lesson of how not to buy, remodel and remanufacture an airplane from a personal point of view.

I started my investigative journalism career at age 24, and my first big exposé was problems with a proposed wing modification for the C-5A cargo plane. When I came into this new round of the problems of the C-5 in 1979, it already had a notorious history. Seen as a great concept to fly large units of soldiers, equipment and logistics all over the world at a moment's notice in the mid 1960s, Lockheed snagged the first contract to build the C-5A. At the time, Lockheed had been failing in the civilian airline market because its L-1011 airliner was failing to more successful Boeing and McDonnell Douglas airliners, and winning the lucrative C-5A contract was seen as part of a bailout for Lockheed.

Technical and financial problems with the airplane were present from the very start. The manufacturing line had poor quality control and cost escalated rapidly. By the time the first test flight of the plane in 1968, the C-5A already had a giant scandal and Congressional investigation that showed that there was an unprecedented $2 billion overrun. This overrun eventually caused the Air Force to buy 31 fewer airplanes for more money. This myriad of problems had been exposed by one main whistleblower, Ernest Fitzgerald, an Air Force financial deputy who was trying to control costs on the program. His forced but truthful Congressional testimony about the overrun led to more technical and financial problems being exposed by a determined Sen. William Proxmire. A few years later, Henry Durham, a Lockheed production manager for the C-5A production line in Marietta, Georgia, exposed massive quality control problems, while Air Force officials looked the other way, because he feared the plane was in such bad shape that it threatened the lives of the pilots and troops that flew in it.

The Air Force, the DoD, Lockheed and Presidents Johnson and then Nixon, all circled the wagons and went after the truth-tellers instead of acknowledging and fixing the problem. Fitzgerald had all his duties taken away from him and was warehoused in the Air Force with little work to do. Henry Durham had to leave the company and Senator Proxmire sent federal marshals down to Georgia to protect his family because he was receiving threats, including a threat to throw acid in his daughter's face.





unhappycamper comment: Here's some of the people-killing stuff we've been buying for a loooong time:

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Scuba]

2. Yes, but remember, all the dollars....

...spent on weapons are stuffed into bloated Swiss bank accounts, thereby helping the economy.


If you give those dollars to teachers or firemen, they'll just spend them.

[Oceansaway]

3. k & r...nt

[izquierdista]

4. Fear of The Depression

Americans have learned well the lesson of WWII, that it pulled America out of the Depression. So ever since 1940, we've been spending on war and armaments to keep people busy and employed. As one who charged lots of hours to the Maverick program, wondering if there wasn't something more worthwhile that I could be doing, I think I was one of the few who realized the circular logic of the weapons business. Most of my co-workers were just glad to have a good paying job.

Things have changed a lot since 1940, a new interstate highway system has gone in and now is becoming increasingly expensive to maintain; the electric grid has covered the entire country, but it too is in need of major upgrades to become a 'smart' and renewables based grid. DoD spending created the Internet, which has created a whole new sector to the economy.

If something is to happen in America, it seems it has to have a military 'national security' motivation to get the proper funding. That and component factories in every congressional district. It's too bad that we can't build things because it would make our lives better, never mind what use the military can make of it.

[spanone]

5. K&r...

[nenagh]

6. Thank you, unhappycamper...

Speechless.. esp the 1st photo..

[azul]

7. This hit me like a ton of books in the 60's

My father was making and selling missiles for Hughes Aircraft and he would came back from some war games or sales pitch and say the best product was not given the deserved dollar award. Meaning corruption: bribery and politics: waste and fraud.

And I looked hard at the war effort and went from wanting to be a fighter pilot to giving up ambition to fight in disbelief and shame. The MIC does indeed roll on, yet who can stop it?