tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/lockheed-martin-5147/articlesLockheed Martin – The Conversation2022-04-07T20:56:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1805522022-04-07T20:56:00Z2022-04-07T20:56:00ZFederal budget 2022: More defence funding in wake of Canada’s F-35 about-face<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456610/original/file-20220406-15-a7h8e8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=311%2C236%2C1604%2C1113&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In this 2006 photo, the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is unveiled in a ceremony in Fort Worth, Texas.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/LM Ottero)</span></span></figcaption></figure><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100px; border: none; position: relative; z-index: 1;" allowtransparency="" allow="clipboard-read; clipboard-write" src="https://narrations.ad-auris.com/widget/the-conversation-canada/federal-budget-2022--despite-more-defence-funding--canada-s-f-35-about-face-is-troubling" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<p>The Canadian government <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/f-35-negotiations-1.6399978">recently announced</a> its decision to enter negotiations with American aerospace giant Lockheed Martin to buy 88 F-35 fighter jets. </p>
<p>The $19-billion contract is separate from <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/defence-department-military-canada-norad-ukraine-nato-1.6410530">$8 billion</a> in additional funding for defence that Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland unveiled as part of the 2022 federal budget. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A man with grey hair and glasses speaks into a microphone with a photo of a fighter jet in the background." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456613/original/file-20220406-22-aap83i.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaks following a tour of F-35 fighter jet contractor in Waterloo, Ont., in March 2011.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Geoff Robins</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This is the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/11926422.2011.638199">second time</a> Ottawa has chosen the stealthy aircraft. In 2010, the governing Conservatives said the F-35 was <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/002070201306800109">the only choice</a> for the Royal Canadian Air Force. The opposition disagreed, and the warplane <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0020702015609360">became an issue</a> in successive federal elections.</p>
<p>This history is what makes the recent announcement <a href="https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/government-communications-strategy-designed-two-years-ago-to-justify-f-35-purchase">so embarrassing</a> for the Liberal government. </p>
<p>Campaigning to unseat the Conservatives in 2015, <a href="https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/09/20/liberals-would-scrap-f-35-jet-purchase.html">the Liberals criticized the sole-sourcing of the F-35</a> as both unfair and misguided. They were wrong.</p>
<p>In 1997, the United States government asked a few of its <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09700161.2013.821277">allies to participate</a> in co-developing and co-producing a fighter jet that would become the F-35, and Canada agreed. </p>
<p>The deal was unusual, but its logic made sense, especially to the Canadian government. Why not work with its biggest economic and security partner while also giving Canadian aerospace firms opportunities to win contracts in what is sometimes referred to as the “<a href="https://fmep.org/media/reading/top-news-from-palestine-israel-november-10-2020/">the arms deal of the century</a>?”</p>
<p>The current lifetime cost estimate of <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/air-force-admits-f-35-fighter-jet-costs-too-much-ncna1259781">$1.6 trillion</a> makes it the most expensive weapon system ever built and puts it on equal footing with the entire outstanding U.S. <a href="https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics">federal student loan debt</a> and President Joe Biden’s <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/">Build Back Better plan</a>. </p>
<h2>Fighter jet competition</h2>
<p>In 2017, the Trudeau government launched what it called an “<a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/12/government_launchesopenandtransparentcompetitiontoreplacecanadas.html">open and transparent</a>” competition for fighter jets. Designed to rigorously assess bids on elements of capability, cost and economic benefits, this process eventually came down to just two warplanes — the F-35 and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/swedens-jas39-gripen-may-be-worlds-best-nonstealth-fighter-jet-2021-11">Sweden’s Saab Gripen</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="A fighter jet in a greyish sky." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456616/original/file-20220406-7184-9emya2.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Saab Gripen from the Hungarian Air Force performs during an airshow in Austria in 2019.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Ronald Zak)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>This all but guaranteed the F-35’s win. The last non-American fighter to enter the Royal Canadian Air Force was <a href="https://www.warplane.com/aircraft/collection/details.aspx?aircraftId=15">the Vampire</a> in 1948, manufactured by the British company de Havilland. </p>
<p>As a general rule, Canada’s military wants platforms that offer seamless or advanced interoperability with U.S. forces — not merely compatibility or basic interoperability that would have been the case with the Swedish jet.</p>
<p>The fact that the F-35 is yet to lose a competition is due both to <a href="https://thedisorderofthings.com/2014/05/16/aircraft-stories-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-part-i/">the size of the program</a> and <a href="https://thedisorderofthings.com/2014/05/17/aircraft-stories-the-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-part-ii/">U.S. influence</a>.</p>
<p>The more air forces that buy it — Canada’s decision brings that number to 18 — the lower its operational and other costs. That’s because <a href="https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/what-are-network-effects">network effects</a>, as economists call them, generate not only profits for contractors but also <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423914001103">international power and influence</a>. </p>
<p>Citing security concerns about the aircraft’s design details, the U.S. government is requesting <a href="https://www.c4isrnet.com/smr/5g/2022/01/27/f-35-fighters-5g-networks-and-how-the-uae-is-trying-to-balance-relations-between-the-us-and-china/">every F-35 customer</a> remove all 5G equipment made by China’s Huawei from their networks in the coming years. Those failing to comply will likely be removed from the program. </p>
<p>Something similar <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2019/07/turkey-is-cozying-up-to-china-after-f-35-expulsion-israelis-warn/">happened to Turkey in 2019</a> after its government decided to buy a Russian missile defence system. U.S. officials said that posed risks to the F-35s, including the possibility that Russia could covertly use the system to obtain classified details on the jet.</p>
<h2>Strings attached</h2>
<p>The strings attached to F-35 purchases have prompted some to call the fighter jet program “<a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/12/f-35-sales-are-americas-belt-and-road/">America’s One Belt, One Road</a>” — a tongue-in-cheek reference to China’s major foreign policy initiative and the Chinese tendency to strong-arm smaller states into participating. In Canadian politics, however, those strings are largely immaterial because dependence on the U.S. and its military power has long been a huge net benefit. </p>
<p>But what about today, with <a href="https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2022/02/25/what-the-ukraine-invasion-is-really-about-and-what-comes-next.html">the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/mu8hg">a rising China</a> and a <a href="https://blogs.city.ac.uk/internationalsystemofpower/2021/08/30/white-supremacy-in-hegemonic-contestations/">radicalized U.S. Republican Party</a>? </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="An elderly woman with a white wool scarf on her head and carrying a yellow plastic bag walks past a destroyed apartment building." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/456618/original/file-20220406-5430-m4xe2r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">An elderly woman walks by an apartment building destroyed by Russian shelling in Borodyanka, Ukraine, on April 6, 2022.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(AP Photo/Efrem Lukatsky)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These developments are troubling and disorienting, but the fundamentals of Canada’s defence are not necessarily shifting dramatically. Whatever happens in Ukraine and in future American elections, the U.S. will almost certainly prioritize the North American homeland, keeping a close eye on both Russia and China.</p>
<p>Accordingly, Ottawa will be expected to <a href="https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-this-election-canadians-cant-afford-to-ignore-parties-defence/">add capacity</a> to Canada’s NORAD and NATO commitments, and that means investing in the new aircraft. The new defence budget measures announced by Freeland are in fact designed to strengthen these commitments. </p>
<p>But Trudeau’s topsy-turvy relationship with the F-35 will continue to be mocked. Had the Conservative plan survived the end of the Harper government, RCAF pilots would now be much closer to flying the new jet. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1508615120410365954"}"></div></p>
<p>Instead, until at least 2025 — when the first new F-35s are expected to arrive — they will have to rely on an aging CF-18 fighter force, plus the equally aging, used <a href="https://www.military.com/equipment/f-18c-d-hornet">F/A-18s</a> the Liberals acquired in 2019 <a href="https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/fighter-jets/supplementing-cf-18-fleet.html">from Australia</a> as a stop-gap measure. </p>
<p>Some <a href="https://www.thestar.com/politics/2022/03/29/assessing-the-costs-and-benefits-of-canadas-12-year-f-35-odyssey.html">taxpayer money</a> might have been saved, too, had the government bought the F-35s 12 years ago.</p>
<h2>Standing on its own</h2>
<p>Given the assorted risks and threats Canada could face — including from authoritarian powers, cyber warfare, another pandemic, natural disasters and the accelerating effects of climate change — military procurement is only a small piece of the overall puzzle. </p>
<p>The principal challenge for the federal government is assessing problems in their totality and improving Canada’s own ability to tackle these issues on its own, without being overly affected or reliant on the U.S.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-shows-why-canada-must-reduce-its-dependence-on-the-u-s-136357">Coronavirus shows why Canada must reduce its dependence on the U.S.</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>This requires aligning goals and commitments with necessarily limited resources. A far-reaching, comprehensive review of the defence, security, diplomatic and development issues facing Canada would be a step in <a href="https://www.cips-cepi.ca/2017/02/12/national-interest-in-the-age-of-trump/">the right direction</a>. </p>
<p>One way for the Liberals to atone for their contributions to Canada’s fighter jet replacement farce would be to put forth a strategic vision for the country — and do so sooner rather than later.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/180552/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Srdjan Vucetic received funding in 2011-2014 from Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for a research project on U.S. arms transfers.</span></em></p>Canada’s F-35 flip-flop amid the Ukraine war underscores the need for a far-reaching, comprehensive review of the defence, security, diplomatic and development issues facing the country.Srdjan Vucetic, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, L’Université d’Ottawa/University of OttawaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1788062022-03-09T17:17:30Z2022-03-09T17:17:30ZUkraine: the world’s defence giants are quietly making billions from the war<p>The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been widely condemned for its unjustified aggression. There are legitimate fears of a revived Russian empire and even a new world war. Less discussed is the almost <a href="https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/defense-global-market-report#:%7E:text=The%20global%20defense%20market%20size,(CAGR)%20of%206.8%25.">half trillion dollar</a> (£381 billion) defence industry supplying the weapons to both sides, and the <a href="https://thewire.in/business/russia-ukraine-invasion-business-arms-manufacturers">substantial profits</a> it will make as a result. </p>
<p>The conflict has already seen massive growth in defence spending. The EU announced it would buy and deliver <a href="https://www.euronews.com/next/2022/03/04/ukraine-war-these-countries-are-sending-weapons-and-aid-to-forces-fighting-the-russian-inv">€450 million</a> (£375 million) of arms to the Ukraine, while the US has pledged <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/26/biden-ukraine-military-aid-package/">US$350 million</a> in military aid <a href="https://www.npr.org/2022/01/22/1075064514/ukraine-lethal-aid-us-russia">in addition</a> to the over 90 tons of military supplies and US$650 million in the past year alone. </p>
<p>Put together, this has seen the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-60655349">US and Nato sending</a> 17,000 anti-tank weapons and 2,000 Stinger anti-aircraft missiles, for instance. An international coalition of nations is also willingly arming the Ukrainian resistance, <a href="https://www.forumarmstrade.org/ukrainearms.html">including</a> the UK, Australia, Turkey and Canada. </p>
<p>This is a major boon for the world’s largest defence contractors. To give just a couple of examples, Raytheon makes the Stinger missiles, and jointly with Lockheed Martin makes the Javelin anti-tank missiles being supplied by the likes of the US and Estonia. Both US groups, Lockheed and Raytheon shares are up by around 16% and 3% respectively since the invasion, against a 1% drop in the S&P 500, as you can see in the chart below. </p>
<p>BAE Systems, the largest player in the UK and Europe, is up 26%. Of the world’s <a href="https://blog.bizvibe.com/blog/largest-defense-contractors-world">top five contractors</a> by revenue, only Boeing has dropped, due to its <a href="https://seekingalpha.com/news/3810454-hot-stocks-airlines-plunge-ba-hits-low-vsco-drops-amid-retail-slump-bbby-rallies-vet-sets-high">exposure to airlines</a> among <a href="https://www.barrons.com/articles/boeing-russia-titanium-supply-51646659011">other reasons</a>. </p>
<p><strong>Defence company share prices vs S&P 500</strong></p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Share prices of biggest defence companies compared to S&P 500" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=341&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/450937/original/file-20220309-15-407yi0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=429&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Orange = Lockheed Martin; cyan = Boeing; yellow = Raytheon; indigo = BAe Systems; purple = Northrop Grumman; blue = S&P 500.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Trading View</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Opportunity knocks</h2>
<p>Ahead of the conflict, top western arms companies were briefing investors about a likely boost to their profits. Gregory J. Hayes, the chief executive of US defence giant Raytheon, stated on a January 25 <a href="https://inthesetimes.com/article/ukraine-russia-raytheon-lockheed-martin-general-dynamics-weapons-industry">earnings call</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We just have to look to last week where we saw the drone attack in the UAE … And of course, the tensions in eastern Europe, the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defence spending over there. So I fully expect we’re going to see some benefit from it.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Even at that time, the global defence industry had been forecast to <a href="https://www.thebusinessresearchcompany.com/report/defense-global-market-report#:%7E:text=The%20global%20defense%20market%20size,(CAGR)%20of%206.8%25.">rise 7%</a> in 2022. The biggest risk to investors, as explained by Richard Aboulafia, managing director of US defence consultancy AeroDynamic Advisory, <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/defense-stocks-russia-ukraine-invasion-upends-military-austerity-europe/">is that</a> “the whole thing is revealed to be a Russian house of cards and the threat dissipates”.</p>
<p>With no signs of that happening, defence companies are benefiting in several ways. As well as directly selling arms to the warring sides and supplying other countries that are donating arms to Ukraine, they are going to see extra demand from nations such as <a href="https://theconversation.com/defence-cuts-effectively-paid-for-uk-welfare-state-for-60-years-but-that-looks-impossible-after-ukraine-178680">Germany and Denmark</a> who have said they will raise their defence spending.</p>
<p>The overall industry is <a href="https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/fs_2103_at_2020_v2.pdf">global in scope</a>. The US is easily the world leader, with 37% of all arms sales from 2016-20. Next comes Russia with 20%, followed by France (8%), Germany (6%) and China (5%). </p>
<p>Beyond the top five exporters are also many other potential beneficiaries in this war. Turkey defied Russian warnings and insisted on supplying Ukraine with weapons including <a href="https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/turkey-rules-out-freezing-ukraine-arms-sales-to-please-russia">hi-tech drones</a> - a major boon to its own defence industry, which supplies <a href="https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/2021-03/fs_2103_at_2020_v2.pdf">nearly 1%</a> of the world market. </p>
<p>And with Israel enjoying around 3% of global sales, one of its newspapers <a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium.HIGHLIGHT-an-early-winner-of-russia-s-invasion-israel-s-defense-industry-1.10644292">recently ran</a> an article that proclaimed: “An Early Winner of Russia’s Invasion: Israel’s Defense Industry.”</p>
<p>As for Russia, it has been <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46937#:%7E:text=Despite%20its%20global%20presence%2C%20Russia,of%20Russian%20arms%20since%202016.">building up</a> its own industry as a response to western sanctions dating back to 2014. The government instituted a massive import substitution programme to reduce its reliance on foreign weaponry and expertise, as well as to increase foreign sales. There have been some instances of continued licensing of arms, such as from the UK to Russia worth an estimated <a href="https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/uk-sell-weapons-russia-arms-exports-ukraine-crimea-3585359">£3.7 million</a>, but this ended in 2021.</p>
<p>As the second biggest arms exporter, Russia has targeted a range of international clients. Its arms exports did fall 22% between 2016-2020, but this was mainly due to a 53% reduction in sales to India. At the same time, it dramatically enhanced its sales to countries such as China, Algeria and Egypt. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.airforce-technology.com/analysis/can-russia-make-the-grade-with-the-checkmate/">According to</a> a US congressional budget report: “Russian weaponry may be less expensive and easier to operate and maintain relative to western systems.” <a href="https://www.cairn.info/revue-defense-nationale-2017-7-page-64.htm">The largest</a> Russian defence firms are the missile manufacturer Almaz-Antey (sales volume US$6.6 billion), United Aircraft Corp (US$4.6 billion) and United Shipbuilding Corp (US$4.5 billion). </p>
<h2>What should be done</h2>
<p>In the face of Putin’s imperialism, there are limits to what can be achieved. There appears little <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-idea-of-a-neutral-ukraine-is-a-non-starter-in-peace-talks-178002">credible possibility</a> for Ukraine to demilitarise in the face of Russia’s continued threat. </p>
<p>There have nevertheless been some efforts to de-escalate the situation, with Nato, for example, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/nato-meets-ukraine-calls-no-fly-zone-hinder-russia-2022-03-04/">very publicly rejecting</a> the request of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky to establish a no fly zone. But these efforts are undermined by the <a href="https://www.investors.com/news/defense-stocks-russia-ukraine-invasion-upends-military-austerity-europe/">huge financial incentives</a> on both sides for increasing the level of weaponry. </p>
<p>What the west and Russia share is a profound <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/the-inner-workings-rostec-russias-military-industrial-behemoth">military industrial complex</a>. They both rely on, enable and are influenced by their massive weapons industries. This has been reinforced by newer hi-tech offensive capabilities from drones to sophisticated <a href="https://fortune.com/2022/03/01/russia-ukraine-invasion-war-a-i-artificial-intelligence/">AI-guided autonomous weapons systems</a>.</p>
<p>If the ultimate goal is de-escalation and sustainable peace, there is a need for a serious process of attacking the economic root causes of this military aggression. I welcomed the recent announcement by President Joe Biden that the US will <a href="https://www.state.gov/targeting-russian-elites-and-defense-enterprises-of-russian-federation/">directly sanction</a> the Russian defence industry, making it harder for them to obtain raw materials and sell their wares internationally to reinvest in more military equipment.</p>
<p>Having said that, this may create a commercial opportunity for western contractors. It could leave a temporary vacuum for US and European companies to gain a further competitive advantage, resulting in an expansion of the global arms race and creating an even greater business incentive for new conflicts.</p>
<p>In the aftermath of this war, we should explore ways of limiting the power and influence of this industry. This could include international agreements to limit the sale of specific weapons, multilateral support for countries that commit to reducing their defence industry, and sanctioning arms companies that appear to be lobbying for increased military spending. More fundamentally, it would involve supporting movements that challenge the further development of military capabilities. </p>
<p>Clearly there is no easy answer and it will not happen overnight, but it is imperative for us to recognise as an international community that long-lasting peace is impossible without eliminating as much as possible the making and selling of weapons as a lucrative economic industry.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/178806/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Bloom does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Many defence contractors have seen their share prices soar since the war began.Peter Bloom, Professor of Management, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1771562022-03-03T02:10:07Z2022-03-03T02:10:07ZAustralia spent billions on jet fighters off the plan. Now, we’re having trouble even flying them<p>There’s a problem with Australia’s brand new fighter jet – <a href="https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/defence-revises-down-planned-availability-of-the-f35a-jet-fleet/news-story/a4ea7c4a3437da068aefc63c2a8b15d2">it’s just not that reliable</a>. As a result, it flies about 25% less than it should. Less flying means fewer well-trained pilots, but it also hints at other problems lurking in the background. </p>
<p>Everybody who buys a house or apartment off the plan knows there may be some surprises along the way. Australia’s fighter jets are the same. </p>
<h2>Why Australia bought these jets</h2>
<p>Australia committed to its new F-35 fighters <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/JointStrikeFighter">off the plan in 2002</a>. At the time, the F-35 was still a twinkle in the eyes of Lockheed Martin’s marketers. The US and several European countries had commissioned the aerospace company to design, build and manufacture the F-35, with the first step being a prototype. </p>
<p>Australia’s plan was to buy four squadrons – about 72 jets in total – at a cost of around A$16 billion. The F-35 was intended to replace the air force’s ageing Hornet fighters and F-111 bombers. And back in 2002, when Middle East wars were raging, a short-range stealth fighter seemed more than adequate. </p>
<p>But by 2010, with China firmly on the rise, it became apparent this was a poor strategy. In retrospect, a key error was looking at the F-35 simply as a replacement aircraft without first assessing the changing strategic environment. But by then, too much money had been sunk into the F-35 program to change course. </p>
<p>Then, the F-35 development ran late, and the first tranches of Australia’s fleet weren’t ready to be deployed on operations until <a href="https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/lreynolds/media-releases/australian-f-35a-lightning-ii-achieves-initial-operational">December 2020</a>. </p>
<h2>Escalating problems</h2>
<p>Building the aircraft proved harder than anticipated and this inexorably fed into higher costs. </p>
<p>Much of the money that <a href="https://news.usni.org/2021/04/22/hasc-congress-let-dod-buy-too-many-f-35-fighters-but-not-enough-f-35-spares-sustainment">should have been spent</a> on building the maintenance support system went into trying to fix the aircraft’s continuing hardware and software problems. Accordingly, there are now <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-to-cut-f-35-buy-in-future-years-defense-plan/">fewer depots</a> to fix broken parts and <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/04/25/government-watchdog-finds-more-problems-with-f-35s-spare-parts-pipeline/">fewer spare parts</a> than there should be. </p>
<p>Little of this is in Australia’s control. America’s <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2018-2019_14.pdf">global support solution</a> (GSS) is used to keeping Australia’s F-35 fleet flying. The GSS manages spare parts, maintenance, supply chain support, training systems and engineering. But the program is new, creating problems both now and into the next decade.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-we-need-of-a-military-fighter-aircraft-25907">What do we need of a military fighter aircraft?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There was a second compounding problem arising from the drawn-out development process: the F-35 jets were constructed at different times over the past ten years in seven different configurations. Think about the maintenance staff having to repair individual aircraft in a large fleet with no single standard configuration. Every repair is an adventure – and a learning experience. </p>
<p>The configuration complexity, insufficient spare parts and slow spare part repair times mean there are fewer serviceable aircraft <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/article/make-or-break-time-for-the-f-35/">on the flight line now</a> than was expected even a couple of years ago. </p>
<p>In 2019, <a href="https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/buddy-can-you-spare-some-spares-sustainment-challenges-for-the-f-35/">the Department of Defence estimated</a> the F-35 fleet would fly 11,800 hours in the fiscal year 2021-22. <a href="https://defence.gov.au/Budget/21-22/2021-22_Defence_PAES_00_Complete.pdf">The real figure</a>, however, is 3,000 hours below that. </p>
<p>In simple terms, Australia is short the flying hours needed to keep a squadron’s worth of pilots combat ready. This is very worrying, as Australia only has three operational F-35 squadrons in total. </p>
<h2>Continuous upgrades at tremendous cost</h2>
<p>A perfect solution to this is probably not possible. For example, the two F-35 aircraft Australia bought in 2013 for <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/file/32387/download?token=g-XIvdoM">more than A$280 million</a> are now arguably too old to be upgraded to the current configuration. In terms of flying combat missions, these two aircraft are obsolete. </p>
<p>The US Air Force <a href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40783/early-f-35as-may-get-axed-even-though-overall-readiness-has-improved-significantly">frets its similarly old F-35s</a> are now just crushingly expensive training aircraft. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1364675282393726976"}"></div></p>
<p>Most of Australia’s fleet is planned to be upgraded to be broadly similar to the US fleet, although this will cost even more money. It may seem strange to have to pay extra to upgrade a brand new aircraft on delivery, but that’s not the end of the problems. There is another complication. </p>
<p>Australia’s latest F-35s (as well as the upgraded older ones) use <a href="https://www.anao.gov.au/sites/default/files/Auditor-General_Report_2021-22_13_a_0.pdf">the Block 3F software</a>, a digital operating system designed by Lockheed Martin. It is proving to be just as costly to keep updated as the jets themselves.</p>
<p>Lt. Gen. S. Clinton Hinote, the US Air Force’s deputy chief of staff, has serious concerns about the outdated software, <a href="https://www.military.com/daily-news/2021/05/24/air-force-could-ditch-oldest-f-35-jets-part-of-fighter-downsizing-general-says.html">saying last year</a>, </p>
<blockquote>
<p>the block that is coming off the line right now is not a block that I feel good about going up against China and Russia. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>He noted recent war games focused on the prospect of defending Taiwan from Chinese air attack <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/training-sim/2021/04/12/a-us-air-force-war-game-shows-what-the-service-needs-to-hold-off-or-win-against-china-in-2030/">showed</a> </p>
<blockquote>
<p>Every [F-35] that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This means Australia’s F-35s appear not to be as good as the potential opposition. It seems Australia is paying to lose the air combat battle. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1493421624237834243"}"></div></p>
<h2>The only solution: another upgrade</h2>
<p>So, what is the solution to these seemingly intractable and eye-wateringly expensive problems?</p>
<p>Lockheed Martin is advocating a major operating system software upgrade: the Block 4. It might not be surprising to hear this is now <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/gao-f-35-block-4-will-keep-slipping-without-realistic-work-estimates/">running years late</a>, with delivery expected in 2027 or later. It is also <a href="https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-105282.pdf">significantly over budget</a>. </p>
<p>In a small piece of good news, the last nine F-35 aircraft Australia will get off the production line next year, and may be partly Block 4 compatible. Hinote thinks these F-35s might be capable of fighting against first-rate adversaries. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/with-china-us-tensions-on-the-rise-does-australia-need-a-new-defence-strategy-106515">With China-US tensions on the rise, does Australia need a new defence strategy?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The bad news is the <a href="https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/f-35-engine-rivals-prepare-for-another-clash/">full Block 4 upgrade now requires</a> a major engine upgrade or even a new engine. So, this means Australia’s current F-35 fleet might not be able to use all the Block 4 software until after 2030 – and at a substantial cost. </p>
<p>Buying another hugely expensive upgrade for a brand new fighter is actually the cheap way out. The US Air Force’s focus <a href="https://www.airforcemag.com/article/make-or-break-time-for-the-f-35/">is already shifting</a> to the Block 4 upgraded aircraft. Countries like ours with older F-35s will be left to fend for ourselves if we don’t embrace the new technology, as well. </p>
<p>But the costs do keeping going up, and the problems with these F-35 jets haven’t seemed to stop. It’s the price of buying off the plan, which anyone who’s bought a house or apartment would surely know.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/177156/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Peter Layton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The myriad problems with Australia’s new fleet of F-35 aircraft mean pilots aren’t getting the flying time they need and the jets themselves are in danger of becoming obsolete.Peter Layton, Visiting Fellow Griffith Asia Institute, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1387662020-06-11T12:19:10Z2020-06-11T12:19:10ZFirst space tourists will face big risks, as private companies gear up for paid suborbital flights<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340436/original/file-20200608-176575-spj6md.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=68%2C41%2C4532%2C2110&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Ready to take your suborbital selfie?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/boy-and-girl-taking-selfie-in-a-spaceship-royalty-free-image/1202269427?adppopup=true">EvgeniyShkolenko</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>On May 30, 2020, millions of Americans watched the inaugural <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-astronauts-launch-from-america-in-historic-test-flight-of-spacex-crew-dragon">SpaceX Crew Dragon launch NASA astronauts</a> to the International Space Station. This mission marked two significant events: First, the return of launch to orbit capability for human spaceflight from the United States. Secondly, it <a href="https://theconversation.com/spacex-reaches-for-milestone-in-spaceflight-a-private-company-launches-astronauts-into-orbit-138765">successfully demonstrated private sector capability</a> to build and operate a launch vehicle for human spaceflight. </p>
<p>While SpaceX may be the first private space company to accomplish this, it is not alone. <a href="https://www.boeing.com/space/starliner/">Boeing’s Starliner</a> and <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/orion.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwoPL2BRDxARIsAEMm9y_c1m8agawgO55UbIX1lfYQVTCASj6wSm73ZYU16PCgVs2L0wJeUGwaAvLFEALw_wcB">Lockheed’s Orion</a> capsule are also being developed for NASA’s Commercial Crew Program, and <a href="https://spacenews.com/space-force-rescue-units-prepare-for-new-era-of-commercial-human-spaceflight/">training has begun for safety operations on the spacecraft</a>. </p>
<p>As an aerospace lawyer working and <a href="https://faculty.erau.edu/Sara.Langston">teaching on human spaceflight law and policy</a> for over a decade, I have a professional and personal appreciation for current spaceflight technologies and astronaut developments.</p>
<p>For many, the Crew Dragon launch marked the start to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/spacex-reaches-for-milestone-in-spaceflight-a-private-company-launches-astronauts-into-orbit-138765">new era of commercial access to space and private human spaceflight</a>. However, given logistical and destination requirements for Earth orbit or beyond, the onset of larger-scale private human spaceflight is more likely to emerge within the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/high-space-tourism-demand-for-blue-origin-and-virgin-galactic-ceo-says.html">suborbital space market</a>. </p>
<h2>Commercial suborbital flights coming next</h2>
<p>A suborbital flight, in contrast to SpaceX’s recent orbital flight, is a brief spaceflight that fails to complete one full orbit of the Earth. That is, you launch your space vehicle to the edge of space and come right back down. Virgin Galactic has been inching closer to commercial suborbital launch operator status with successful <a href="https://www.virgingalactic.com/articles/three-virgin-galactic-crew-presented-with-commercial-astronaut-wings-at-35th-national-space-symposium/">crewed test flights in February 2019</a>. In fact, <a href="https://www.virgingalactic.com/">Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo</a>, an air-launched suborbital rocket, and <a href="https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard/">Blue Origin’s New Shepard</a>, a rocket-launched space capsule, are projected to <a href="https://spacenews.com/spaceshiptwo-makes-first-flight-from-spaceport-america/">commence suborbital flights catering to both space tourists and scientific research this year</a>. Each suborbital flight presents a unique spaceflight experience, trajectory and set of regulatory requirements.</p>
<p>While industry continues to test and refine tech and operations, the Federal Aviation Administration – which regulates launch, reentry and spaceports for U.S. commercial spaceflight – is also morphing to address the needs of the emerging private space industry. </p>
<h2>What you need to know before you fly to space</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1028&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1028&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1028&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1292&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1292&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/340646/original/file-20200609-21201-995hwi.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1292&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In a suborbital flight, the crew and passengers enjoy a brief parabolic flight that takes them to the cusp of space and then back to Earth.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">The Conversation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Spaceflight is regarded as an inherently dangerous activity. While some hazards of spaceflight and the space environment – like G-forces, radiation, vibration and microgravity – are well documented, many risks remain unknown. The scope of <a href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8002956">physiological risks spans pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight operations and activities</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?gp=&SID=1f58495405665a030c05e44bca5a8591&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14chapterIII.tpl">FAA regulations</a> also focus on the safety and protection of the public on the ground, not the civilian passengers who are called <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=9160158c60ae33b0b455465c98d0f30a&mc=true&node=se14.4.401_15&rgn=div8">spaceflight participants</a>. This includes anyone who is <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title51/subtitle5/chapter509&edition=prelim">not crew or a government astronaut on a spacecraft</a>. </p>
<p>As a result, regulations stipulate minimum requirements with regard to medical fitness and training for space tourists, as well as informed consent, and waivers of liability to protect the launch operator. </p>
<p>So prospective space participants are taking a big risk. </p>
<h2>Medical criteria</h2>
<p>No standardized medical criteria exists for screening or selecting spaceflight participants. Unlike flight crew which require a Class II airman’s medical certificate, there is no similar requirement for fitness to fly for space tourists. Where the law is silent or lacking, the FAA’s <a href="https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/recommended_practices_for_hsf_occupant_safety-version_1-tc14-0037.pdf">Recommended Practices for Human Space Flight Occupant Safety</a> can provide general guidance. </p>
<p>Here the FAA recommends a spaceflight participant receive a medical consultation within 12 months of flight from a physician trained or familiar with aerospace medicine. Since this is a not a legal requirement, ultimately it will be up to the launch operator to determine fitness-to-fly and “no-go” criteria for preexisting conditions. </p>
<p>Virgin Galactic, for example, has few restrictions: <a href="https://www.airspacemag.com/airspacemag/how-to-ber-a-space-tourist-180972609/">no upper age limit, and weight limit only as it relates to practical space vehicle requirements</a>. </p>
<p>When it comes to the risks from radiation, the FAA <a href="https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/2010s/media/201323.pdf">tries to reduce the exposure for crew members</a>. But it considers the radiation risks of a space tourist taking a single suborbital joy ride as insignificant.</p>
<h2>Training</h2>
<p>Similar to how airlines provide safety information before a flight, the launch operators are required to instruct space tourists <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=b235bb3ffe622e1522ab90c284300dbc&mc=true&node=sp14.4.460.b&rgn=div6#se14.4.460_151">on how to respond to emergency situations</a> including smoke, fire, loss of cabin pressure and emergency exit. </p>
<p>This is a minimal requirement, and each launch operator determines its training protocol. Virgin Galactic, for instance, offers a <a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2019/02/first-woman-in-space-on-commercial-spacecraft-beth-moses-offers-advice/">three-day training</a> with a focus on participant’s gear, communications and function, and spacecraft cabin. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=b235bb3ffe622e1522ab90c284300dbc&mc=true&n=pt14.4.460&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.460_15">Flight crew</a>, in contrast, must be trained and qualified to perform their critical functions, and withstand the pressures of spaceflight. Orbital or long-duration spaceflights, however, will likely require more stringent commercial industry training protocols than for suborbital flights. </p>
<h2>Informed consent</h2>
<p>The FAA set the <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2006/12/15/E6-21193/human-space-flight-requirements-for-crew-and-space-flight-participants">age requirement for civilian participants at 18 years</a>. </p>
<p>This is necessary to ensure the participant can provide informed consent. In addition, the regulations dictate that the launch operator inform crews and participants that <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=b235bb3ffe622e1522ab90c284300dbc&mc=true&n=pt14.4.460&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.460_145">the U.S. government does not certify the spaceflight and space vehicle as safe for humans</a>. </p>
<p>The launch operator must also inform the participants in writing of the risks of launch and reentry, the safety record of the vehicle, and that <a href="https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=&SID=b235bb3ffe622e1522ab90c284300dbc&mc=true&n=pt14.4.460&r=PART&ty=HTML#se14.4.460_145">both known and unknown space hazards and risks</a> could result in serious injury, either partial or total physical or mental disability. </p>
<h2>Waivers of liability</h2>
<p>The spaceflight participant is also <a href="https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?edition=prelim&path=%2Fprelim%40title51%2Fsubtitle5%2Fchapter509&req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title51-chapter509&num=0&hl=false">required to sign a reciprocal waiver</a> of liability with the commercial launch operator and an indemnification agreement with the Federal Government. </p>
<p>However, participants don’t sign a waiver with other participants. Meaning, if an accident occurs, spaceflight participants can sue each other but generally not the launch operator or the government. </p>
<p>To protect oneself, it would be advisable to take out insurance. A few companies, including AXA XL and Allianz, are beginning to offer third-party liability insurance for civilians to engage in spaceflight. </p>
<p>The space industry expects that many people may want to go to space in the near future, and private spaceflight is being marketed as the next experience in luxury escapism and scientific research. </p>
<p>But the hazardous nature of spaceflight also requires critical understanding of the risks and uncertainties in human spaceflight. The industry is still in its infancy, and the best practices and regulations for human spaceflight are still evolving. </p>
<p>[<em>Insight, in your inbox each day.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=insight">You can get it with The Conversation’s email newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/138766/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara M. Langston does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>When it comes to commercial space tourism, suborbital flight are the first frontier. But what are the risks? Are there health requirements? What should you know before taking such a way-out trip?Sara M. Langston, Assistant Professor of Spaceflight Operations, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1361382020-04-27T12:08:03Z2020-04-27T12:08:03ZCoronavirus bailouts will cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars – unlike past corporate rescues that actually made money for the US Treasury<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330432/original/file-20200424-163122-16ka2t6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C649%2C6979%2C4925&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Fire up the printing presses.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Nerthuz/Getty Images</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The U.S. government <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-24/congress-braced-for-a-bruising-fight-over-next-virus-relief-bill?srnd=premium&sref=Hjm5biAW">has now pledged almost US$3 trillion</a> to save the economy and Americans from the coronavirus recession. </p>
<p>Most of that is aimed at individual Americans in the form of <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/3/24/21188470/coronavirus-unemployment-benefits-senate-stimulus">additional unemployment insurance</a> or the so-called <a href="https://www.irs.gov/coronavirus/economic-impact-payments">economic impact checks</a>. About $1.2 trillion – and counting – represent bailouts for American companies, large and small. </p>
<p>And more than 60% of that is in the form of grants or other financial assistance that will likely become grants – funds that will not be recovered by taxpayers. The Congressional Budget Office estimated on April 23 that the company-related coronavirus bailouts, excluding the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/us/politics/house-passes-relief-for-small-businesses-and-aid-for-hospitals-and-testing.html">fourth one just signed into law</a>, will <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-04/hr748.pdf">ultimately cost more than $400 billion</a> over 10 years. Given that most of the latest bailout, worth $484 billion, will most likely end up becoming grants to small businesses as well, the price tag is bound to get a lot higher. </p>
<p>It may not come as a surprise that taxpayers ultimately foot the bill when lawmakers spend their money to bail out a corporate industry – such as <a href="https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/federal_bailout/october_2011/60_oppose_financial_bailouts_74_say_wall_street_benefited_most">Wall Street during the Great Recession</a> – or the entire economy today. But this is actually the exception, not the rule. </p>
<p>The truth is, as my research shows, the vast majority of business bailouts passed by Congress over the past half century have either broken even or generated a profit. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=479&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330567/original/file-20200426-163122-19o7xo4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=603&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The U.S. aided Lockheed after the defense contractor struggled to secure financing for its new large luxury jetliner, the L-1011 TriStar.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Bettmann/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Profitable bailouts</h2>
<p>As part of <a href="https://politics.ucsc.edu/graduate/graduate-student-directory/index.php?uid=swnewsom">my ongoing research</a> on economic policymaking during recessions, I studied 10 corporate bailouts approved by Congress since 1969.</p>
<p>I only looked at bailouts that involved direct assistance – in the forms of loans, guarantees, grants or capital injections – by Congress to a company or industry in financial distress. I excluded the <a href="https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sl-crisis.asp">Savings and Loan crisis</a> of the 1980s and 1990s because that was less of a bailout and more of an expensive regulatory wind-down. All of the figures below have been adjusted for inflation. </p>
<p>I found that half of the bailouts made a clear profit for taxpayers. </p>
<p>For example, Lockheed Martin ran into <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1971/02/02/archives/lockheed-accepts-a-loss-of-200million-on-c5a-lockheed-accepts-a.html">financial difficulties</a> in 1971 because the planes, helicopters and other military equipment it was making for the U.S. Department of Defense cost more than the Pentagon agreed to pay, which led to significant losses and fees. The defense contractor pinned its survival on making money off its <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/history/l-1011.html">state-of-the-art TriStar airliner</a> but struggled to secure enough financing to finish the project. </p>
<p>Congress, concerned with the loss of at least 25,000 jobs if Lockheed went bankrupt, provided Lockheed with a lifeline in the form of loan guarantees. That is, it agreed to back a $1.62 billion private loan in exchange for a fee. Although the TriStar was a flop, it was enough to keep Lockheed solvent, and taxpayers earned $198 million. </p>
<p>Similarly, automaker Chrysler <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1979/11/04/the-bottom-line-details-of-the-chrysler-bailout/a7175793-ac11-4b4f-bbce-3cfbf620f77c/">found itself in financial peril</a> in late 1979 in part due to its slow reaction to market shifts brought about by the 1970s energy crisis. Consumers wanted more fuel efficient cars; Chrysler made too many gas guzzlers. <a href="https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft4x0nb2jj&chunk.id=d0e2181&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e2181&brand=ucpress">Post-bailout studies</a> suggested the company <a href="https://books.google.com/books/about/Riding_the_Roller_Coaster.html?id=aQhTq18vi7AC">was headed toward insolvency</a>.</p>
<p>The potential loss of 250,000 jobs and the adverse impact on automotive dealers and suppliers spurred Congress to offer Chrysler up to $4.98 billion in loan guarantees. As a precondition for this help, Chrysler, in addition to paying fees on the loans, granted the U.S. government rights to buy 14.4 million company shares at a set price. This arrangement provided taxpayers with $1.03 billion – on $4 billion worth of loans – when the <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1983/09/13/business/chrysler-top-bids-to-buy-back-stock-rights.html">government sold the shares</a> in 1983.</p>
<p>And more recently, Congress <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-14/tallying-the-full-cost-of-the-financial-crisis?sref=Hjm5biAW">pledged trillions of dollars</a> saving the financial system in 2008. For my purposes, I split the aid to companies into four distinct bailouts, three of which made large profits. </p>
<p>One in particular, the <a href="https://ftalphaville.ft.com/2010/09/17/346281/why-does-everyone-hate-tarp/">much-derided</a> <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/TARP-Programs/Pages/default.aspx">Troubled Asset Relief Program</a>, was a $854 billion bailout for financial companies. Ultimately, $382 billion was dispersed to Wall Street firms like Citigroup, JPMorgan and AIG in exchange for preferred stock and other compensation. Taxpayers earned $32.5 billion. </p>
<p>A <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44525.pdf">separate bailout</a> to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac-irbtxzdk">even more lucrative</a>. The U.S. government received preferred stock for the $234 billion invested in the two housing giants. Taxpayers got its money back as well as $123 billion in profits. </p>
<p>There were also two bailouts – for the <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RS21278.pdf">Farm Credit System</a> in 1987 and the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ51/PLAW-106publ51.pdf">Steel and Oil and Gas industries</a> in 1999 that likely made money, but I was unable to find all the details necessary to do the full analysis. At a minimum, my review suggests both broken even. </p>
<p><iframe id="vnpqz" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/vnpqz/7/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Losses (mostly) by design</h2>
<p>Three bailouts approved by Congress since 1969 cost taxpayers’ money. In two of the cases, this was by design. </p>
<p>The railroad industry, from 1960 to 1970, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/1973/02/11/archives/collapse-of-penn-central-reflects-ills-of-railroads-collapse-of.html">saw its total net income cut in half due</a>, in part, to mismanagement, market shifts in transportation from rail to vehicles and poor oversight by regulatory agencies. Its collapse not only ensured a large spike in unemployment, it meant losing a mode of transportation that, at the time, moved 41% of the nation’s goods and shipped U.S. military equipment domestically. </p>
<p>Congress, seeing this industry as vital to U.S. commerce and defense, <a href="https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46277.pdf">wanted to ensure the railroad industry remained afloat</a>. Beginning in 1970, several ailing railroad companies received $25.3 billion worth of loan guarantees and grants that were never meant to be repaid. Eventually, seven bankrupt rail companies were consolidated into one profit-making corporation on the taxpayers’ dime. </p>
<p>The terrorist attacks on 9/11 <a href="https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780230100060_7">shut down the national aviation system</a> for three days and significantly reduced airline traffic for the remainder of 2001. The airline industry, which made up close to 10% of U.S. GDP at the time, was expected to lose $5 billion by the end of 2001. </p>
<p>Congress quickly <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/09/22/congress-passes-15-billion-airline-bailout/964da954-32ef-4689-b5e5-cf3ef8f6f982/">provided the industry</a> with $22.1 billion in financial assistance to ensure its stability and viability. A third of this assistance came in the form of grants never meant for repayment as compensation for losses stemming from 9/11 and the three-day shutdown of the national aviation system. The remainder came in the form of loan guarantees that produced a slight profit. </p>
<p>And with extra money left over from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the <a href="https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/financial-stability/reports/Documents/2020.03%20March%20Monthly%20Report%20to%20Congress.pdf">U.S. Treasury loaned automakers</a> General Motors and Chrysler and their financing units about $97.2 billion in exchange for the right to purchase stock at a set price. This was in addition to a <a href="https://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/autos/federal_loans/index.htm?section=money_latest">$30.5 billion loan</a> issued in September 2008 to finance more fuel-efficient cars. While most of the aid actually disbursed was paid back, taxpayers lost $14.9 billion after both companies went bankrupt.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/330569/original/file-20200426-163062-9eygsl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Chrysler’s second bailout wasn’t as successful as its first.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joe Raedle/Getty Images</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Coronavirus bailouts</h2>
<p>Like the bailouts for the railroad and airline industries, a large chunk of the coronavirus aid is never meant to be paid back. </p>
<p>As long as small businesses keep workers on their payrolls, they won’t have to pay back the <a href="https://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-set-to-pass-bill-that-replenishes-coronavirus-aid-program-for-small-businesses-2020-04-23">$659 billion in total assistance</a> under the payroll protection program. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://fortune.com/2020/04/19/airlines-coronavirus-travel-industry-bailout/">airline industry has received $61 billion</a> in financial assistance from Congress, including a little more than half in grants. Small passenger airlines, the bulk of applicants, will not repay this assistance, while large airlines are expected to. </p>
<p>Congress also authorized Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to provide distressed corporations and state and local governments <a href="https://www.schiffhardin.com/insights/publications/2020/cares-act-500-billion-economic-stabilization-fund-for-severely-distressed-businesses">with up to $454 billion in loans</a> and $17 billion for public companies <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-24/mnuchin-asks-for-equity-stakes-in-exchange-for-17-billion-aid">deemed critical to national security</a>. Taxpayers will get interest and possibly equity stakes in some cases. </p>
<p>At the end of the day, Congress knows that when literally tens of millions of jobs, millions of small businesses and dozens of vital industries are at stake, you don’t haggle over the details. You just rescue them.</p>
<p>[<em>You need to understand the coronavirus pandemic, and we can help.</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=upper-coronavirus-help">Read The Conversation’s newsletter</a>.]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/136138/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Scott Newsome does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Seven of the past 10 business bailouts since 1969 have either broke even, or more frequently, ended up making a tidy profit for taxpayers.Scott Newsome, Ph.D. candidate in Politics, University of California, Santa CruzLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/609052017-06-14T02:22:57Z2017-06-14T02:22:57ZWhat went wrong with the F-35, Lockheed Martin’s Joint Strike Fighter?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/171516/original/file-20170530-23718-wvqgj1.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=175%2C462%2C2824%2C1805&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Everything to everyone – or is the F-35 a big expense for not much benefit?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/502787/hill-afb-in-midst-of-robust-f-35-preparation/">U.S. Air Force/Alex R. Lloyd</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The F-35 was billed as a fighter jet that could do almost everything the U.S. military desired, serving the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy – and even <a href="https://www.f35.com/global/participation/united-kingdom">Britain’s Royal Air Force and Royal Navy</a> – all in one aircraft design. It’s supposed to replace and improve upon several current – and aging – aircraft types with widely different missions. It’s <a href="https://www.f35.com/">marketed as a cost-effective, powerful multi-role fighter airplane</a> significantly better than anything potential adversaries could build in the next two decades. But it’s turned out to be none of those things.</p>
<p>Officially begun in 2001, with roots extending back to the late 1980s, the F-35 program is nearly a decade behind schedule, and has <a href="http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf">failed to meet many of its original design requirements</a>. It’s also become the <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2016/12/12/investing/donald-trump-lockheed-martin-f-35-tweet/index.html">most expensive defense program in world history</a>, at <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2014/07/31/how-dods-15-trillion-f-35-broke-the-air-force.html">around US$1.5 trillion</a> before the fighter is <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/03/24/f-35-fly-until-2070-six-years-longer-than-planned/82224282/">phased out in 2070</a>.</p>
<p>The unit cost per airplane, above $100 million, is <a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-donald-trump-was-right-the-f-35s-costs-are-out-control-18826">roughly twice what was promised early on</a>. Even after President Trump lambasted the cost of the program in February, the <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/03/politics/f-35-lockheed-martin-cost-reduction/">price per plane dropped just $7 million</a> – less than 7 percent.</p>
<p>And yet, the U.S. is still throwing huge sums of money at the project. Essentially, the Pentagon has declared the F-35 “<a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/news/f-35-60-minutes-david-martin/">too big to fail</a>.” As a retired member of the U.S. Air Force and current university professor of finance who has been involved in and studied military aviation and acquisitions, I find the F-35 to be one of the greatest boondoggles in recent military purchasing history.</p>
<h2>Forget what’s already spent</h2>
<p>The Pentagon is trying to argue that just because taxpayers have flushed <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-18/f-35-s-grotesque-overruns-are-now-past-pentagon-s-chief-says">more than $100 billion down the proverbial toilet so far</a>, we must continue to throw billions more down that same toilet. That violates the most elementary financial principles of capital budgeting, which is the method companies and governments use to decide on investments. So-called sunk costs, the money already paid on a project, should never be a factor in investment decisions. Rather, spending should be based on <a href="http://leepublish.typepad.com/strategicthinking/2015/03/sunk-cost-fallacy.html">how it will add value in the future</a>.</p>
<p>Keeping the F-35 program alive is not only a gross waste in itself: Its funding could be spent on defense programs that are really useful and needed for national defense, such as <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/2016/07/08/pentagon-needs-more-money-counter-islamic-state-drones/86867452/">anti-drone systems to defend U.S. troops</a>.</p>
<p>Part of the enormous cost has come as a result of an effort to share aircraft design and replacement parts across different branches of the military. In 2013, a study by the RAND Corporation found that it would have been cheaper if the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy had simply <a href="http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1200/MG1225/RAND_MG1225.pdf">designed and developed separate and more specialized aircraft</a> to meet their specific operational requirements.</p>
<h2>Not living up to top billing</h2>
<p>The company building the F-35 has made grand claims. Lockheed Martin said the plane would be <a href="http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/66855/lockheed-touts-f_22%2C-jsf-at-s%27pore-show-%28feb-22%29.html">far better than current aircraft</a> – “four times more effective” in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” in recognizing and suppressing an enemy’s air defenses. It would, in fact, be “<a href="http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Lockheed_Martin_F22_and_F35_5th_Gen_Revolution_In_Military_Aviation.html">second only to the F-22 in air superiority</a>.” In addition, the F-35 was to have better range and require less logistics support than current military aircraft. The Pentagon is still calling the F-35 “<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20170530194416/http://www.jsf.mil/">the most affordable, lethal, supportable, and survivable aircraft ever to be used</a>.”</p>
<p>But that’s not how the plane has turned out. In January 2015, mock combat testing pitted the F-35 against an F-16, one of the fighters it is slated to replace. The F-35A was flown “clean” with empty weapon bays and without any drag-inducing and heavy externally mounted weapons or fuel tanks. The F-16D, a heavier and somewhat less capable training version of the mainstay F-16C, was further encumbered with two 370-gallon external wing-mounted fuel tanks. </p>
<p>In spite of its significant advantages, the F-35A’s test pilot noted that the F-35A was <a href="https://medium.com/war-is-boring/read-for-yourself-the-f-35-s-damning-dogfighting-report-719a4e66f3eb">less maneuverable and markedly inferior to the F-16D in a visual-range dogfight</a>.</p>
<h2>Stealth over power</h2>
<p>One key reason the F-35 doesn’t possess the world-beating air-to-air prowess promised, and is likely <a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/07/f-16-vs-f-35-in-a-dogfight-jpo-air-force-weigh-in-on-whos-best/">not even adequate when compared with its current potential adversaries</a>, is that it was designed first and foremost to be a stealthy airplane. This requirement has taken precedence over maneuverability, and likely above its overall air-to-air lethality. The Pentagon and especially the Air Force seem to be <a href="http://www.marines.mil/News/News-Display/Article/613385/us-marine-corps-moves-forward-with-f-35-transition/">relying almost exclusively</a> on the F-35’s stealth capabilities to succeed at its missions.</p>
<p>Like the F-117 and F-22, the F-35’s stealth capability <a href="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/stealth-aircraft-rcs.htm">greatly reduces, but does not eliminate, its radar cross-section</a>, the signal that radar receivers see bouncing back off an airplane. The plane looks smaller on radar – perhaps like a bird rather than a plane – but is not invisible. The F-35 is designed to be stealthy primarily in the X-band, the radar frequency range most commonly used for targeting in air-to-air combat.</p>
<p>In other radar frequencies, the F-35 is not so stealthy, making it vulnerable to being tracked and shot down using current – and even obsolete – weapons. As far back as 1999 the same type of stealth technology was not able to prevent a U.S. Air Force F-117 flying over Kosovo from being located, tracked and <a href="http://www.defenceaviation.com/2007/02/how-was-f-117-shot-down-part-1.html">shot down using an out-of-date Soviet radar and surface-to-air missile system</a>. In the nearly two decades since, that incident has been studied in depth not only by the U.S., but also by potential adversaries seeking weaknesses in passive radar stealth aircraft.</p>
<p>Of course, radar is not the only way to locate and target an aircraft. One can also use an aircraft’s infrared emissions, which are created by friction-generated heat as it flies through the air, along with its hot engines. Several nations, particularly the Russians, have excellent passive <a href="http://aviationweek.com/technology/new-radars-irst-strengthen-stealth-detection-claims">infrared search and tracking systems</a>, that can locate and target enemy aircraft with great precision – sometimes using lasers to measure exact distances, but without needing radar.</p>
<p>It’s also very common in air-to-air battles for opposing planes to come close enough that their pilots can see each other. The F-35 is as visible as any other aircraft its size.</p>
<h2>Analysts weigh in</h2>
<p>Lockheed Martin and the Pentagon say the F-35’s superiority over its rivals lies in its ability to remain undetected, giving it “<a href="http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-f-35-tri-service-jet-must-outfly-critics-2012dec01-story.html">first look, first shot, first kill</a>.” Hugh Harkins, a highly respected author on military combat aircraft, called that claim “<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Sukhoi-Su-35S-Flanker-Generation-Super-Manoeuvrability/dp/1903630169/ref=asap_bc">a marketing and publicity gimmick</a>” in his book on Russia’s Sukhoi Su-35S, a potential opponent of the F-35. He also wrote, “In real terms an aircraft in the class of the F-35 cannot compete with the Su-35S for out and out performance such as speed, climb, altitude, and maneuverability.”</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N1Z_DuF87Sc?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Fighter plane expert Pierre Sprey is a harsh critic of the F-35.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other critics have been even harsher. Pierre Sprey, a cofounding member of the so-called “<a href="http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/40-years-of-the-fighter-mafia/">fighter mafia</a>” at the Pentagon and a co-designer of the F-16, calls the F-35 an “<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/extended-interview-pierre-sprey">inherently a terrible airplane</a>” that is the product of “an exceptionally dumb piece of Air Force PR spin.” He has said <a href="http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/blog/extended-interview-pierre-sprey">the F-35 would likely lose a close-in combat encounter to a well-flown MiG-21</a>, a 1950s Soviet fighter design. Robert Dorr, an Air Force veteran, career diplomat and military air combat historian, wrote in his book “Air Power Abandoned,” “The F-35 demonstrates repeatedly that it can’t live up to promises made for it. … <a href="https://robertfdorr.blogspot.com/2015/08/hitler-hillary-time-travel-and-f-22.html">It’s that bad</a>.”</p>
<h2>How did we get here?</h2>
<p>How did the F-35 go from its conception as the most technologically advanced, do-it-all military aircraft in the world to a virtual turkey? Over the decades-long effort to meet a real military need for better aircraft, the F-35 program is the result of the merging or combination of several other separate and diverse projects into a set of requirements for an airplane that is trying to be everything to everybody. </p>
<p>In combat the difference between winning and losing is often not very great. With second place all too often meaning death, the Pentagon seeks to provide warriors with the best possible equipment. The best tools are those that are tailor-made to address specific missions and types of combat. Seeking to <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2012/08/28/defense-spending-in-the-u-s-in-four-charts/">accomplish more tasks with less money</a>, defense planners looked for ways to economize.</p>
<p>For a fighter airplane, funding decisions become a balancing act of procuring not just the best aircraft possible, but enough of them to make an effective force. This has lead to the creation of so-called “multi-role” fighter aircraft, capable both in air-to-air combat and against ground targets. Where trade-offs have to happen, designers of most multi-role fighters emphasize aerial combat strength, reducing air-to-ground capabilities. With the F-35, it appears designers created an airplane that doesn’t do either mission exceptionally well. They have made the plane an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none – at great expense, both in the past and, apparently, <a href="http://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/article151096902.html">well into the future</a>.</p>
<p>I believe the F-35 program should be immediately cancelled; the technologies and systems developed for it should be used in more up-to-date and cost-effective aircraft designs. Specifically, the F-35 should be replaced with a series of new designs targeted toward the specific mission requirements of the individual branches of the armed forces, in lieu of a single aircraft design trying to be everything to everyone.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/60905/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Michael P. Hughes owns shares of an exchange traded fund that includes shares of Lockheed Martin along with many other aerospace and defense companies. </span></em></p>The most expensive defense program in world history has yielded a multi-role fighter plane that is an inelegant jack-of-all-trades, but master of none.Michael P. Hughes, Professor of Finance, Francis Marion UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/397682015-04-08T10:05:13Z2015-04-08T10:05:13ZW(h)ither the Liberal Arts?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77222/original/image-20150407-26515-14ngbvs.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Liberal education is valuable for developing critical thinking skills.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=nc9LdkqwZ9J6O8aLlGX5lQ&searchterm=liberal%20arts&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=182619644">Magnifying glass image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In 1828, a faculty committee at Yale declared that the aim of a liberal education “was not to teach that which is peculiar to any one of the professions, but to lay the foundation which is common to them all” by imparting information and training students in how to think.</p>
<p>The committee advocated the establishment of a curriculum and modes of instruction calculated to fix the attention of young men; foster mental discipline; instill a capacity to analyze subjects by weighing evidence; awaken, elevate, and control the imagination.</p>
<p>Almost two centuries later, the cultivation of these skills, re-branded as “critical thinking,” remains central to proponents of the liberal arts. </p>
<p><a href="http://fareedzakaria.com/">Fareed Zakaria</a>, the host of CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria’s GPS” and an editor-at-large at Time magazine, relies heavily on them throughout his <a href="http://books.wwnorton.com/books/In-Defense-of-a-Liberal-Education/">new book, In Defense of a Liberal Education</a>. “The central virtue of a liberal education,” he writes, “is that it teaches you how to write, and writing makes you think.” </p>
<p>A related strength, he says, is instruction in “how to learn…how to read an essay closely, search for new sources, find data to prove or disprove a hypothesis, and detect an author’s prejudice.” </p>
<p>By exposing students to ideas, experiences, emotions and values they might not otherwise encounter, a liberal education gives graduates a greater capacity to be good friends, family members and citizens. </p>
<p>Although it needs to be interrogated and qualified, his argument could not come at a more important time.</p>
<h2>Liberal arts education has financial pay offs</h2>
<p>Along with many other defenders of liberal learning, Zakaria also maintains that it can – and does – pay off financially. He cites a <a href="https://www.aacu.org/publications-research/periodicals/it-takes-more-major-employer-priorities-college-learning-and">survey</a> published by the American Association of Colleges and Universities in which 74% of employers recommended a liberal arts education as the best preparation for the global economy – and he quotes a slew of prominent businessmen, including <a href="http://www.biography.com/people/jeff-bezos-9542209">Jeff Bezos</a> (Amazon), <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/members/augustine_bio.html">Norman Augustine</a> (Lockheed Martin), and <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2013/10/17/liberal-arts-are-best-preparation-even-business-career-essay">Edgar Bronfman</a> (Seagram Company), who agree.</p>
<p>These days, as Zakaria knows, his arguments are a hard sell.<br>
The economic value of a degree may not be the only reason young men and women come to college, but it is a major reason, especially in the wake of the global recession, global economic competition, and rising tuitions. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77224/original/image-20150407-26507-1z023wo.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Studies do show that engineers make more money.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=ZAP7ATGGsBbTkx2qDI3Z9g&searchterm=money%20engineering&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=132297491">Book image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Inclined already to a narrowly utilitarian view of higher education, many parents and prospective students are increasingly aware of studies, including one recently published by the <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/index.html">US Census Bureau</a>, showing that individuals with degrees in engineering make more money than college graduates with any other major. </p>
<p>Those in computer science, mathematics, statistics, business, the life sciences and physical sciences come next. </p>
<p>Liberal arts graduates are at the back of the pack.</p>
<h2>Politicians play down value of liberal arts</h2>
<p>Little wonder, then, that the governors of Texas, Florida, North Carolina and Wisconsin support reductions in expenditures for the liberal arts in state-funded colleges and universities. Or for that matter, that President Obama makes <a href="http://theimpactnews.com/news/2014/03/15/obama-liberal-arts-waste-of-time/">comments</a> that play down the importance of an arts degree: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>“I promise you, folks can make a lot more, potentially with skilled manufacturing or the trades than they might with an art history degree.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Critics also point to considerable evidence indicating that the liberal arts are not delivering on their promises. </p>
<p>Zakaria acknowledges that the subjects “that define the liberal arts – the core humanities” – have become “less structured and demanding.” Many History and English departments no longer require introductory courses. </p>
<h2>Liberal learning is in crisis</h2>
<p>Because professors assign less reading and writing and because grade inflation provides protective cover, <a href="http://www.nber.org/papers/w15954">the number of hours undergraduates spend studying</a> outside the classroom has declined dramatically, from about 40 hours per week in 1961 to 27 in 2003. </p>
<p>It is not at all certain, then, that 21st century style liberal learning is the best pathway to “critical thinking.” Liberal learning is in a crisis. In the humanities, course enrollments and majors have plummeted; in business they have skyrocketed. </p>
<p>Liberal learning can return to its rightful place in higher education, but it will not be easy. The task is all the more daunting because many of its partisans, inside and outside of academia, are in despair and have lost faith. </p>
<p>With a loss of public support, a dismissal of traditional defenses, including many of the arguments advanced by Zakaria, as platitudes and a growing conviction that liberal arts education is little more than a smorgasbord of courses, the clock is ticking.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=478&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/77225/original/image-20150407-26488-y977jr.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Job skills development is not the only purpose of education.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/cat.mhtml?lang=en&language=en&ref_site=photo&search_source=search_form&version=llv1&anyorall=all&safesearch=1&use_local_boost=1&search_tracking_id=GjJqrTZsGPZpJ34BGmAJYw&searchterm=liberal%20education&show_color_wheel=1&orient=&commercial_ok=&media_type=images&search_cat=&searchtermx=&photographer_name=&people_gender=&people_age=&people_ethnicity=&people_number=&color=&page=1&inline=144745006">Creativity image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A large-scale reform may well be necessary. It should include a tough-minded assessment of general education courses and distribution requirements; the relationship between cultural literacy and learning how to learn; and the degree to which liberal learning really does produce critical thinking.</p>
<p>The reform must result in teaching students (far more effectively than at present) to read and write, analyze texts, find data to prove or disprove hypotheses and become good citizens.</p>
<p>Liberal arts professors should also abandon the idea that addressing vocational concerns in the curriculum involves dumbing down. As <a href="http://www.luminafoundation.org/ceo-corner">Jamie Merisotis, president of the Lumina Foundation</a>, reminds us: “To deny that job skills development is one of the key purposes of higher education is increasingly untenable.” </p>
<p>Integrating job skills into academic itineraries does not imply it “is the only thing we do.”</p>
<h2>Some initiatives worth noting</h2>
<p>A few recent initiatives are worth noting. <a href="http://www.cdh.ucla.edu/curriculum/undergraduate-minor/">UCLA offers an undergraduate minor in the digital humanities</a>, in which students, working in teams, use 3D visualization, network analysis, text-mining and mapping to create an encyclopedia of ancient Egypt, a multimedia narrative of Google Glass and an exploration of Andean ceramics and social media studies. </p>
<p><a href="https://lamp.indiana.edu/">Indiana University offers a Liberal Arts and Management Program</a>, in which College of Arts and Sciences majors take courses in business law, accounting, management and computer applications in the School of Business.</p>
<p>Defenders of liberal learning should continue to remind politicians, parents and prospective students that liberal arts majors do just fine, with <a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/index.html">median incomes far in excess of the overall median</a>. They should also cite evidence that those who complete post-baccalaureate study often eat their cake and have it too, with prestigious high-paying, fulfilling jobs, and <a href="https://dpb.cornell.edu/documents/1000433.pdf">greater satisfaction</a> with their lives than their classmates in other disciplines.</p>
<p>In all likelihood, however, such evidence will not carry the day. The burden of argument has now shifted to the proponents of liberal learning: they must demonstrate to skeptical audiences, preoccupied with near-term, “bottom line” outcomes, that humanistic frameworks of education are broad-based, self-critical and pragmatic, as well as relevant to students’ personal, professional and political lives.</p>
<p>For more coverage on the importance of liberal learning, read our discussion with four former university presidents <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-do-we-need-the-humanities-38640">here</a>.
_</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/39768/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Glenn Altschuler does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Liberal learning is in crisis and the onus is now on its proponents to show how it is relevant to students’ personal, professional and political lives.Glenn Altschuler, Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies and Dean of the School of Continuing Education and Summer Sessions , Cornell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/216882014-01-09T14:41:15Z2014-01-09T14:41:15ZDefence minnow Saab humbling multinational aerospace Goliaths<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38686/original/cgp4667q-1389191264.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Gripens on the up.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">MilanNykodym</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Saab is a relatively small aerospace company, employing almost 14,000 personnel with sales of £2.25 billion in 2012: it is a David among Goliaths. And yet, as 2013 drew to a close it was announced that Brazil plans to buy <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25441231">36 Saab Gripen fighter aircraft</a>. </p>
<p>The world fighter aircraft market is dominated by a few large firms from the USA, Europe and Russia. Among them are Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Eurofighter (producing the F-15; F-16; F-18; F-35; and Typhoon aircraft). In 2012, <a href="http://www.boeingitaly.it/BoeingItaly/media/BoeingItaly/About%20Boeing/Annual%20Report/The_Boeing_Company_AR_3-11-13b.pdf">Boeing</a> employed almost 174,000 personnel with sales of <a href="http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/news/releases/2013/q1/130130_nr.pdf">£71.2 billion</a> while <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/who-we-are.html">Lockheed Martin</a> employed nearly 120,000 personnel with sales of <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/news/press-releases/2013/january/0124hq-earnings.html">£47.4 billion</a>. Eurofighter, meanwhile, is an international grouping comprising the major aerospace companies in Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK which build the four-nation collaborative Typhoon combat aircraft. </p>
<figure class="align-left ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=806&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=806&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=806&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1013&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1013&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38687/original/bc8ht3fy-1389192226.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1013&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Typhoon sales may have stalled.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">max.pfandl</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Other major companies in the world fighter aircraft market include the Russian firms of Mikoyan and Sukhoi (Mig-29; Mig-31; Su -27 and Su-35). The French Dassault Aviation manufactures the successful Mirage and Rafale combat aircraft, with sales of <a href="http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/2/files/2013/05/DASSAULT_AVIATION_-_2012_net_sales_release1.pdf">£3.9 billion</a> in 2012. Both Dassault and Boeing were in the hunt for the Brazil contract.</p>
<p>So how is Saab, a relatively small firm from Sweden, managing to find success in a highly competitive, multinational market with huge development costs? It was created in 1937, and has remained competitive for more than 75 years. Originally founded to provide Sweden with military aircraft as part of the country’s commitment to maintain national security, sovereignty, neutrality and independence, it has produced some technically advanced and innovative aircraft designs (for example the Draken and the Viggen) and developed its business into new markets; it is now both a defence company and a security company (with aeronautics accounting for 24% of its total sales in 2012).</p>
<p>The Saab Gripen aircraft was originally designed for the Swedish Air Force, which required a small, relatively cheap multi-role aircraft with reduced life-cycle costs. A new version of the Gripen, namely, Gripen E or New Generation is being developed over the period 2013-2026. To date, the Gripen has sold to the Swedish Air Force (original order for 204 units) and has been exported to South Africa (26 units), Czech Republic, Hungary (each leasing 14 units from Sweden) and Thailand (12 units). There are further planned export sales to Switzerland (22 units) and Brazil (36 units) resulting in possible exports of 124 units and a total output of 300 units (exports at 41% of total sales).</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/KaNEHPu_dIs?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
</figure>
<p>Saab’s success has been due to its ability to remain competitive by designing combat aircraft which meet market requirements in terms of price, performance and delivery. The Swedish government has been supportive through funding development and production work enabling Saab to remain in the fighter aircraft market. This is a distinctive market dependent on government as a major or only buyer: it is unlike other markets where there are usually large numbers of buyers so firms are not completely dependent on the preferences of a national government as a single buyer.</p>
<p>Exports of Gripen are also dependent on a variety of factors other than price and performance. Examples include generous technology transfer and financing packages, favourable offsets as well as offers of bilateral collaboration between governments.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38688/original/csvc3y94-1389192466.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">On the hunt for budget options?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Julius.D</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Gripen output and exports can be compared with its European rivals, namely, Dassault Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon. Currently, the French Air Force and Navy plans to buy 180 Rafales with a possible export order to India for 126 units giving a total output of 306 units (exports at 41% of output). Similarly, the four partner nations involved in Typhoon plan to buy 472 aircraft with exports to Saudi Arabia (72 units), Austria (15 units) and Oman (12 units) giving exports of 99 units and a total output of 571 units (exports at 17% of output). </p>
<p>A proposed deal with the UAE <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/10531706/Britains-ambitions-in-the-Gulf-suffer-blow-as-UAE-rejects-Typhoon-deal.html">fell through</a> around the same time as the Saab Brazil one was secured. In terms of exports and total output, Gripen compares favourably with Rafale and Typhoon.</p>
<h2>The flight path ahead</h2>
<p>Both Gripen and Rafale suggest European nations are capable of independently developing advanced technology combat aircraft. The UK has the industrial and technical capability to develop and produce an advanced combat aircraft of the Gripen-Rafale type. Instead, the UK has decided that the national development of such aircraft is too costly and has chosen to focus on European collaboration in an effort to share development and production costs. The basic assumptions underlying UK collaboration policy need to be re-evaluated.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=372&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/38689/original/n7224nyh-1389192636.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=468&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Anyone want a UAV?</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">QinetiQ group</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But it cannot be assumed that the future will be the same as the past. New technology and new threats as well as rising equipment costs will dominate national defence policy choices. The example of Saab shows relatively small firms can be successful and that large size does not guarantee success. But like all privately owned firms, Saab has to consider how it will respond and adjust to future changing markets. Two issues cannot be ignored: the position of the Swedish government and its traditional defence policy of independence and neutrality; and how Saab will respond to new technology – namely, unmanned air vehicles.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/21688/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Keith Hartley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Saab is a relatively small aerospace company, employing almost 14,000 personnel with sales of £2.25 billion in 2012: it is a David among Goliaths. And yet, as 2013 drew to a close it was announced that…Keith Hartley, Emeritus Professor of Economics, University of YorkLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/131772013-04-15T05:04:31Z2013-04-15T05:04:31ZIs the next mining boom on the ocean floor?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/21978/original/f739d5h9-1364952718.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Amid global demand for rare earth minerals, there has been a strong interest in deep sea mining.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Flickr\gnews</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Defence behemoth <a href="http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/uk/news/press-releases/2013-press-releases/uk-government-sponsors-lockheed-martin-uk-subsidiary-for-licence.html">Lockheed Martin’s recent announcement</a> of a venture into deep sea mining (DSM) reflects growing interest in exploiting virgin mining territory. </p>
<p>In what is being <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/uk-company-pursues-deep-sea-bonanza-1.12635">described by some as a “deep sea mining bonanza”</a>, the British arm of the US defence firm hopes to exploit rare earth minerals from the seabeds between Mexico and Hawaii. The announcement comes as the world’s first DSM project in PNG is <a href="http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/features/nautilus-ceo-opens-up-on-png-dispute">mired in legal and financial strife</a> and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) is finalising a three-volume series detailing the potential social and environmental impacts of this new mining frontier.</p>
<p>Lockheed Martin’s exploration of a 58,000 square kilometre area of seabed, under the auspices of its wholly owned subsidiary, UK Seabed Resources, will adapt aerospace and underwater technologies to extract the resources from approximately four kilometres beneath the ocean’s surface. In a true story more plausible as a Tom Clancy novel, the area was identified as “mineral rich” during the depths of the Cold War, when Lockheed Martin used a ship owned by reclusive American tycoon Howard Hughes to <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-14/lockheed-to-use-soviet-submarine-hunt-data-in-seabed-mining-plan.html">search for a sunken, nuclear missile-laden, Soviet submarine</a>. The lost sub search was carried out under the guise that Lockheed Martin was collecting polymetallic nodules — <a href="http://www.isa.org.jm/files/documents/EN/Brochures/ENG7.pdf">basically, rocks comprised of manganese and iron</a> — from the ocean floor. </p>
<p>Almost 40 years later, the ruse has become reality, as the firm has utilised this “heritage data” to partner with the UK government to gain exploration rights from the <a href="http://www.isa.org.jm/en/about">International Seabed Authority</a>.</p>
<p>The questions raised by mining an area which is inaccessible to most and mysterious to many are substantial and numerous. In Australia, CSIRO studies reveal a <a href="http://d1180280.u211.pipeten.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/csiro7.pdf">general lack of public understanding about the seabed</a> and its ecosystems which means that fears – both scientifically founded and unfounded — abound. In many instances, data is unavailable to support or disprove concerns about deep water activities. Little is known, for example, about the processes which lead to the formation over thousands of years of polymetallic nodules, which contain up to 10 times the amount of metal found in their land-based counterparts. Even less is known about <a href="http://marinesciencetoday.com/2013/03/26/a-summary-of-deep-sea-mining/">how these nodules interact with deep sea life</a> and whether ecological recovery is possible after deep sea mining. And this is before one considers the mining of nodules from hydrothermal vents, recently identified as <a href="http://e360.yale.edu/feature/deep-sea_mining_is_coming_assessing_the_potential_impacts/2375/">home to numerous species of animals and microbes</a>.</p>
<p>Despite a lack of data, the push for seabed mining continues, fuelled in part by a rapacious global appetite for rare earth minerals, which are progressively more challenging to source. Every iPhone user or hybrid car driver <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57520121-37/digging-for-rare-earths-the-mines-where-iphones-are-born/">relies on rare earth minerals</a> to power these modern life essentials. Thus, an entire “blue” economy is emerging from the world’s oceans. Practices including energy generation, aquaculture, and deep sea mining may transform use of the deep ocean and related coastlines. </p>
<p>The UNEP is at the forefront of these issues and is working to institute policies and practices which will support a <a href="http://www.unep.org/pdf/Green_Economy_Blue_Full.pdf">“green economy in a blue world”</a>. The Lockheed Martin venture alone has an estimated worth of ₤40 billion (AU$58.36 billion) to the UK economy over a 30-year period, with flow-on effects throughout the industry’s supply chain.</p>
<p>But at what cost do we mine the ocean’s depths?</p>
<p>The current problem — and scary reality — is that we simply do not know. Despite scientific advances, the concentrated work of hundreds of scientists globally, and the application of extraordinarily advanced defence and related technologies to oceanic investigations, the deep sea remains as mysterious as the world Jules Verne imagined over 140 years ago. Even without a corpus of scientific data, the UNEP notes damage to poorly understood marine environments; potential chemical seeps from mining equipment; possible ocean dumping of mine waste; damage to future medical, scientific or recreational ocean activities; contamination of seafood; and displacement of local fishing as just some of the environmental and opportunity costs known to be associated with deep sea mining. On the other hand, deep sea mining has the potential to mitigate or prevent certain environmental and social impacts associated with terrestrial mining, including protection of onshore environments and a reduction in community resettlements and loss of land-based livelihoods. But weighing up the trade-offs remains difficult — if not impossible — when so many questions remain.</p>
<p>Lockheed Martin plans to commence operations in five to six years. Let’s hope we have a more solid evidence base before then.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/13177/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Sara Bice is a Senior Associate of the Australian Centre for Corporate Social Responsibility. ACCSR has past and current clients in the mining industry. Details: <a href="http://www.accsr.com.au">www.accsr.com.au</a></span></em></p>Defence behemoth Lockheed Martin’s recent announcement of a venture into deep sea mining (DSM) reflects growing interest in exploiting virgin mining territory. In what is being described by some as a “deep…Sara Bice, Research Fellow, Centre for Public Policy, The University of MelbourneLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.