Lockheed Martin and the Iron Triangle

Renegen on 19/1/2007 at 17:29

Thanks.

That's exactly why they make their multi-million dollar planes of war, for aesthetics.

Matthew on 19/1/2007 at 17:33

Well of course it's not. Jeez.

Ultraviolet on 19/1/2007 at 18:19

I don't think he was being sarcastic. I read it in Playboy; they really do design their planes as expensive high-concept art projects.

I got some great stock investing tips in Playboy, too.

Aerothorn on 19/1/2007 at 18:27

Aesthetics are certainly a consideration in their planes - they are marketing to the "boys with toys" mindset, after all.

Renegen on 19/1/2007 at 18:38

Well that's honestly news to me. All I know is that their weird shape comes from the fact they probably make them radar resistant. And to me an F22 is as pretty as an F86 Sabre or a Mustang so :D to all of them. An F16 is butt ugly I have to say.

When a plane is designed, it's designed for very specific purposes. Usually you have 2-3 defense contractors fight for the contract just like the latest F22(Lockheed) which won over the F23(McDonnel Douglas). Each plane serves a strategic purpose and I never heard of aesthetics come into the conversation.

It's also slightly old news that defense companies have been doing well..

Inline Image:

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/l/lmt

Malygris on 19/1/2007 at 22:54

I was being quite serious, thank you. Planes like the P-38, the F-104, the U2 and the SR71 are all instantly recognizable, while the Constellation and Super Constellation were just magnificent craft emblematic of a better time. I also have a soft spot for the L1011; my parents bought me a small Tristar model when I was quite young, and even back then I knew there was something about it that just looked "right."

Jenesis on 21/1/2007 at 00:29

Also, the (http://navy-matters.beedall.com/images/jsf-lm-cv-view.jpg) Lockheed Martin JSF looks far better than the Boeing one, which looked like a (http://www.boeing.com/news/releases/2000/photorelease/000918n-3.jpg) low-poly Harrier. Admittedly, the LM JSF looks exceedingly similar to the (http://www.f5.dion.ne.jp/~mirage/message00/f22.hdu.gif) LM F-22, so it's not exactly original, but still.

Matthew on 22/1/2007 at 10:10

I would guess that's probably an unavoidable side-effect of the stealthy requirements, though.

frozenman on 22/1/2007 at 18:47

When I was in middle school (~13 yrs old) in art class we were required to keep a sketchbook. EVERY SINGLE PAGE of my sketchbook was jet fighters. Fucking nerd.

I also like thinking about this: There must be some time gap between what the public is allowed to know about military aircraft and what's actually in operation. The F-22 was unveiled to the public (at least I recall the newspaper article) in the late 90s, but I seem to recall a brief mention in a History Channel show about Operation Desert Storm that the F-22 was used THERE, several years before the public had any idea. Who knows what crazy shit is floating around the skies now.

Matthew on 22/1/2007 at 18:50

Consider also that the horribly protracted procurement process means that a fighter coming out now may be using a 10-year-old design, if not more. Think about the prototype crazy shit that's floating (maybe literally) around now. ;)