|
|
|
Subject:
Great camoflage namings.
Aussiegunner
7/8/2004 1:41:54 AM
|
So what does everybody think about the tactic military's have of naming controvertial or secret projects something completely irrelevent, to throw both military and budgetary enemies off track during the RnD phases of a system's life? I can understand the British naming of armed and armoured tractors "tank's" during WW1, as a matter of national security, but find the same tactic used to throw off domestic opponents of a system bordering on hilarious. Calling your new V/STOL aircraft carriers "through-the-deck cruiser's", as did the Royal Navy in the 1970's with the "Invincible" class, then expecting the Airforce and government to buy it would have to be the most amusing episode of this type. The fact that the tactic worked, is even funnier! Other amusing camoflage namings include,
1. Changing the designation of the F-22 to F/A-22, to try and fool congress into thinking it is a multi-role type. Even funnier, since with at most 339 to be ordered, there will never be enough of these to use as anything but fighters, during a real war. The tragic part is that they are taking the stupidity a step further and wasting a fortune on air to ground systems that will never be used.
2. Calling the F-35 a "Strike" fighter, when in fact it is a multi-role, in the tradition of the later F-16's and the F-18's. Can you imagine 8 advanced airforces, as well as the USN, buying it to replace their multi-role fleets, if it couldn't do the same job as the teen-series birds it will replace? However, the imperitive in the naming of this bird was not to let it slip to congress that it can safely do most of the air to air job of the F(/A)-22, as well as being superior in the air to ground, hence put large orders for that program under threat. The funniest thing though, is that they haven't bothered to change the designation to F/A-35, to highlight its "primary" air to ground mission. Bit of a slip up by airforce public relations, don't you think?
3. The Royal Australian navy planning to buy "Multi-Purpose Vessels", that essentially amount to being light V/STOL carriers that can carry tanks and infantry, if needed. The RAN has been wanting back into the carrier buisiness for 2 decades, with good reason and finally seems to have come up with a way to do so by stealth. They shouldn't forget though that MPV's won't act as well in the tank-landing role, as a dedicated amphibious assault ship will and need to make contingency plans through other acquisitions or tactical changes. Perhaps this exemplifies the potential cost of the "charades" approach to acquisition. In means you can end up with a less than perfect solution to your military problem, due to the need to put on a good show for the "audience".
4. The F-18E Super Hornet, an essentially new aircraft named as a version of the one that it is partially replacing. Apparently it doesn't hurt congresses pockets as much to spend the same amount of money on a new plane, so long as they don't think they are doing so.
Can anybody else think of other great camoflage namings?
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Latest
News |
Most
Read |
Hot
Topics |
|
|
|
