The thing that makes a decison/system/whatver "pork barrel"
is when it's built mainly because the politicians want it to be so
they keep those jobs and get those votes.

All aviation is politics.

Because you say so?

Aviation is too much money to be anything but politics.


If that were the case the military would never issue requirements
(because it wouldn't matter) and there would be no competitions
(because they wouldn't matter). You'd have the McNamara/TFX scenario
for every program out there.




From the choosing
of a vender all the way to operational missions, the aircraft is politics
driven. In the civilian world, every 747 crossing the Pacific is politics,
every Country allowing small GA is doing so for ploitical reasons.


Hardly. If anything could be said to be politically driven it would
be the Concorde with all of the perceived presteige it brought with it
and even then they had to take it out of service because it wasn't
cost effective (the safety thing was merely the last nail in the
coffin). It's not politics that makes the world go 'round but $$$
although politics are a close second, but when it comes to military
procurement politics play a too important part but even then it can't
be said that ALL politics are "pork barrel" politics. Even a
simpleton could see that. If program X has a better chance of
succeeding than program Y and the politicians say "nope you're going
to have Y anyway" then it could be argued that it's a "pork barrel"
decision. If X is just flat out better and they choose X then simply
because it falls in some politician's district (and he fought for the
program) doesn't make it a "pork barrel" decision. It's not THAT
difficult of a concept to understand. The ATF program wasn't so clear
cut because while many felt the YF-23 *aircraft* to be a better choice
(myself included), the YF-23 program as a whole was thought to have
less of a chance of delivering what was promised because the
confidence in Northrop and McDonnell Douglas wasn't all that hot at
the time. Thus the decision to procure the F-22. It wasn't so simple
as "some politician wanted votes so he made the airforce buy the
crappy airplane".









There are quite a few that
fit that description (V-22) but when it's the people who will be using
it who are clamoring for it it isn't "pork barrel". There is more to
the definition of "pork barrel" than simply "not loved by all". The
simplest test is who wants to buy it and who wants to cancel it.

I have to go with wether the aircraft woks, or not; but I can understand
you
being confused.

I have to go by whether the end user thinks it works or not. Not by
the opinion of a wannabe.

I hadn't really elevated you to the level of wannabe, Scott;


And I'm sure you can imagine how crushed I am.



If
the politicians had forced the Sgt. York on the Army that could be
called pork pure and simple. The USAF doing everything in their power
to buy as many F-15s as they could was not pork even though the
politicians would have preferred more cheap F-16s and fewer F-15s.

Dude, the F-15 was built in Gephardt's District; pure pork. It is the
same
as when Newt did it.

You could claim that no matter *where* it was built because it was
bound to be built in *somebody's* disctrict. The fact is you don't
know what the term "pork barrel politics" means plain and simple.

Pork barrel politics means reelection and perhaps a speakership.


"Pork Barrel" means feeding the masses under your own jurisdiction to
the detriment of the greater good. That's why the term "pork
barrel" has all of those negative connotations.






The C-130J is another example of pork. Is it good? Yep.

Define good?

Good as is better than what it replaced. Good as in cost effective.
How do you define good? Whether you like the paint job or not?

I'd say the new engines are a disapointment without the new wing and the
derating provides little bang for the buck. The warbird eliminates a crew
member, which is at best a questionable tactic. The incompatability with
the fleet adds to the question of why anyone would replace their already
good C-130H.

That's pork barrel in action. It's better than what they currently
have but not so much better to warrant it's purchase. Now if I were
an air force who had NO C-130s and I wanted some, then J's would be me
best choice. Where all it adds in the case of the USAF is another
maintanance chain and marginal benefit in the big picture. . .





Did the Air Force want it? Nope.

The C-130J was a risk management driven design based on the possibility
of a
failed C-17 program.

The USAF didn't want it. Period.

What you want and what you get are sometimes different things.


Exactly. Pork Barrel.





Which part of that don't you understand? The C-17 is an obvious success
yet the USAF was still forced by politics to buy the J.

There was no obvious success when the C-17's wing broke well below
specification, exactly as predicted by the Nyquist shake.

When did that happen and when did they start delivering Js? The C-17
is so successful that the USAF has a good chance of getting up to 222
yet they're still getting those J's stuffed down their throats.