When a military contractor is trying to sell some wacky superweapon to the Pentagon, or when the Pentagon is trying to sell some wacky superweapon to Congress, it draws a cool action picture. But why are they so horribly terrible?
Take this brand new image cooked up my Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin is working on a new version of an old plane—the C-130. This is an “artist’s rendition of the latest variant of the C-130J, the Sea Herc. The SC-130J will redefine maritime reconnaissance and patrol.” Lockheed had a net income of $781 million dollars last quarter alone. It’s a staggeringly rich company.
Surely it could hire an artist capable of creating more than this turd, which looks like it was peeled off the back of a 1994 PC flight simulator. Why couldn’t Lockheed just use a picture of an existing C-130, which surely looks quite similar to the C-130J variant? Couldn’t it have photoshopped on the different bits? Couldn’t it have come up with something that’s not this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms6dXiIDofE
Remember this hilarious bad missile shield demo, also by Lockheed? It made for a great commercial for a Battleship.
https://gizmodo.com/reagans-ghost-loves-this-stupid-radar-video-5881239
Boeing tends to go with the vintage GI Joe look, which makes sense when dealing with flying cars.
https://gizmodo.com/the-government-is-broke-because-it-takes-these-idiotic-5853290
So what gives? How can you take any military tech seriously when this is how it’s pitched?
