Edward Bernays - Architect of the Consumer Mind.
Five Basic Methods of Mind Control and Manipulation.
NOAM CHOMSKY LECTURE
Noam Chomsky - Manufacturing Consent - People's Tribune Radio (1999)
Noam Chomsky Speech from 'Manufacturing Consent' (short version)
- one of the interesting things for me is that just how advanced and pervasive some of the PSYOPS operations have become (whether through accident or design) and how the thoughts of so few have influenced society en-masse. I previously wondered whether it was possible that our education system was somehow rigged to produce those who were somewhat conservative and that it was more about filtering those who were more suitable for society rather than being based on raw talent alone. What seems clear is that there have been many others who have wondered (and have evidence) that this is actually the case. Let's say we control who can the education system; media propagation, concentration, and messaging; allocation of capital; and so on we can effectively control who goes to which particular parts of society and what they basically think. In this context it's very difficult to figure out how progress is possible? Curtailing thought is self-defeating almost. Think about innovaiton and periods of scientific history. For a long time we thought that Earth was the centre of the Universe, that it was flat, that tha atom was basically it, etc... and we came up with rediculous theories to 'prove' our dogma. I wonder how long it'll be before we realise that this is also the case here? For me, the ruling class would have legitimacy in using these mechanisms if things were going particularly well but ask yourself are they? Look at some of the decisions that many of them have made over the years when others have consistently warned them
How Media Manipulates Our Values and Perception.
Corporate Attack on Education, Chomsky
Edward Bernays: Architect of the Consumer Mind.
Edward Bernays - Advertising, Engineering of Consent, Marketing, Public Relations (1998)
The Invention of Public Relations
Noam Chomsky 'Who Controls the Message' (Full)
- one of the things that are clear is that by making it very difficult to get a job at what is classified as a 'top firm' then you can achieve a semblance of control over whoever it is your hiring. Big assumption is that the education system acts like a sort of filtration system and then human resourcing. This includes behaviour. If we assume that this is deliberate (to create better citizen behaviour) then we can extrapolate this to recruitment as well. Fundamentally, the question being asked is 'are you going to rock the boat?' By making the perks good and life difficult you achieve greater control over your subject. Watch the way officer/agent recruitment is handled in the security services and the way it is being used in the real world and you'll realise that the lines are really blurring. However, the more you listen to everything about some of the 'prestige firms' and the more 'normal' they appear
'How to Get a Job at the Big 4 - Amazon, Facebook, Google & Microsoft' by Sean Lee
Job Won! - An Insider Look on Getting Hired Fast and Advancing Your Career
A Sea of Blood - John Kiriakou on Reality Asserts Itself (6_10)
Ex CIA agent John Kiriakou jailed for speaking against waterboarding Baltimore Post Examiner
Ex-CIA Officer John Kiriakou - 'The Government Turned Me Into a Dissident'
How I Joined the CIA - John Kiriakou on Reality Asserts Itself (2_10)
SILENCED - Whistleblower Documentary w. Thomas Andrew Drake, Jesselyn Raddack + James Spione
Splendour Forum 2015 - Keynote John Kiriakou (Friday July 24)
War on Whistleblowers (ft. Edward Snowden & David Carr) 2015 • FULL DOCUMENTARY • BRAVE NEW FILMS
- due to the pervasive nature of PSYOPS and propaganda nowadays very rarely are people able to see the 'full picture'. If you knew the complete truth behind most things you'd be much more likely to hold a more neutral position. Do background on any topic you might imagine that is clear cut in this world. It may shock you that there's often a very reasonable case for the other side as well. The worrying part is that the truth often has very deep historical roots that most people aren't aware of or don't care about. The funny feeling I have is that people in the West are aware of this and are attempting to maintain the 'World Order' as is for this very reason or just want to maintain the 'status quo' because they want to run things. People behind the mass mind control/PSYOP movement believe that it is vital to maintain civil cohesion though
John Pilger Breaking the Silence Truth and Lies in the War on Terror
John Pilger - The Truth Game
Going Underground - John Pilger talks Gaza, Ukraine & Western media bias
Going Underground Special - John Pilger on Paris, ISIS and Media Propaganda
John Pilger - The Mexicans
John Pilger - Cambodia - Return to Year Zero 
John Pilger - Vietnam - The Quiet Mutiny 
John Pilger - Obama and Empire
John Pilger - The New Rulers Of The World 
MUST-SEE interview with John Pilger - USA, UK and France gave birth to ISIS monster
Freeway Rick Ross x Alex Jones Interview (CIA, Gary Webb, Cocaine and Moor)
Gary Webb on C.I.A. Trafficking of Cocaine
Military force “on the table” in relation to Russia, US commander says
- the problem with such abundant use of PSYOPS and propaganda throughout the world people can get caught up in their own story. They may never be able to see the other sides perspective
- one of the things alluded to in Bernays work is that if news is entertainment no matter how rediculous people will still listen. Something which is said of both US and Russian PSYOPS
- after a while you have a gut feeling about what operations are in play. The only question is whether or not they're crazy enough to believe in it. For instance, you wonder though whether or not the reason why people are encouraged to be super thin and diet is actually a PSYOP which is designed to reduce global resource consumption? Let's say that proof of God is is non-existent or incomplete but the powers that be think that blanket surveillance over everything is a way to keep a check on things since most people have faith in 'God' and his teachings? If we look at the concept of universal free values and democracy more cynically then basically we see what the conspiracy theorists and rivals of the US/West are talking about. It could also be used as a means of subverting their values and ultimately freeing up new markets and achieving greater harmony. It comes at an obvious cost. People's faith in their religion. For instance, US/Western norms with regards to feminism and Islam are completely dia-metrically opposed. It makes sense that many people in the Middle-East are so wary of the US/West. Honestly, if people want to live under those particular set of rules shouldn't it be their choice? If the US/West really want people to live under our set of rules why not just offer all of them citizenship or support them 'all the way'? This is why the conspiracy theorists go into overdrive with regards to it being used to open up new markets perhaps?
- over time, you basically figure out that deterrence is effectively the adult's version of a game of 'chicken'
- as stated in my last post, it's blatantly obvious that old Cold War rivals still the same perspectives. What I (and probably heaps of others) wonder about is who would win if basically the world shut were to basically split off into the same hemispheres of old. For some strange reason, I don't think it would be as clear cut this time. Debt loads in many parts of the world are so bad that it's basically acting as a limiter on economic growth. In which case, I don't think that technically there could be a 'winner' in this race. It would be a case who comes less worse off. At the moment globalisation sort of keeps things in check such as US shale maintaining a cap on oil prices and cheap steel from China keeping a check on steel prices. If we seal each other off and then we could have absolute mayhem if governments aren't able to figure out alternate arrangements. As in the leadup to the previous World Wars such co-operation makes conflict less likely but also more likely depending on the individual circumstances
BCFA - Professor ROBERT LEGVOLD
Professor Robert Legvold
Death sentence for Chinese computer technician accused of espionage
National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski famously called “The Grand Chessboard"
China official says film 'The Martian' shows Americans want space cooperation
- read between the lines and it's blatantly obvious that capitalism is failing us at multiple levels (we've lost that balance between screwing each other over and taking care of one another). They basically maintain the maintain the status quo because they can't see another way, that's the way they prefer it, etc... Examine the world and what it feels like is that the periods between boom/busts are compressing, that debt interest is taking up a larger proportion of overall required spending and the only way to escape it is to forgive debt, bail-in, etc... Those at the top are slowly falling like dominoes. The Japanese, Europeans, US, China, etc... Each time they seem to come up with a more desperate measure to re-spark global growth though. Look at certain charts it seems inevitable that Asia will be the world's future power and not the West into the future. Their share of world GDP is just growing almost in the complete opposite direction of the West and has been for several decades. The core promise of capitalism (the power of the individual) is also it's greatest flaw. There's no mechanism to keep allocation of capital in check except via rules and regulations (which are easier to break with greater wealth and power as has been shown by the Panama papers). With things the way they now work Multinational/Transnational Companies (MNC/TNC) are effectively acting as agents of the state by employing people, aiding with security difficulties (whether to do with insurance, salary, intelligence, etc...). It feels like we're reverting to feudalism through stealth
- is it possible for capitalism to work in a sealed system? Not convinced. There's no way to force re-distribution of wealth (especially within the context of globalisation where there are so many stakeholders involved and so many 'interests' are crossed over). Once someone has hoarded something (due to property laws and imperfect taxation) that's often it. You could say that through inflation and by allowing financial institutions to lend and use people's savings/assets as collatoral for investment this is what facilitates re-distribution but as we've seen with excessive leverage and so much competition it's very difficult to get an edge in the investment game. As the number of players increases, the spreads minimise. The only guarantee is that we focus more on the 'revenue first' model rather than 'invest and hope/Castle in the Air theory' model. However, since this model is less likely to generate outsize returns we need globalisation/lower taxes in order to increase the amount of possible growth per unit of work. Hence, our present circumstances where we seem to be headed back towards modern Feudalism
Is This The End Of The U.S Dollar
- whether or not US/West is in decline or not I think it's fundamentally rediculous that the world would/could not survive without them. As long as other countries play their part stability can be maintained. It just feels like some people want to 'lead' for the sake of leading
- the fundamental problem with any enclosed social system is that you don't gain everything you could gain from each and every individual (whether right or left wing model). Left wing models make it more difficult for the individual to maximise their potential for both themselves as well as the group overall. Right wing models are looking more and more like left wing models because of greater centralisation of power in private enterprise (though they serve their purpose in employment, keeping a check on inflation, bringing reduced costs to rural areas, etc...) and they inherently seem to rely more heavily on ability to navigate a political system/hierarchy. It's not as much about talent, experience, and hard work anymore. Closed systems (whether by choice or accident) means that certain societies are heavily reliant on their security services to keep pace with the rest of the world. If they can't buy it, USSR, North Koreans, Iranians, et al... they need to steal it. Defense is particularly critical for them because (whether the rest of the world intends them harm or not) they will almost always be behind the eight ball unless they have 'truly great scientists' on their side
- any anti-West block composed of Russia, China, etc... will be formidable. They are a huge single block despite attempts by the US/West to divide them, contain them, etc... Look at their co-operation in defense and some of their advances over the past decade (especially in China's case)
Xi expects new chapter in aerospace development
- one problem that is acknowleged by Russians is corruption. If you watch their media (in it's entirity and not just parts) it sometimes doesn't seem all that 'contained/restrained' as some Western outlets might lead you to believe... Moreover, if you understand how censorship works in the West then you'll understand why they see us as being hypocritical. Somewhat similar in perspective with China and both Russia and China get frustrated when they're called out on this. If you have enough backgruond you know that the US elections was basically going to be a Trump and Clinton race right from the beginning...
Putin annual Q&A session 2016 (FULL VIDEO)
Putin annual media Q&A marathon 2015 (FULL PRESSER)
Putin's annual Q&A session 2014 (FULL VIDEO)
BCFA - Professor ROBERT LEGVOLD
Propaganda-Behind Big Media-WE are BEING LIED to in a BIG WAY by the TV! TURN IT OFF!
- deliberate attempts to crack down on investigative journalism? When you really think about it some of the stuff that the political class classify as being in the 'national interest' they aren't really???
Gary Webb on C.I.A. Trafficking of Cocaine
Freeway Rick Ross x Alex Jones Interview (CIA, Gary Webb, Cocaine and Moor)
The Murder of Gary Webb Investigative Reporter and the Cover Up
- as in the last post, you're sometimes left wondering why we take the chance sometimes. For instance, hip hop culture clearly lauds criminal behaviour. Even criminals sometimes wonder about this. Is it because we can't create enough decent jobs to help everyone? cheap labour? population control? eugenics? etc...
Freeway Rick Ross x Alex Jones Interview (CIA, Gary Webb, Cocaine and Moor)
Kill The Messenger - Mike Levine & Gary Webb - The Big White Lie + Dark Alliance= CIA drug cartel
- by using consumerism and sex as core aspects of society younger people are loading up and on credit and getting pregnant younger which turns them into debt slaves. Since that doesnt often doesn't allow them enough time to figure out a way to develop enteprenurial skills that forces them into whatever jobs they can get (whether legitimate or not). Accident or design?
- the irony is that in spite of what we may say most of our social systems favour those who basically sacrifice their soul on the way up. Can we change it otherwise? In terms of hierarchy we're favouring those who fight best rather than those who are best suited to the circumstances that they will face in their job. It means that anyone/everyone can fight for whatever they want but it also means that those may be best suited may be locked out of the system for whatever reason. In theory this sounds great but in reality there's a huge problem. In an average work environment you don't have a clue what's going to be up ahead of you, to the side of you, etc... Moreover, if this is the case in any hierarchal setting it means that the decision from up above may be inevitably compromised (though this is supposedly overcome through better communication in modern environments) and everyone is forced to work harder not smarter. Imagine this in terms of our overall society. How many comprimises have we made? How much economic growth are we actually losing? Is it actually possible to build a full proof system? It makes you wonder whether or not we should be looking at alternative social systems as well as looking at how to fix current problems short and long term
- if you know enough about modern economics you'll realise that a lot of it is just pure giberish now. A lot of people don't realise how unstable this is. I think there needs to be some thought go into 'intelligent globalisation' which maximises employment and local utilisation locally while using large local entities to maintain control of inflation and using external elements only sparingly. It will allow
Keiser Report - Most Destructive Force in the Universe (E901)
Keiser Report - Systemic Nature of Corruption (E903)
- given all of the above it's no wonder a lot of people are cynical of the US/West. Freedom within the context of modern democratic society seems over stated
- the Pentagon's so called 'Arsenal Plane' and Russia's modernisation of it's Kirov cruiser are interesting especially if you consider it in the context of Russian hybrid warfare where small drones are basically all the time everywhere with follow up artillery and mortar fire not long thereafter
- if you haven't heard about the fuss about the US and Russia there's some interesting video of them (and their equipment) going head to head out there
- I think the focus should be around capability rather than cost. Cost is too arbitraty. Imagine if production of equipment or labour is extremely cheap in one country but they can more than fulfil their committment to a defense treaty. Making up the gap would entail massive loss on civil society for a result that may provoke an arms race rather than stabilty
- perhaps a sliding scale of workload as we get older? Gets more people into the workforce and keeps people working at peak efficacy?
“We’re conscious it’s them who’ve got the most recent experience fighting Daesh,” says Colonel Keating.
“They won’t tolerate us lecturing them about our expertise. We try and cycle their experience (of war) into our training, to see what they need.”
While there has been some initial reluctance to listen to the foreigners, the Iraqis have good reason to come to Taji: they are issued with new, US-issued weapons, ballistic armour and equipment before heading back to the battlefield.
“We are not here to make a New Zealand or Australian army,” says Taji’s boss trainer, Australia’s Lieutenant-Colonel Jim Hammett, but to help the Iraqis negotiate and survive the bombs which are hidden “like the minefields of old”.
They encircle Mosul, in the country’s north, which is the next big battle stage and present a greater challenge than chemical weapons.
“They have killed an immense number of people,” he says.
- In this interview Patrushev gives insight into what Russia’s intelligence agencies are telling the Kremlin. Thus we learn that Russian intelligence:
1. Did not expect Yanukovych to fall because of the Maidan protests;
2. Did however warn the Kremlin long ago that a pro-Western coup in Ukraine was only a question of time because of massive US subversion in the country.
We also get an idea of how Russian intelligence sees the world.
According to its view US hostility to Russia is an unvarying “constant” because Russia, irrespective of its system of government, resists US policies aimed at achieving world hegemony and because the US wants to control Russia’s immense natural resources in order to seal its hegemony.
Russia’s ties to China and India and the emergence of the BRICS bloc have merely provoked the US to intensify its campaign against Russia. Events such as the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s, the rebellion in Chechnya in the 1990s, the Georgian attack on South Ossetia in 2008 and the February coup this year in Ukraine, are all simply manifestations of US policies targeted at Russia.
- Unlike Russian emigrants, ordinary Americans or professionals treat Russia with great respect. They even report that some Russians have special talents.
Unfortunately, even Americans who are friendly toward Russians, still don’t trust Russia. For example, it is thought to be normal in the West that Great Britain and France consider their former colonies to be an area of continuing interest, but the recovery of Russia’s influence in the former Soviet area is treated not just as dangerous, but also inadmissible.
Americans don’t mind Russia becoming an economically developed country but all its efforts to become a geopolitical superpower (even at a regional level) are considered a threat to the security of Western civilization.
This attitude is mostly connected to the fact that the Cold War left a bigger imprint on the American consciousness than on the Soviet people. This can be explained: While Soviet propaganda discouraged the thought that American soldiers could invade Soviet territory, the idea of a ‘Red’ invasion was often discussed in the US. They even rehearsed Soviet nuclear attacks in American schools. Children were supposed to hide themselves under their desks at their teachers’ command.
American mistrust of Russia was fueled by American Sovietologists. After the collapse of the USSR, their financing was considerably reduced, and in order to save at least some of the ‘streams of money’, Russian experts were forced to artificially inflate the idea of danger and the unpredictability of the Kremlin. “Unfortunately, our activity is completely politicized. My advice to you if you want to work in the US: don’t forget about anti-Russian policy”, - an American political analyst told me.
Finally, mistrust of the West in relation to Russia has old historical roots, appearing long before the formation of the USSR. As Rudyard Kipling said ironically: “A Russian is attractive, being the most Western among those Eastern; but if he claims to be the most Eastern among the Western, it is intolerable”.
- Many American experts, in particular former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, assert that there are vast territories “under Moscow’s power” that it is incapable of exploiting and which therefore “do not serve the interests of all humanity”. Assertions continue to be heard about the “unfair” distribution of natural resources and the need to ensure so-called “free access” to them for other states.
The Americans are convinced that people must be thinking in similar terms in many other states, particularly those neighbouring on Russia, and that in the future they will, as is nowadays the custom, form “coalitions” to support the corresponding claims on our country. As in the case of Ukraine, it is proposed to resolve problems at Russia’s expense but without taking its interests into account.
- Jarre stresses the track is not an expression of anti-Americanism. “I am a lover of America because it’s a place where you can say anything. It’s important to remember that Edward Snowden couldn’t have been Chinese or Russian.”
He also adds that the criticism of Snowden as a traitor for revealing protected secrets is off-point. “He sacrificed himself, like an American soldier. To me, that’s a true patriot. What I can say, in a very objective way, is he is very in love with his country.”
Jarre’s own motivation for working with Snowden was partly personal, as his mother was heavily involved in the resistance against the Nazi occupation of France during the 1940s.
“What I’ve heard a lot of Americans say about Snowden is exactly, word for word, what people said about the French resistance,” warns Jarre. “That they’re troublemakers and [are] putting our children in danger. If the French resistance didn’t sacrifice themselves, World War II would not have ended the way it did.”
- HONG KONG/BENGALURU (Reuters) - Bad debts at Asian banks have climbed to their highest since the global financial crisis and the trend will likely worsen as regional economies battle against China's slowdown and volatile oil and commodities prices, a Reuters data analysis shows.
The bad loans pile at 74 major listed Asian banks, excluding Indian and Japanese banks, reached $171 billion (119 billion pounds) at the end of 2015, the survey of banks showed, the highest since at least 2008. Non-performing loans (NPLs) jumped 28 percent from a year earlier, nearly twice the growth in 2013.
Indian and Japanese banks were not included as their fiscal year ends in March.
- Most recently, Hillary has called for a “tougher response to Russia on Syria and Ukraine.” Never mind that, under international law, Russia’s Syria campaign has been legal, while America’s is not, Hillary believes Putin must be “punished” for intervening there. "I have been, I remain convinced that we need a concerted effort to really up the costs on Russia and in particular on Putin. I think we have not done enough," she remarked at the Brookings Institution.
Notwithstanding Russia's position as the planet's second strongest military power, American neocons simply cannot fathom any kind of partnership or equality with the Kremlin. But it’s not only about Russia; they can’t countenance other European countries acting independently either. The vitriol directed at France and Germany for opposing the illegal 2004 invasion of Iraq is proof of that. The blatant interference in Britain’s EU referendum is further evidence.
Next year, we are likely to have a Hillary Clinton government in America, squaring off against a Putin administration in Moscow. Unlike now, when Obama overrules extremist voices, Clinton will enthusiastically promote their ideas, no matter how imprudent. To quote Bachman Turner Overdrive, if you think relations between Washington and Moscow are bad now, well, you ain’t seen nothing yet.
- The United States was once the world's leading wheat exporter, but now is losing its position to Russia and Canada due a stronger dollar, stagnant yields, rising competition and climate change.
According to analysts, exports of wheat may drop 9.3 percent to 21.1 million metric tons in the season ending May 31, the lowest since 1972.
“We’re no longer going to lead in volume every year,” said Alan Tracy, president of US Wheat Associates told Bloomberg, adding that an increase in global wheat trade was the only hope for the country.
Nearly forty percent of the US crop goes for export, according to the Department of Agriculture. The acreage for winter wheat fell to its second-lowest since 1913.
As US wheat is no longer the leader in global markets, American farmers are changing to corn and soybeans.
Russia is now the world’s leading wheat exporter and is monopolizing Middle East markets, which were once the preserve of America.
Russia will harvest 62.5 million metric tons of wheat in 2016, the most in eight years, according the Moscow-based Institute for Agriculture Market Studies (IKAR). Exports from the Black Sea area rose to $185 a ton last week, the highest since December. Prices increased 3.9 percent from a five-year low set in February and March, reports IKAR.
“Crop conditions currently are good, especially in the southern district,” said Olivier Bouillet from Paris-based consulting company Agritel.
The richer harvest from Russia might compensate for the drop in Ukraine, where output may fall about nine percent to 7.2 million tons.
- “We Russians say that the circus has left the city but some clowns stayed,” he said. “It is like a comic show which goes on and on.”
“We don’t have to take Obama’s words as his own words because he doesn’t have much thoughts of his own; it is certain lobbies speaking through Obama,” he explained.
The analyst said there are lobbies in the US that desperately need the sanctions against Russia to stay in place, because that way they can replace Russia as a major supplier of goods to Europe.
Russia has been targeted by a series of sanctions imposed by the United States and European Union for allegations that Moscow is arming and supporting pro-Russian forces fighting in eastern Ukraine.
The Kremlin, however, has strongly rejected the accusations.
The sanctions target the Russian energy, banking and military sectors. Moscow has also imposed tit-for-tat sanctions against the EU.
However, Zolotarev said the sanctions that ban exports to Russia will have no effect on the country as it does not depend on American and European goods anymore.
- Russian electronic-warfare powerhouse KRET—Concern Radio-Electronic Technologies—has started testing a powerful new ground-based jamming system that could cut the crucial data-links that enable the United States military to conduct operations around the world. The system is designed to be used in conjunction with advanced Russian-built air defense systems like the S-300V4 and S-400 to disrupt air operations.
According to a company source—who spoke to the Moscow-based TASS news agency— the system consists of multiple separate jamming modules that are capable of attacking a command and control system at extended ranges using complex digital signals. The system is also capable of attacking multiple types of systems simultaneously. “Multichannel stations that ensure simultaneous inhibition of various avionics systems have been created,” the Russian defense industry source told TASS.
The new system—the designation of which TASS did not report—is designed to be seamlessly integrated with air defense systems. “It conducts real-time automated exchange of data on the actions of the aerospace grouping for purposes of centralized target assignment,” the source told TASS.
The new Russian electronic warfare system is also designed to be highly resilient—featuring multiple dispersed nodes. “Their energy, frequency and intellectual resources are distributed in an optimal way. In addition, all the modules are equipped with individual defense sets because they are the prime targets for enemy’s attack,” KRET’s first deputy director general Igor Nasenkov told TASS.
- In comparison with other federal employees, whistleblowers working in the military or national security agencies must meet a higher burden of proof to win their cases. Of the more than 1,000 whistleblower complaints that are filed each year with the Pentagon’s inspector general, about 97 percent are dismissed, or categorized as “unsubstantiated,” records show. For three separate complaints to be upheld against a single officer is almost unheard of.
- In a move ridiculed by hawkish opponents in the US Congress and privately by some coalition partners, pilots dropped pamphlets before bombing trucks ferrying illicit oil around Syria for the IS group.
The IDF has for years warned occupants of buildings suspected of housing Hamas weapons to get out by "roof knocking."
The technique has drawn sharp criticism. Observers say occupants are sometimes killed in the warning strike, or even run up to their rooftops to see what happened -- only to be killed in the follow-up strike.
- Fighter or attack aircraft type, Average cost per flight hour, 2008–2012 (CY $):
F-22A Raptor - $68,362
F-15C Eagle - $41,921
F-15E Strike Eagle - $32,094
F-16C Fighting Falcon - $22,514
A-10C Thunderbolt II (Warthog) - $17,716
MQ-9A Reaper - $4,762
The F-15s, and particularly the older -C models, are expensive to fly simply because they’re old. The -C model F-16s aren’t just smaller, they’re generally newer too. The A-10Cs were built Republic tough, and were recently refurbished. The MQ-9As, however, are in a whole different category. Perhaps that’s why, as Reuters reported last week, drones have accounted this year for over 61 percent of all aerial weapons launched by the USAF over Afghanistan. In 2015, drones accounted for 56 percent; in 2011, the figure was just 5 percent.
Where does the F-35A fit in? It’s too early to tell, but Bogdan's office reported in February that the modest fleet of F-35s so far were costing about $42,200 to fly per hour. That’s already far less than the F-22A. As the fleet grows, and the Air Force becomes more accustomed to operating it, the average costs should drop considerably. Using common assumptions, the program office estimates that the long-term cost per flight hour of the F-35As will be much less than that of the F-22As, but still rather more than that of the F-16Cs that it will replace:
Fighter aircraft type, Estimated future cost per flight hour (FY'15 $):
F-35A Lightning II - $32,554
F-16C Fighting Falcon - $25,541
None of these numbers are new; what’s new is just the enthusiasm for buying the plane with the highest numbers. Fielding a plane (the F-35A) whose support will cost a quarter more than the plane (the F-16C) it’s replacing, while the budget outlook is at best flat in real terms, is questionably affordable. What’s worse is going back to buy more of a plane (the F-22A) whose support will cost twice again as much.