Advertising is funny; it doesn’t so much tell you about the company that pays for it – but that that company thinks motivates its customers.

In the Chrystal City Metro stop in DC you can see two view from the defense industry. Speaks for itself … which one do you think is more effective?



Posted by CDRSalamander in Aviation
Tags: ,

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • WCOG

    Can I just say “Security, Stability, Strength” sounds a lot like certain other inane three-point slogans. “Travail, Famille, Patrie” or “Credere, Obbedire, Combattere”.

    • grandpabluewater

      I tend to lean to cats from the Iron Works. NIS, BA, no EDD, alas.

    • vtbikerider

      liberte’, equalitie’, fraternatie’ as well? or “Infiltrate, eliminate, evacuate”?

      • Diogenes_of_NJ

        Veni, vidi, vici!

  • XBradTC

    If it ain’t Boeing, we ain’t going.

  • CharleyA

    From a layout perspective, Boeing wins hands down. Messaging as well. But LM’s advert is what it is really about: the jobs program. LM constantly reminds the 400+ representatives on their payroll that they build parts for this jet in almost every state in the country….

  • surfcaster

    One makes us broke, one makes us not strong enough.

    Macht Nichts.

    • RightCowLeftCoast

      So sad, so true
      The F-35 was suppose to be the lower cost alternate to the F-22, but if more F-22s were built the per unit cost may have been comparable to the increased price of the F-35. Furthermore, other than stealth, the F-35 maybe less capable than some of the more specialized aircraft it is planned to replace. The F-35 will be to fast for effective Close Air Support which the OA-10s excel in; will it be better in a turning fight that the F-16s were designed to excel in?

      As for the F/A-18E/Fs, they do not have the long legs that the retired A-6s and F-14s had, thus requiring the CVBG/CVSG to come closer to the target, exposing more sailors to increased threat. It was the best solution after the botched Super Tomcat, NATF, and Avenger II programs sure; but does it excel in the roles of Fleet Defender or long-ranged attack, or does it do both jobs just adequately enough for the time being? In wargames, hasn’t the Super Hornet actually been downed by navalized Russian fighters like the Su-33? If so what does that mean for the ability of an American CVBG/CVSG to gain air dominance without support of the land-based 5th gen F-22, against a determined first rate enemy?

      • surfcaster

        Probably do not need to worry (much) about Navalized Flankers but land based Flankers, and lots of them and lots of others.

        The Good Captain no longer with us would describe how the Hornet was great in its element but you cannot always (occasionally?) chose your element as it is often chosen for you.

        The F35? For all that has been promised so far we should smell the Unicorn Farts by now. With IOC still off for a bit there is a slim chance still of a winner but all indicators are this was not the aircraft to build and the way to build it.

      • Gagarin

        I just remembered that I need to get back to my read-though of the Good Captain’s blog =).

        The and East and South China Sea is a whole lot of big element, that’s for sure.

  • The_Usual_Suspect61

    One is actually operational; the other, not so much. BA 1, LMT 0. Film at eleven.

  • Boeing Wins by a mile

  • RightCowLeftCoast

    Either are better than the images used by the Democratic National Convention in 2012, who used images of Russian Navy ships instead of ours.


    There’s no such thing as a cool aircraft ad which involves an aircraft doing anything but flying.