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 US Congress, it draws a cool action picture. But why are they so horribly bad? 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 $US781 million dollars last quarter alone. It's a staggeringly rich company.
Surely it could hire an artist capable of creating more than this crap, 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?
Remember this hilarious bad missile shield demo, also by Lockheed? It made for a great commercial for a Battleship.
Boeing tends to go with the vintage GI Joe look, which makes sense when dealing with flying cars.
So what gives? How can you take any military tech seriously when this is how it's pitched?