Well, in some sense it was a response to the consolidation in the European aerospace industry
which later had successfully designed and manufactured the Airbus series of commercial jets.

More important, large corporations, in general, COULD be more competitive because of economies
of scale and scope. And after all, there are still 5 companies. But the problem is that these companies
don't have to compete with each other. Campaign contribution is a lot of more cost effective. In addition,
there are the military-industry revolving door.

On Friday, March 19, 2021 at 1:00:20 PM UTC-4, carling wrote:
> That is correct in a reduction by merger the cost is more costly and more
> expensive, slower innovation due to lack of competition, and less secure
> America.
>
> A look at Facebook, Google, and many other companies their costs have gone
> up and less innovative.
>
> This is as a result of them in buying up innovative start-up companies
> before they could stand on their own feet.
>
> Sometimes after buying up the company, they locked it and threw away the
> key.
>
> This is one way to remove a competitor product from competing with them of a
> share of the market with them.
>
>
>
>
> "ltlee1" wrote in message
> news:8fccf5fe-b2f8-448d...@googlegroups.com...
> On Friday, February 26, 2021 at 10:26:52 PM UTC-5, wogw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Yes, we’re talking about the F-35. The 25-ton stealth warplane has become
> > the very problem it was supposed to solve. And now America needs a new
> > fighter to solve that F-35 problem, officials said.
> >
> > With a sticker price of around $100 million per plane, including the
> > engine, the F-35 is expensive. While stealthy and brimming with high-tech
> > sensors, it’s also maintenance-intensive, buggy and unreliable.
> >
> > More at:
> > https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2021/02/23/the-us-air-force-just-admitted-the-f-35-stealth-fighter-has-failed/?sh=530c695e1b16
>
> "“We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
> sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex,” Eisenhower said.
>
> “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will
> persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our
> liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted.”
> ...
> In 1993, 32 years after Eisenhower’s speech, President Clinton’s deputy
> secretary of defense William Perry held a dinner for 15 defense industry
> chiefs at the Pentagon.19 Perry said the Clinton administration wanted the
> number of big defense contractors in the United States cut by at least half
> within five years. To help, the government offered huge subsidies,
> theoretically to pay for the “cost” of the mergers. The dinner became known
> as the “last supper” and unleashed a massive consolidation among America’s
> defense contractors. And it worked even better than hoped. By 1997, the
> number of top-tier contractors was down to four.
> In retrospect, it’s clear that this rationalization of the defense industry
> was a very bad idea. It resulted in skyrocketing costs, slower innovation,
> and a less secure America." (Liberty From All by Barry C. Lynn)