Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
A big part of the issue with that particular fighter was the good ol' Sunk Cost Fallacy kicking into overdrive, coupled with the even larger, underlying issue of various elected officials wanting to make sure that the money that was currently going to the production and research for this (and other) project(s), and thereby their constituencies would continue to go there.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"@ Handle: I think there are one or two Tropers about who'd have something to say about that — and remember, sometimes the problems aren't the fault of industry.
It's the procurement system either the Military themselves, or the Governmentnote is at fault. It's endemic to British procurement, but has happened in the US.
Nationalisation does not mean everything when it comes to Defence procurement will be perfect. Far from it.
With the F-35, that's gone Globalnote . Components are made all over the world, even major parts of the aircraft.
edited 16th Feb '16 1:56:40 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnMeet Debbie Wasserman Schultz's first every primary challenger: Tim Canova
Trump Campaign Manager: Bush Administration Ignored Pre-9/11 Terror Threats
edited 16th Feb '16 1:50:23 PM by PotatoesRock
"Nationalisation does not mean everything when it comes to Defence procurement will be perfect. Far from it."
Not in a system where voters are ill-informed and impotent to get their will across, I'll grant you that. State ownership working properly depends crucially on democracy working properly. In the US, it doesn't.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.If I had a dollar for every time someone responded to criticism of the F-35 project with, "But we need a new fighter," I'd be able to independently fund the development of a new plane that actually, y'know, works.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Look up "literally". It does not mean what you appear to think it means.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"And we scrapped the production lines, apparently. Man, for a military that's forward thinking, we're certainly pretty stupid.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Paint them red, with lightning bolts on it?
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothesRegarding the F-35, it's far from a perfect aircraft, but it's not the complete shitshow that people paint it as, either. People give it way more crap than it deserves for a variety of reasons. One, it's the first fighter to grow up in the internet era, which means people get a much better view of the sausage-making than they used to. It's normal for new designs to have issues that are ironed out in production. This used to go on behind closed doors among people whose job is to find and fix those issues, but now the internet explodes every time an internal report is leaked. Two, there's a lot of rose color glasses involved here. The teen series of American fighter planes did not roll off the assembly line as flawless examples of American ingenuity and precision engineering. They had their share of teething troubles, but that was forty plus years ago, so no one remembers it. We've had literally decades to iron out the bugs and get accustomed to the strengths and weaknesses of the aircraft. The reaction is no longer "it can't XYZ? what a piece of junk!" because everyone knows it can't XYZ and doesn't expect it to. Three, a not-insignificant number of people crying gloom and doom about the F-35 have axes to grind. You get things like an article full of complaints about the F-35 that boil down to "it's not an F-16" written by the guy who designed the F-16. Granted, these people are experts and I'm not discounting them out of hand, but there's some very serious elements of things like "stealth? Pft, It Will Never Catch On".
Again, that's not to say that the F-35 program hasn't had some very real issues, or that we should ignore those issues. But the people calling the aircraft a failure are way overstating the case.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
They actually decided to keep the A-10 thanks to the recent war with ISIS. Also, in fairness, I recall we still have the production lines open for several aircraft, like the F-18 supper hornet. Also they are making something called the F-15 Silent Eagle, which apparently has some stealth features. Still, the point stands, the vast majority of our airframes were made in the 80's during Reagan's buildup.

![[up] [up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png)
A nationalization of the military industry is in order.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.