this post was submitted on 16 Nov 2023
781 points (92.1% liked)

Political Memes

5415 readers
2963 users here now

Welcome to politcal memes!

These are our rules:

Be civilJokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.

No misinformationDon’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.

Posts should be memesRandom pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.

No bots, spam or self-promotionFollow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] runjun@lemmy.world 16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Kind of funny that it’s an F-16 used here. The 22 or 35 would have been even more apt as an example.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago

Yeah, the F16 is one of the best examples of a fighter that can do nearly every role competently while being reasonably affordable. There is a reason so many countries bought it.

[–] Nath@aussie.zone 2 points 11 months ago

Plus it's been going for 50 years.

[–] AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml 1 points 11 months ago

Hey now, at least the 22 looked cool. All my homies hate the F35.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

edit2: ~~F22 is way more expensive than F35~~ nope, seems F35 is more expensive when you add A+B+C budget of F35, added links

True, looking at the F35 (A+B+C) and F22 buget and plans over the years.

Talk about bloated military budgets.

James Web Telescope budget is made by the same companies, so we know that projects are bloated by design or just by how they operate.

NASA vs. military, I am pretty sure some people would prefer to switch the budgets, hahahaha

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/news/a25678/the-cost-of-new-fighters-keeps-going-up-up-up/

https://hips.hearstapps.com/pop.h-cdn.co/assets/17/11/1489517410-isthemilitarygettingsmaller-figure4.jpg?resize=980:*

[–] AccmRazr@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

One of the biggest budget issues with the F35 program is that maintenance and repairs must go through private industry. Corporations just continuing to milk profit at every level. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2023/09/22/gao-blasts-contractor-led-f-35-maintenance-as-costly-slow/

There was the semi-recent report following the plane disappearance in the Carolinas that pointed to the battle readiness of the F35 program being lower than is acceptable (don’t remember the percentage thrown out there), and a lot of that is due to the corporate side of the deal. Parts are not readily available when needed, repairs are going slower than we are used to, and this is on top of using newer technologies in an effort to PREDICT future conflicts.

I hope we have learned our lessons from the F22 and F35 programs. New tank designs for the successor to the M1A2 Abrams are popping up. We cannot allow future programs to continue to favor corporate profits to these levels.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for the link and info!

[–] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Also, a big contributor to the expense of the F-22, both as a program and on a per unit basis, is that the US didn't make the aircraft available for purchase by foreign allies. So there's only, iirc, 200-some-odd F-22s in existence.

That means far fewer produced, and by extension, more of the one-time costs are baked into each fighter, and upgrades, maintenance, and "future proofing" expenses are spent in support of a smaller overall fleet, which lowers the ceiling on profitability and limits the benefits of scaling.

All that, and it's still the best air-to-air platform in existence, and the US is the only country that has em.

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 1 points 11 months ago

Thanks for the explaination!

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

We'd be mining asteroids and have a robot fleet sifting tritium from the moon surface

Edit: Helium-3, not tritium

[–] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmus.org 1 points 11 months ago

That would be awesome!

[–] dangblingus@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

It's not really that funny. The point is made despite it not being the most futuristic American dick extension on the market.