And that's without mentioning Boeing... (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) by ViVerVo@lemmygrad.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Something something don't throw rocks in glass houses...

top 26 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Diva@lemmy.ml 23 points 3 days ago

[-] bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de 22 points 4 days ago

Reminds me of the time a jet's computer kept crashing on landing approach to the Dead Sea because it's below sea level and the computer couldn't handle negative altitudes.

[-] ToxicWaste@lemm.ee 9 points 4 days ago

I don't think these computers where designed in the Netherlands

[-] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 1 points 4 days ago

is this supposed to be a dunk on the F35? Did you read the article?

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 19 points 4 days ago

F35s dunk themselves

[+] drkt@scribe.disroot.org -12 points 3 days ago

oh sorry its a tankie instance I'll be on my way

carry on

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The inevitable collapse of the west is going to come as complete shock to people like you. The writing is on the wall but you are just to smug and self assured to even contemplate it.

I do feel sorry for you, because ultimately you've been hoodwinked by a very effective propaganda machine that is going to feed you into a mulcher to prolong the failing Western hegemony.

[-] drkt@scribe.disroot.org -5 points 3 days ago

The inevitable collapse of the west is going to come as complete shock to people like you.

It's not, but I'm sure that's hard to believe when you need to hate me because I disagreed with you on a point of factual statistics.

The writing is on the wall but you are just to smug and self assured to even contemplate it.

I don't know what this has to be with the F35 failure rate

ultimately you’ve been hoodwinked by a very effective propaganda machine that is going to feed you into a mulcher to prolong the failing Western hegemony.

We're being fed to the same mulcher, man. You're not owning class, we're both gonna die in World War 3.

It seems like you have a lot of assumptions about me and what I believe

[-] KrasMazov@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 3 days ago

It's not, but I'm sure that's hard to believe when you need to hate me because I disagreed with you on a point of factual statistics.

So, when you call us tankies it's all fine and dandy, but the moment someone responds, they are hating on you? Lol

[-] Count042@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

And yet you won't respond to the comment that points out that this awesome plane that only works a third of the time cost 7 times more than the entire fucking Apollo program from start to finish.

It was a grift.

A scam.

A con.

The sole purpose of that plane is to steal the money that you work for and pay taxes on and give it to rich people.

That's it.

That's what you are defending.

The largest scam probably in human history.

[-] drkt@scribe.disroot.org -2 points 3 days ago

Who are you, Pierre Spray? Of course it siphoned money out of the peoples hands, that's what America does. That doesn't mean the plane doesn't work. Also no, I'm not gonna respond to all 6 of you. You all have the same point.

You are wrong about the statistics and none of you have owned up to that and the only one who actually went and checked (presumably) when I pointed it out is weaseling his way out of it with disingenuous language instead of just saying the number, because they know that they'd look dumb if if they said less than 30 of over 900 built have crashed and less than half of those were actually a plane malfunction and not operator error or a fucking experimental test frame. It's easier to say "many crash" than to give a number and leave it up to the reader to interpret whatever that means. It's also easy to imply that the planes are broken and non-functional two-thirds of the time by implying that basic-ass maintenance standards are somehow a bad thing. There does not exist a fighter jet which does not sit in a hangar or below deck for most of its life. The F35 is more complex than the planes it replaced and is full of exotic materials, so of course it requires more maintenance.

Please understand that I also hate America- I just base my hatred in factual reality.

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I think the biggest difference between you and me is that you'll happily walk in to that mulcher to protect someone else's stock value.

[-] drkt@scribe.disroot.org -2 points 3 days ago

Whomst've stock value am I protecting by pointing out that you were wrong on a factual statistic

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 4 points 3 days ago

Where did you do that? You seemed to just shit and fart and call me a tankie.

[-] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 15 points 3 days ago

There are always going to be Marxists and Anarchists on Lemmy, best not to be scared of us.

[-] Count042@lemmy.ml 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

The F-35 program has so far cost us 7 times (adjusted for inflation) what it cost us to go to the fucking moon for a plane that only works 30 percent of the time.

You don't need to be a 'tankie' (a word I doubt you could define) to recognize that that is a ripoff.

Capitalists should be furious about this obvious fucking grift to funnel tax payer money to the board members of defense companies.

[-] ProfessorOwl_PhD@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago

I did, it names a bunch of incidents where parts shat themselves then says it's way over budget. An actual explanation is definitely missing from the article.

[-] courier8377@hexbear.net 10 points 3 days ago

Having a jet that makes headlines about how it "keeps crashing" is probably not a good thing lmao what

[-] drkt@scribe.disroot.org -2 points 3 days ago

you can actually look up how many have crashed and, you won't but if you do, please tell me how many crashed because the plane shat itself and how many crashed because of operator error

[-] courier8377@hexbear.net 11 points 3 days ago

If i were the preeminent military power i would simply make a jet that didn't shit itself and train the operators of a multi billion dollar equipment to not crash it

Perhaps the design is flawed if well trained operators are crashing enough to make headlines

Perhaps the operators are not qualified to be flying it

[-] 843563115848z@thelemmy.club 0 points 4 days ago

Boeing does not build the F35.

[-] Flyberius@hexbear.net 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I think op understands that. The meme is calling out people who assume the new J36 must be shit quality simply because it's Chinese made, when America's own f35 is itself extremely unreliable.

OP's mention of boeing is simply pointing out another area of American manufacturing that is currently embroiled in it's own quality issues. Maybe the "China builds low quality" claim is out of date and needs to be retired.

Hope that clears things up Langley.

[-] ViVerVo@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 3 days ago

That's why I put "And that's >WITHOUT< mentioning Boeing..."

[-] ViVerVo@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 3 days ago

Yeah, got annoyed that a significant amount of Americans who talk about the J36 and bring up "Hur dur, what about tofu dreg construction?" or "Temu quality"

[-] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Temu quality

Everything i ordered from Temu so far has been completely acceptable in terms of quality. I didn't ordered jet fighters though, maybe US Air Force should try, who knows, maybe they would be pleasantly surprised compared to F-35.

[-] boonhet@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago

Think you have to go to Alibaba for those

this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025

81 points (93.5% liked)

Memes

46035 readers

1919 users here now

Rules:

Be civil and nice.
Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml

sexy_peach@feddit.de

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml