World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
If we assume that Portugal would have ordered the same number as Czechia (a fellow European country with a pretty close GDP, population, and military budget that already bought F-35s) and take the flyaway cost on wikipedia of $82.500,000 as the price Portugal would have paid per plane, that's $2 billion in sales that Lockheed Martin doesn't get
Portugal would probably have bought more, since we have a large area of the Atlantic Ocean that needs to be patrolled not only by sea, but also by air.
You also gotta make sure nobody tries to steal the Azores for their beautiful nature.
And that's just the beginning.
I feel like billionaires might resolve the Trump/musk issue for us. Fucking with a defense contractor's bottom line is pretty dangerous, especially when you have private security (Musk)
Honestly, I feel it's more likely to display how much the defense industry is just another ordinary industry. They'll whinge and wring their hands, maybe openly support the limpdick opposition if they're feeling particularly pressured, but all that experience in making killing machines is just engineering and marketing. They're not more likely to have clout or death squads (of their own, at least) than other major industries of comparable size and importance, and everything is structured in such a compartmentalized way that they couldn't really leverage that against the government if they actually wanted to throw down.
The defense industry is more like the oil industry than a cyberpunk future. Influential, not independent.
What about the expertise in suiciding whistleblowers?
Doesn't Boeing do mostly civilian aircraft?
:D
They do something for military, so it’s not a docile, purely civilian company
The funniest possible outcome of this would be Lockheed Martin starting up a Tesla competitor
Edit: on the upside, it’ll probably come with a zero/zero ejection seat as a standard feature, so that’s neat.
The enemy of my enemy
Good point. Hadn't really thought of it that way. What an enormous mess..
#ElbowsUp eh
Do they get more planes for their buck now?
Disclaimer in that I am not in any way an expert on military procurement: it depends on what they buy.
There are three European planes that can do similar roles: the Typhoon (Anglo-German-Italian), the Rafale (French), and the Gripen (Swedish). According to this RUSI article, it looks like the Typhoon is probably actually more expensive per plane. The Typhoon was also, unlike the other two and the F-35, designed to be a pure air superiority fighter, so it's more of an F-22 competitor than an F-35 one. Probably not what Portugal is looking for. That RUSI article has the Rafale as being a bit more expensive than the F-35 and the Gripen being a bit cheaper than it. However, the source for the F-35's number is the flyaway cost for the Americans, who did ordered it in huge numbers and also did most (not all, but most) of the development and I would assume get a better deal than others. Further, it's in an article headlined "F-35’s price might rise, Lockheed warns". So I'm just going to hedge my bets and say:
That's all well and good, but you're also missing a critical point.
The European Union is very likely to introduce a bill that will massively subsidize purchases of local (EU) military equipment. This will make all EU alternatives much, much more attractive than F-35s.
This is a great move by the EU - it drives a lot of military spending away from the US and into the local economies, while shoring up its own security as well as preventing being at the hands of a fickle fascist for maintenance and upgrades.
Which in turn will probably also help with economies of scale, making the ex-subsidy cost of that equipment go down.
For once, our (Croatian) government lucked into making a good choice when they went with Rafales instead of F-16Vs.
A last point to consider is that the rafale is cheaper to operate than the F-35
What's your opinion on Tejas (Yes, I know it's not European)
Uhh, don't expect any special insights here
It looks to me like it's pretty impressive considering that it's the second combat plane ever built in the country, and the experience gained from that is a valuable thing.
I have to assume that it's less capable and less expensive than the four that I mentioned, based on how it has fared as an export. It seems to have struggled against the European, American, and Chinese offerings, or in many cases have been considered as a trainer by countries that are already flying one of those previously-mentioned ones. Obviously there's a lot of politics involved in these purchases, but if Australia has already bought F-35s and wants Tejases as trainers then it suggests that Australia has a good reason to think that Tejas is a lot less expensive and also less effective at actually fighting a war
It seems like it suits its role well, though - a cost-effective solution for India's needs, and a way to develop domestic expertise