←back to thread

247 points po | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
YZF ◴[] No.43531276[source]
I feel like we had a discussion of this crash in the past. Would be nice to find those threads.

Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?

replies(2): >>43531318 #>>43531447 #
avidiax ◴[] No.43531447[source]
My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail". They needed to blame the pilot, and certainly didn't need anyone familiar with the defects of the plane in a prominent command or as a general.

So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to deliver the F-47 in a similar fashion.

At the same time, you send a message: eject when your plane is misbehaving and you'll end your career. Sure, there's a risk that someone won't eject when they should, but there's also a chance that you'll be able to cover up another malfunction when the pilot nurses the plane back to base.

Did Pizzo say anything disparaging about the F-35? I doubt it. But when you've got billions of dollars of revenue/potential embarrassment on the line, you don't take chances.

replies(5): >>43531521 #>>43531526 #>>43531548 #>>43531770 #>>43531952 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.43531521[source]
> My feeling is that the F-35 is "too big to fail"

Allies cancelling orders may force Washington’s hand: the cost of additional jets, parts, et cerera skyrocket if spread over fewer planes.

replies(2): >>43531556 #>>43531756 #
atmosx ◴[] No.43531756{3}[source]
A common misconception - often echoed on this site - is that NATO allies and the U.S. operate on equal terms. They don’t. If the U.S. wants to sell 100 F-35s to European nations, it will happen.

Even today, with all this talk around NATO, there’s a massive U.S. military presence at NATO bases across Europe.

These forces are, in effect, under U.S. control, stationed in countries like Germany and Italy. And if Germany suddenly decided it wanted them gone - well, it’s not their call.

TL;DR: Life on the empire’s periphery might be comfortable, but you don’t get to choose your enemies - and you still have to pay your dues, or else.

replies(4): >>43532017 #>>43532147 #>>43532247 #>>43542658 #
1. Sabinus ◴[] No.43532247{4}[source]
It's only been months of the Trump admin and already the imperial attitudes are coming out. It's 2025, not 1900. Converting the US into an empire isn't going to go as well as you think it will.
replies(1): >>43532729 #
2. neor ◴[] No.43532729[source]
Saying that military action is not off the table to take Greenland is literally insane.

Greenland has always been an ally, if for safety reasons the US needs more military presence on the island they could have just asked for it and it would most likely have been approved.

There is zero reason to use force, but if the US would take such steps I wouldn't be surprised if Europe starts replacing the dollar as reserve currency. This could trigger other nations like China to follow. This move would hurt the US economy way worse than the current trade war does.