• anachronist@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Cope how? I’m not a fan. The worst thing in the world for Lockheed would be if US’s adversaries decided they weren’t going to be designing any new weapons systems. Lockheed runs on fear of what’s next.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      3 days ago

      Lockheed model of sucking up taxes without producing anything only works when the US feels they have superiority over the adversaries. Now that it’s becoming clear this is not the case, there will be a push to actually have to produce things that work, and Lockheed isn’t good at doing that.

          • signalsayge@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            And yet they have still been operational for 60 years after that… Funny that the U2 lasted longer than the Soviet Union.

            • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              19 hours ago

              The U-2 first flew in 1955. One was shot down over the USSR in 1960, and another was shot down over Cuba in 1962. They largely stopped flying over peer air defenses at that point.

              That’s about a 7-year span where it was useful for its primary task. Hanging around to fly over Libya in 2011 is not the same as fulfilling the role the plane was designed for decades later.

              • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                2 days ago

                So you’re just saying that one was once shot down as to why the U2 as a whole was an ineffective program?

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  The fact that they have never been put into mass production is a very clear indicator that it was an ineffective program.

                  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    Neither was the SR-71. Both programs had a very limited mission, which is why neither was ever produced in quantity.