|
That Works posted:No one can answer this. It's just that stealthy.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Propagandalf posted:Explain to me how it's suddenly different and dangerously influential that children are seeing computer renders on TV of products that don't exist when half the Evil Defense Contractor-built inventory of the US Air Force flies over every sports stadium in the US before the game/race/orgy starts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGzhmVmuSTA here's the video. The video starts with the notional 6th Gen fighter F-X fighter jet. At 6 seconds, there is the B-2 bomber taking off. At 18 seconds, there is the Navy F/A-XX fighter. There are lots of weapons systems there  Look, I'm saying defense contractors having too much influence is a bad thing. I'm not just singling out only defense contractors here. I'm saying that outsize influence is a bad thing for any industry to have. For example: The financial industry having too much influence is the reason why big banks were 'too big to fail' during the financial crisis and felt able to take ridiculous risks. Lockheed Martin having too much influence is part of the reason why the F-35 is the 'too big to fail' defense program of the century, and has contributed to the program being such a mess. Pharmaceutical companies having too much influence is how they are allowed to advertise their latest drugs on cable tv to people who don't need them and conduct incredibly exploitative business practices. Tobacco companies having too much influence is why they could advertise cigarettes even when they were proven to be cancer sticks for so long. I'm making the point that any industry that gets too large and influential allows them them to promote/do things which may not be in the best interests of the population/ or which shouldn't be allowed. I'm not attacking anybody here, I'm pointing out the superbowl spot is a particular example of defence contractor influence and that it's weird to advertise weapons systems on primetime family tv.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:00
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:I'm making the point that any industry that gets too large and influential allows them them to promote/do things which may not be in the best interests of the population/ or which shouldn't be allowed. I'm not attacking anybody here, I'm pointing out the superbowl spot is a particular example of defence contractor influence and that it's weird to advertise weapons systems on primetime family tv. Your standard for "too large and influential" here is "we paid a for-profit entity $20 more than a shampoo maker". B-2s and F-18s will literally fly over the crowd and you're more concerned about people knowing and caring who made them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:19
|
|
|
Propagandalf why has this upset you so much? I'm sorry that the big scary foreigner has pointed out that America is pretty weird but there's no reason to melt down over it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:24
|
|
|
Veritek83 posted:https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-super-bowl/ Except how would you fold the wings for storage on a carrier when the entire thing is wing? On the other hand, I guess if the planes are actually triangles, you can pack 'em together tighter than standard cruciform airframes. Kinda like this, except with the long axis being the wingspan:  Mr Crustacean posted:I'm saying that from a non US perspective, it is abnormal. I mean, in the UK you would absolutely, never, ever see a weapons manufacturer advertising their weapons systems at a major sporting event. Never, it's just not acceptable. That's the difference, that it's not socially acceptable to advertise weapons on primetime family TV. No need to call people stupid over it Also even from a US perspective it seems a bit desperate -- when was the last time either of the parent companies had a major contract? B-2 (small fleet) and F-14 (retired ten years ago)? Low-production-rate spyplanes like they're doing now probably don't make all that much money, by comparison. Though last October they got the contract for yet another B-52 replacement, maybe this one will stick. Or at least get them a trillion dollars before the BUFF gets another lifetime extension. They should've bid on the replacement for the other long-lived Grumman product, the one that didn't randomly explode. The Post Office needs new trucks, but apparently GM got that contract a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:26
|
|
Bad Angus! Bad!
|
Splode posted:Propagandalf why has this upset you so much? You aren't familiar with his history of utter idiocy, huh?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:30
|
|
|
Delivery McGee posted:I just find it amusing how they're playing both pre-merger halves of the company's strengths -- Northrop is known for flying wings, and Grumman has always built Navy fighters, so what can possibly go wrong? The answer to both of these questions is "The A-12 program"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
Propagandalf posted:You aren't familiar with his history of utter idiocy, huh? Nope, but he's made a pretty good point. Only in America would it be ok to advertise weapons on regular tv. Lots of countries do flyovers but that's a very different thing, because the military and arms manufacturers are very different things.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 03:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 04:01
|
|
|
Splode posted:Nope, but he's made a pretty good point. Only in America would it be ok to advertise weapons on regular tv. Lots of countries do flyovers but that's a very different thing, because the military and arms manufacturers are very different things. "It's fine to show off the product so long as they don't see the label."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 04:10
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/696178902906044416 Looks like NK managed to get their rocket to work. Claimed imaging sat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
Lollin at the reply thread.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:28
|
|
|
Telling defense contractors they can't buy ad time at the super bowl would probably be a violation of the 1st amendment. e: like, if I had a bajillion dollars and decided to make a superbowl ad saying "tell your congressmen to buy my totally hypothetical sweet-rear end plane" the government can't tell me no just because it's cheesy and stupid and maybe a little unseemly. The network, meanwhile, is not going to say no to my money. And while I don't think anyone's actually saying this ad should be banned, it begs the question: what would you do about it? Mortabis fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Splode posted:because the military and arms manufacturers are very different things. hahahahahahahahaha you're precious e: for content, a large part of the reason why things like the F-35 happen isn't because LM is sitting there twirling their moustache while raking in oodles of the government's money for not doing any work, it's because the government (i.e., "the military") are full of morons who write idiotic RFPs containing stupid loving requirements. To give it an international flavor, look at the history of the Chinook Mk3's. The sole responsibility for that debacle lies at the feet of the MoD, i.e...."the military." iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 06:06 on Feb 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:00
|
|
|
Pack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap! That's actually pretty amazing that they can get them that dense. Mortabis posted:Telling defense contractors they can't buy ad time at the super bowl would probably be a violation of the 1st amendment. Well, you aren't allowed to advertise cigarettes on TV anymore. Though, come to think of it, I'm not quite sure what the legal justification for being able to restrict that is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Pack 'em deep and sell 'em cheap! Apparently that isn't actually a law, but part of the settlement over "woops, we lied about cancer for the last 30 year, sorry" case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Splode posted:Nope, but he's made a pretty good point. Only in America would it be ok to advertise weapons on regular tv. Lots of countries do flyovers but that's a very different thing, because the military and arms manufacturers are very different things. They're not advertising weapons. If Toyota buys an ad spot, they want you to buy a Toyota. If Northrup buys an ad spot, they want you to buy the credibility of their company. And by "you", I mean their stockholders, their potential employment recruits, the managers of smaller contractors who might do subcontracting work, etc, etc, etc. If any company whose products are not sold at the consumer level is advertising, that's what they're doing. GE isn't trying to sell locomotives when they have some lady talk about the personal fulfillment she gets from being an engineer who designs energy-efficient rail engines to save the planet. On the way to work each day, I pass a Ratheon billboard that notionally advertises the Standard Missile 3. But Raytheon doesn't expect some general to drive by and think "Hmm, I should buy some missiles." They expect that some of the bazillion engineers and managers who pass that billboard on the way to the research park might think "Hmm, they're a cool company, maybe I should see if they've got any openings" or "Hmm, they seem to be good at stuff, maybe I can subcontract for/to them".
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
I don't see how a defense contractor advertising is worse for anybody than if the same time spot went to Coke or McDonalds. The strange thing is thinking a Super Bowl ad is the best way to reach the people they want to influence. It seems more like a waste of money than some nefarious mustache twirling plan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:30
|
|
|
Just a note- NG did a spot last year that was pretty clearly pushing their LRS-B bid that honestly I thought was kinda sexy- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-vkdUBNOOc so while I think they're the first defense contractor to buy SB time, this is actually the second year they've done it. Also, as someone who grew up in the DC area and still spends serious time on the metro- you can't ride the Yellow or Blue line in VA without seeing tons of advertising by defense contractors- the boards in the Pentagon, Pentagon City and Crystal City stations are pretty much exclusively defense/intel industry oriented.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:32
|
|
|
This is boring, Simeon post plane pictures. Preferably Northrop and/or Grumman products, tia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 06:38
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOTWkPdDm-Y (Full speech here)It's nice to see someone acknowledging the ubiquity of the tanker force. It was a little depressing reading Relentless Strike and seeing the AR effort for night one in Afghanistan handwaived with, "and then the Combat Talons flew off to refuel from a tanker."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGzhmVmuSTA here's the video. None of which are being advertised, because that would imply they're available for purchase. None of them are. Two of them don't even exist, and the other stopped being available almost twenty years ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Non-American is shocked that arms manufacturers are advertising in TV, points out that this is strange in thrir culture and that most people wouldn't like it and it'd harm not help the company, without saying whether it's right or wrong American is shocked, says how it isn't strange to him because of how much arms manufacturers are in touch with Joe Public in the USA They start arguing over... something? I don't know I lost interest but all agree that boy different cultures sure are different after all! Is that pretty much it? Can we move on now?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:35
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:They're not advertising weapons. If Toyota buys an ad spot, they want you to buy a Toyota. If Northrup buys an ad spot, they want you to buy the credibility of their company. And by "you", I mean their stockholders, their potential employment recruits, the managers of smaller contractors who might do subcontracting work, etc, etc, etc. If any company whose products are not sold at the consumer level is advertising, that's what they're doing. GE isn't trying to sell locomotives when they have some lady talk about the personal fulfillment she gets from being an engineer who designs energy-efficient rail engines to save the planet. And to get some name recognition when it comes time to do your retirement plan. VenturePath LifeForce 2065 has Northreon Gruoeing? I've heard of them, that's a big company. My money will be safe!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Non-American is shocked that arms manufacturers are advertising in TV, points out that this is strange in thrir culture and that most people wouldn't like it and it'd harm not help the company, without saying whether it's right or wrong You forgot "American points out that the same thing happens on the other side of the pond."
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Non-American is shocked that arms manufacturers are advertising in TV, points out that this is strange in thrir culture and that most people wouldn't like it and it'd harm not help the company, without saying whether it's right or wrong Kind of but Mr Crustacean has a history of crummy posts on here that get people's hackles up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 09:08
|
|
|
Northrop sponsors a bowl game too. I don't think any of the other Big 3 do that.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
When was the last time Northrop even won a fighter contract? In other news, after doing a bit of reading, I learned that some dude built his own F-104 from scrapped parts to set a speed record that still stands. I really want to know how he convinced the Navy to sell him the engine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darryl_Greenamyer Too bad it crashed.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:When was the last time Northrop even won a fighter contract?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
Seems like they need to step up their advertisement game
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:56
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:When was the last time Northrop even won a fighter contract? Does the F35 center body count?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 10:58
|
|
|
They look like birds huddled together against the cold 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
In the UK I have seen defence companies advertising, but that was a few select tube stations in London where you could actually expect the odd person who had some influence over defence procurement might actually wander by. The concept of overt, fetishistic military worship should not really be alien to anyone from the UK though- we have been sliding down that slope ever faster for the last decade or two, and after watching the government/media namedropping "brimstone" and how wonderful it is at every mention in the Syria vote, I wouldn't be too surprised that eventually defence companies will increase general marketing in the UK.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 11:54
|
|
|
lovely derail, or shittiest derail? Q: Is it normal for weapons manufacturers to advertise on TV in the US? A: No, this is not normal. Holy poo poo! That was hard! This is all this thread deserves now! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
That plane looks airsick, or really hates the taste of jet fuel
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Blistex posted:lovely derail, or shittiest derail? Plinkey posted:Northrop sponsors a bowl game too. I don't think any of the other Big 3 do that.  The Air Force Academy is 1-4 in the Armed Forces bowl, having lost twice to U.C. Berkeley.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 02:21 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:When was the last time Northrop even won a fighter contract? This dude owns quote:Too bad it crashed. He was really going for authenticity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2016 17:52
|
|