this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2025
236 points (94.4% liked)

Not The Onion

20724 readers
1172 users here now

Welcome

We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!

The Rules

Posts must be:

  1. Links to news stories from...
  2. ...credible sources, with...
  3. ...their original headlines, that...
  4. ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”

Please also avoid duplicates.

Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.

And that’s basically it!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 35 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] SenatorCollins@aussie.zone 74 points 10 months ago (5 children)

Well there are a lot of these ships going around the world all the time, and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don’t want people thinking that carriers aren’t safe.

[–] spizzat2@lemm.ee 39 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Well, the fighter jet's not supposed to fall off, for start.

[–] NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml 14 points 10 months ago

Well that's why they had to take it out from the environment.

[–] theskyisfalling@lemmy.dbzer0.com 21 points 10 months ago

"Yeah, that’s not very typical. I’d like to make that point."

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 11 points 10 months ago

okay, but it wasn't the front that fell off this time 😄 it wasn't even a part if the ship.

[–] PacMan@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Also sounds like the ship was taking evasive action from hostels. They where probably bring up the bird from below deck storage and where getting it ready for the run way and the crew was not ready for the movement. I am sure training will be had from this across the fleet

[–] SenatorCollins@aussie.zone 5 points 10 months ago

Well, I was thinking more about the other ones.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 0 points 10 months ago

Not safe for the houthis anyway.

[–] Sibbo@sopuli.xyz 42 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 35 points 10 months ago (4 children)

Haha, they are increasing military spending. Showing that reducing the deficit is not the goal at all. They were towing the plane around the flight deck and had some mistake, the tow truck thingy went off the bridge, taking the plane with it. Seems like a design flaw somewhere. Not a big ding to the military, that's like 0.25% of the available super hornets. Sure is a dumb way to throw a few tens of millions of dollars away, but growing up around the military, I've known for decades that the military are great at throwing money out the window.

[–] Venus_Ziegenfalle@feddit.org 10 points 10 months ago

I mean nobody got hurt and nothing else seems to have been damaged. If you're gonna lose a fighter jet I reckon this is about the cheapest way to do it.

[–] badbrainstorm@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I had a retired military buddy at work who told me it was one of his annual task to burn through supply, so they wouldn't lose funding. I still get amused when I think about him reinacting them spending weeks on end bored AF and snacking, while wasting millions of rounds of ammo, and tossing hand grenades

[–] jaybone@lemmy.zip 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I’ve heard stories of people burying entire tanks.

Funny. But also very stupid and wasteful.

[–] badbrainstorm@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So they raise the military budget, and cut all social welfare, and health funding. 🇺🇸

[–] lurch@sh.itjust.works 7 points 10 months ago

yes, but it's unrelated. the US could afford all three, but the military protects wealth, while social welfare releases the pressure on ppl to be exploited to generate wealth and health funding lowers the amount of wealth they can siphon off.

[–] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

the tow truck thingy

Ah yes, the technical term.

[–] MelodiousFunk@slrpnk.net 4 points 10 months ago

the tow truck thingy went off the bridge

I'm not sure what to be more impressed with: that the tow truck thingy driver had bridge clearance, or that the thingy itself managed to tow a fighter jet up the island.

[–] MuskyMelon@lemmy.world 25 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Houthis will count this as a downed aircraft

[–] gnutrino@programming.dev 17 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

More like a drowned aircraft, amirite?

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 2 points 10 months ago

The number of combat defeats of the F-18 is somewhere in the single digits, so you gotta take what you can get.

[–] entwine413@lemm.ee 12 points 10 months ago

As opposed to them intentionally dumping them in the ocean so they don't lose their budget.

[–] SW42@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] remon@ani.social 11 points 10 months ago

At sea? Chance in a million.

[–] ToastedRavioli@midwest.social 10 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Idk if people are joking, but the carrier was taking fire, made a hard turn, and the jet was under tow at that moment. Since it wasnt secured it went over, thankfully not taking anybody with it

[–] callouscomic@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago

Yet I had some moron IRL argue with me about rumors of a FEMA center blowing $200k on training, therefore it should be closed. They never bring up defense though.

[–] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Yeah, accidents happens sometimes. This isn't really worth worrying about.

[–] houstoneulers@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago

Highway to the fumblezone!

[–] Fleur_@aussie.zone 4 points 10 months ago

I'm right here if they want to waste another 70 million

[–] Flax_vert@feddit.uk 3 points 10 months ago

How exactly is this "not the onion"? Stuff like this happens. No idea why this would be seen as satirical in any way.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 3 points 10 months ago

Welcome back, John McCain 🫡

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That's amazingly cheap for a fighter aircraft.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 4 points 10 months ago

Old fa18, they were cheap back then and it's not stealth or anything.

[–] urfavlaura@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

btw at the current military budget of ~850 billion USD for 2025 they could afford to lose one of them every 42 minutes for the entire year

[–] zout@fedia.io 1 points 10 months ago

Thanks Trump!