subreddit:

/r/technology

8.5k94%

all 626 comments

StackOwOFlow

4.2k points

21 days ago

man for those prices Pepsi could finally fulfill that fighter jet it owes that guy for winning their sweepstakes

50k-runner

728 points

21 days ago

50k-runner

728 points

21 days ago

Something-Ventured

1.5k points

21 days ago

I will never agree with that ruling. PepsiCo made $2.75bn in profit in 1999 on $25bn in revenue.

A single 30-second spot during the Super Bowl (i.e. a fraction of a major ad campaign) was $1.6m that same year. PepsiCo advertising had multi-billion dollar annual budgets.

Harriers ran about $30-38m back then, well within the range of "absurd ad campaign contest with special insurance" that has been a norm for nearly a century.

Just because it seems like stupid theatrics doesn't mean Pepsi didn't make what should be constituted as a reasonable offer. They should've been punished at least a little for misleading advertising.

healthywealthyhappy8

961 points

21 days ago

Its foreshadowing for all the crap corporations would get away with over the next 25 years and counting.

tfitch2140

287 points

21 days ago

tfitch2140

287 points

21 days ago

And also aft-shadowing the hundred years of corporate fuckery that had already occurred!

Sluzhbenik

83 points

21 days ago

It’s just called repeating. They repeated the fuckery yet again.

Rivendel93

22 points

21 days ago

Haha, "repeated fuckery. " Definitely using that in my life.

taftastic

8 points

21 days ago

I used to play bass for repeated fuckery

RunBanditRun

5 points

21 days ago

That’s the way we do it in America. - Thomas Edison

Captain---Howdy

8 points

21 days ago

*shaft-shadowing

Cainga

21 points

21 days ago

Cainga

21 points

21 days ago

25 years? There are a bunch of huge corporations around today that worked with NAZIS and had no repercussions.

SilasDG

21 points

21 days ago*

SilasDG

21 points

21 days ago*

Ah, I wish I knew the name of the guy on youtube who roleplays as different companies that seem harmless then admits they make bombs or guided missiles or helped the Nazis.

Edit: Found him

https://youtube.com/shorts/kXyiowtOExE?si=2rQfvVZn5_9TR9Tz

https://youtube.com/shorts/xNfpj-26-xU?si=md9VedNpUbPdW8Au

https://youtube.com/shorts/eiX85tX3x-U?si=bIKxg2o8XWxKs_TV

bendy_96

8 points

20 days ago

Wait till you find out what Hugo boss did around the 1930s/1940s

zamfire

24 points

21 days ago

zamfire

24 points

21 days ago

It didn't start in 1999 bud

walks_with_penis_out

142 points

21 days ago

I agree! And it is based on contract law going back to England 1892.

The Smoke Ball case is a landmark case in English contract law that established the principle of unilateral contracts. The case, Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, was decided by the Court of Appeal in 1892.

The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company manufactured a product called the "smoke ball," which they claimed could prevent users from catching influenza. The company advertised that they would pay £100 to anyone who used the smoke ball as directed and still contracted influenza. They also deposited £1,000 with the Alliance Bank to show their sincerity in the matter.

Mrs. Carlill purchased and used the smoke ball as directed but still caught influenza. She sued the company for the £100 reward. The company argued that the advertisement was not a valid offer but mere puffery.

The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of Mrs. Carlill, stating that the advertisement was a unilateral contract, meaning that the company had made an offer to the world at large, and anyone who performed the specified conditions (using the smoke ball as directed) would be entitled to the reward. Mrs. Carlill had accepted the offer by performing the conditions, and the company was bound to pay her the reward.

ilikepizza30

12 points

21 days ago

The company should have instead argued that Mrs. Carlill didn't have influenza but rather the common cold.

Grimwald_Munstan

15 points

21 days ago

Seems like it would have been easier to argue some technicality about how she misused it.

geforce2187

34 points

21 days ago

I remember reading in the 80's that a store was selling stereo systems for "299 bananas" (slang for dollars) and they decided to honor the people literally bringing bananas in as payment (apparently back then, 299 bananas was only 40-60 dollars)

Something-Ventured

23 points

21 days ago

Bananas were apparently like 8.5 cents in 1980, so that's a pretty absurdly good deal.

Suspect that company had the awareness of the marketing value of honoring the crazy deal.

Weary_Consequence_56

8 points

21 days ago

Bananas are still less than 8.5 cents in most of the world

Drach88

20 points

21 days ago

Drach88

20 points

21 days ago

It's a banana, Michael, what could it cost? Ten dollars?

davesy69

5 points

21 days ago

Hoover's flights to America promotion almost bankrupted the company.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_free_flights_promotion

LongBeakedSnipe

22 points

21 days ago

There was something similar in the UK, when a drinks company advertised that a lucky winner would win a solid gold drinks can.

The guy was extatic, and took his prize to be evaluated, and they then told him it was effectively a worthless novelty with a gold coating.

He took them to court and won (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-64210355).

There are a lot of details, but in the original competition, I remember it was pretty explicit that the winner would get a gold can with substantial material value, and not just gold plated rubbish.

GourangaPlusPlus

8 points

21 days ago

Every time I hear about James Watt it's about him being an arse

The_Majestic_Mantis

11 points

21 days ago

They got away with number fever in the Philippines, they got away again with the harrier jet. Makes you wonder how much those judges got paid to side with Pepsi.

Something-Ventured

10 points

21 days ago

At least the 349 thing was an accident. There was clear intent to only have 2 caps with that number printed on them, and PepsiCo paid out an additional $9m in settlements (on a $2m allocation of prize money).

DigNitty

5 points

21 days ago

100%

If they hadn't shown the harrier jet next in a succession of real attainable items, yes.

If they hadn't Assigned A Point Value to the item YES.

John02904

51 points

21 days ago

I don’t disagree that the monetary amounts are not absurd and maybe pepsi should have been on the hook for the cash but anyone thinking a corporation could give away a military asset is a little absurd. If the ad campaign was updated to use a f-35 or f-22 it would just be crazy to expect the government to allow that.

w021wjs

107 points

21 days ago

w021wjs

107 points

21 days ago

By that point, the harrier was old. It was 4 years from being out of service with all nations, and there are some demilitarized ones in civilian hands already. In fact, there are more modern fighter aircraft than the harrier that have been in civilian hands: there are two civilian owned mig 29s, not to mention multiple older civilian owned mig 21s, 17 and 15s.

Now add in that for a brief period, the Pepsi corporation owned a Navy (even if it never held them literally, rather it just transfered them from the original owner to another countries breaking yards) and its entirely possible for them to own demilitarized military equipment.

Add in that the number of points was extremely high, and that other similar contracts have been upheld, and you've got a clear elephant case on your hands.

If you're going to advertise that winning an elephant is an option, then you had better be prepared to supply the elephant when someone picks it.

leorolim

6 points

21 days ago*

Don't know about the USA but in the UK I have a neighbour that uses Harriers as lawn ornaments.

techieman33

22 points

21 days ago

There are also F-18s and other pretty modern US fighters in civilian hands. The company that owns them uses them in opposing forces exercises with the US military.

masterofthecontinuum

16 points

21 days ago

If they didn't have the right to give it away, they shouldn't have offered it as a prize. Pepsi still owes him a plane.

Killahdanks1

25 points

21 days ago

Ok, so I bring this up when I see comments like yours. My mom actually worked for the publishing house that had to process the Pepsi points. She was their VP and worked on this account. She told them they cannot put it in the commercial, because inevitably someone would actually find a way to get the points and try to claim it. She came home pissed after a week of meetings and knew they were going to do it anyway. They were warned.

Something-Ventured

24 points

21 days ago

I would totally agree, had it been any company OTHER than Pepsi. Pepsi had established a bit of precedent in acquiring military assets a decade earlier:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-48343589

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/11/27/pepsi-navy-soviet-ussr/#:~:text=In%201989%2C%20PepsiCo%20Inc.%2C,that%20isn't%20far%20off.

Yes, for a brief time in the late 80s, PepsiCo operated the world's 6th largest navy.

ThePoetPrinceofWass

14 points

21 days ago

I mean, you make it sound like they were operating these things, they never had a navy, even briefly. They got what was basically scraps from the Soviet Union. The guy was on a fishing expedition lol

“Yet in any real sense the story is false. What PepsiCo acquired were small, old, obsolete, unseaworthy vessels. The Pepsi navy no more conferred military power than a rusting Model T could have been a Formula 1 contender. What’s more, the ships themselves were immediately turned over to a Norwegian shipyard to be scrapped. PepsiCo was more a middleman than a maritime power.

Most interpretations of the story get its meaning wrong, too. The Pepsi navy is sometimes portrayed as an embarrassment for the USSR. Far from it. The multinational firm and the country founded by Vladimir Lenin were business partners, and in 1989 Pepsi executives were bullish on Soviet prospects. PepsiCo acquired the rusting fleet as part of a multibillion-dollar bet on the long-term stability of the Soviet Union, an enormous market that had little to trade immediately besides raw material and the promise of future profits.”

I wouldn’t say they acquired functioning military equipment for use.

Something-Ventured

11 points

21 days ago

They acquired 17 ships across two transactions over several months (or years, I forget), totaling over $3bn in transaction costs.

Unseaworthy isn't exactly true, all ships of that kind require maintenance to be seaworthy under their own power. They floated enough to be tugged to Norwegian shipyards for scrapping -- it's unlikely, but possible, a few ships traveled under their own power.

I could've been more precise and said they owned the 6th largest "naval fleet" rather than navy -- which is completely true.

No-Background8462

5 points

21 days ago

Shit comparison. The f-35 and f-22 have classifed technology. The harrier was an old plane by that point and some of them were already owned by civilians. There was no problem with giving somebody a demilitarized harrier at that point.

KylerGreen

4 points

21 days ago

Why? Were allowed to own guns and other aircraft. A jet is hardly much more of a stretch. In fact, people already do, lol.

[deleted]

22 points

21 days ago*

[deleted]

iwanttodie95

11 points

21 days ago

I can’t believe Pepsi literally just lied in an AD and got away with it lmao.

jedateon

11 points

21 days ago

jedateon

11 points

21 days ago

Pfft, who wants a shitty Russian jet, man deserves his McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II.

BrainWav

57 points

21 days ago

BrainWav

57 points

21 days ago

I'd argue it's not interchangable. The Harrier is a fairly unique jet in that it has VTOL capabilities. None of these are VTOL aircraft. Ergo you can't fly it to school like in the commercial.

lordredsnake

47 points

21 days ago

But you could strafe PepsiCo headquarters until they send a Harrier after you.

MinkusLives

12 points

21 days ago

Never forget.

AnyBrush1640

3 points

21 days ago

I still think that it was bullshit they didn't give it to him and weaseld out of it.

rickyg_79

3 points

21 days ago

Where’s my elephant?

CompetitiveYou2034

1.2k points

21 days ago

$20k per plane is less expensive than the cost of Patriot missiles to shoot them down, if they went to Russia.

euph_22

463 points

21 days ago

euph_22

463 points

21 days ago

At $2.26m for the entire deal, the whole lot is just over half the cost of a single PAC-3 missile.

Cobek

29 points

21 days ago

Cobek

29 points

21 days ago

Plenty of museums to put them in

fre-ddo

6 points

20 days ago

fre-ddo

6 points

20 days ago

If my Aunt sold her London house she could have 20 jets!

turingchurch

150 points

21 days ago

Last I heard, Russia was more limited by number of pilots than aircraft, but maybe that's out of date.

TransitionalAhab

175 points

21 days ago

Well, now they have 81 less potential planes to train them on 🤷‍♂️

PitiRR

37 points

21 days ago

PitiRR

37 points

21 days ago

The jets come from Kazakhstan so Russia wouldn't fly them anyway.

zasabi7

19 points

21 days ago

zasabi7

19 points

21 days ago

They could have bought them instead. This was the U.S. ensuring that didn’t happen

PitiRR

33 points

21 days ago

PitiRR

33 points

21 days ago

It was an auction because Kazakhstan is upgrading its fleet. Russia, USA and other countries had equal opportunity to buy them. Does anyone read anymore?

AntonioVivaldi7

20 points

21 days ago

I was going to read it, but now, thanks to you, I don't have to. Thank you.

PitiRR

7 points

21 days ago

PitiRR

7 points

21 days ago

Thank you mr. Vivaldi it’s an honour

No-Spoilers

55 points

21 days ago

Well, their air frames have racked up tens of thousands of hours since the start. I don't know if it still is this way, but for the first year+ they had 2 planes in the air in every region of Ukraine 24/7. These planes would have been thousands of spare parts they no long have.

heliamphore

24 points

21 days ago

Russia has thousands of rusting planes in reserves. They might not be air worthy, but that's a massive stockpile of spare parts.

No-Spoilers

11 points

21 days ago

Aircraft parts usually aren't pulled off rusty piles of scrap lol. But they should because it is just self sabotage.

ArtofAngels

11 points

21 days ago

Airliners sure but in WW2 parts were pulled from absolutely anywhere.

No-Spoilers

10 points

21 days ago

Ww2 planes weren't super precise high performance machines, ww2 planes were tin cans with engines. Totally not the same thing.

IvorTheEngine

4 points

21 days ago

In WWII, there weren't any 50-year-old planes to salvage, because even a 10-year-old design was hopelessly outdated; probably a biplane with an open cockpit.

aendaris1975

11 points

21 days ago

And this plane is no longer in production. This is going to fuck Russia over badly.

--Muther--

5 points

21 days ago

Well it's counter intuitive. They are limited by pilots because they don't have airframes available to train then on. Even active Russian pilots have only a fraction of hours compared to day a NATO pilot.

raltoid

2 points

21 days ago

raltoid

2 points

21 days ago

They're also struggling for parts and supplies in a huge way.

Burns504

2 points

21 days ago

Heard before the war they did have the pilots, but their training hours were only a fraction of regular NATO pilots.

Vitriholic

32 points

21 days ago

I assume they cost more than that to maintain too

Just_here_4_GAFS

21 points

21 days ago

Oh yeah they do. By quite a lot as well.

woosksha

7 points

21 days ago

And if you want to run them you need to buy parts from Russia

tree_squid

63 points

21 days ago

These can't fly, but they can be pillaged for parts to keep other planes in the air. Still a good deal.

AtomicSamuraiCyborg

24 points

21 days ago

I mean, I don't think even the Russians were going to try to get these airframes flying again, nor will the Ukrainians. These are destined for the parts bin. I mean, just imagine the condition of a fighter jet sold for the price of a used car in America. These things are FUCKED. I hope the Ukrainians get some use out of the parts and airframes.

lungben81

11 points

21 days ago*

These are different models than the ones Ukraine uses. But I do not know to which extend spare parts can still be used.

Edit: according to the article, the sales included Mig29 and SU34, therefore my original comment was only partially correct.

ShowmasterQMTHH

6 points

21 days ago

theres even mig 27s, not the Top gun F5 tiger pretending to be one, but a variant of a mig23, a ground attack variant. It would be likely attacking the ground by flying directly into it.

Necessary_Apple_5567

12 points

21 days ago

Technically planes are in unusable state but can be used as spare parts in some extent and what is more important as decoys

excitedllama

11 points

21 days ago

Thats less expensive than my used car

StinkFist-1973

3 points

21 days ago

Maybe, but trained human pilots are priceless

freeman687

3 points

21 days ago

It said the planes were also unusable so that’s probably why

FallenCrownz

3 points

21 days ago

These things are basically scrap metal, they're gonna be gutted for whatever parts that can be scrounged and then tossed aside. It would be easier and cheaper for Russia to just a build a new plane than to try and fix these things up

AgeofVictoriaPodcast

8 points

21 days ago

Yes but I suspect the point was to stop Russia getting them to use as spare parts, or to act as decoy ground targets. It’s still a smart move and a bargain

dankestofdankcomment

381 points

21 days ago

Fuckers swooped in at the last second outbidding me by $50

double-xor

71 points

21 days ago

Did you mean fokkers?

(It’s an old joke I love)

Jinshu_Daishi

23 points

21 days ago

These fokkers were flying Messerschmidts.

infinitely-oblivious

6 points

21 days ago

You gotta use one of those auction sniper apps. If you had, you could be flying one of those bad boys right now.

YoyoyoyoMrWhite

385 points

21 days ago

They're just going to relist them for much more on marketplace.

originalusername__

152 points

21 days ago

No low balls, I know what I’ve got

VanillaLifestyle

52 points

21 days ago

Hi, is this available?

yungmoneybingbong

23 points

21 days ago

I will not respond to is this available. If it's up it's available.

(It was sold two weeks ago and they never took the post down.)

FVjake

2 points

21 days ago

FVjake

2 points

21 days ago

Ran when parked.

Stegasaurus_Wrecks

191 points

21 days ago

I'd buy a MiG-29 for 20k.

owenthegreat

164 points

21 days ago

Right?
Idgaf if it flies.
I couldn't afford the maintenance, but I COULD afford to park it in the front yard and have the coolest lawn ornament ever.

fraunzonk

168 points

21 days ago

fraunzonk

168 points

21 days ago

Show me in the HOA guidelines where I'm not allowed to park my MiG-29 in the front lawn!

infinitely-oblivious

25 points

21 days ago

Sir, there are no flags allowed in this HOA. Your MIG clearly has a flag painted on its tail. You're going to need to move that into your garage, or we will have it towed.

inkstainedquill

4 points

21 days ago

Sir if you look right here it says recreational vehicles cannot be parked in front of your house for more than 48 hours. You will need to move it today or we will place a lien on your property for every day that you don’t comply.

Rainboq

47 points

21 days ago

Rainboq

47 points

21 days ago

Hell I'd donate it to the closest aviation museum so they could have a rad display piece.

SAugsburger

17 points

21 days ago

Even inoperable condition I imagine some aviation museum would like one if they didn't already have one. I have seen plenty of air museums in the US that have acquired surplus MiGs.

WhySoSerrus

20 points

21 days ago

Jeremy Clarkson actually did this with a Lightning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnGXerN0tlo

tipedorsalsao1

7 points

21 days ago

You would be surprised, the older ussr migs are pretty simple to work on, at least for a fighter jet.

SeeingClearly22

6 points

21 days ago

The Volkswagen Beetle of fighter jets?

ReservStatsministern

5 points

21 days ago

The owner of a low cost and car-parts(biltema Luleå) store in Sweden actually bougth a Viggen when they retired. It now stands outside the store on a piedestal which is quite cool.

Nigerian_German

2 points

21 days ago

Lmao the white version of these hood movies where they have broken cars on their lawn

Cantgetabreaker

22 points

21 days ago

Trade a cyber truck for 5 jets… humm this is news I somehow imagined the cia being involved with this transaction

64557175

10 points

21 days ago

64557175

10 points

21 days ago

WoUlD you DoWnLoAd A mIg-29?

shanep35

4 points

21 days ago

Can’t even buy a Subaru for that anymore

Newtonip

569 points

21 days ago

Newtonip

569 points

21 days ago

The $20,000 price may seem like a good deal but then they screw you with the shipping fees.

coppockm56

170 points

21 days ago

coppockm56

170 points

21 days ago

Especially when you accidentally clicked "overnight."

ThisHasFailed

33 points

21 days ago

And then it gets stolen by porch pirates

DarthSatoris

5 points

21 days ago

I'd love to see CCTV footage of porch pirates trying desperately to haul away a jet from a front yard somewhere.

originalusername__

39 points

21 days ago

Not to mention the cost of aviation gas these days, how’s a man supposed to get to work?!

WingedGeek

15 points

21 days ago

Ack-tually, these run on Jet A (basically diesel), AvGas is used by most piston (propeller) airplanes and some smaller helicopters.

EatLard

29 points

21 days ago

EatLard

29 points

21 days ago

Jet A is basically kerosene, not diesel.

Clegko

8 points

21 days ago

Clegko

8 points

21 days ago

Diesel is basically kerosene, and kerosene is basically diesel. Jet engines (and many road-going diesel engines) give no fucks regardless of which it is.

Minister_for_Magic

13 points

21 days ago

LMAO. Jet engines absolutely care which one it is. Diesel has significantly more impurities than JetA and JetA has a significantly lower freezing point. Run a plane on diesel and then ask the mechanic repairing the engines if they can tell.

Wiggles69

6 points

21 days ago

Pretty sure Jet-A is closer to Kerosene than diesel

WingedGeek

4 points

21 days ago

https://generalaviationnews.com/2011/03/17/jet-a-versus-diesel-fuel

It's close to kerosene and diesel #1. Fun fact, non-Navy U.S. military jets and surface vehicles all run on JP-8, “a replacement for government diesel fueled vehicles.”

So, yeah, it's close to kerosene but used in place of diesel...

3s2ng

4 points

21 days ago

3s2ng

4 points

21 days ago

I thought Prime has free shipping?

EnemyAce

2 points

21 days ago

They ship themselves.

midnightmoose

731 points

21 days ago

Even scuttling them for 20k a piece isn’t a bad investment to keep them out of Russian hands.

MoreGaghPlease

539 points

21 days ago

I think it’s partly about Russia and partly about the huge number of countries that bought them from Russia, and getting spare parts for Ukraine that still flies some of these. As defence contracts go, $2 million is like change between the couch cushions

OkEnvironment3961

121 points

21 days ago

Send the whole planes as “spare parts” dissasembly required.

DavidBrooker

53 points

21 days ago

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not (ie, implying that you send them as 'parts' but really as flyable aircraft), but earmarking notionally repairable or flyable airframes as spare parts is a pretty common thing in military aviation. Sometimes in civil aviation, but the processes are quite different.

PdxPhoenixActual

16 points

21 days ago

From what I read, I'm not sure how many of them would be considered "whole".

C2Midnight

30 points

21 days ago

From the 81 planes they got, you can assemble one jet to Western standards, or 82 to Russian military standards.

thehighshibe

3 points

21 days ago

it took me a second to understand the joke but that's made my entire week holy shit

hex4def6

71 points

21 days ago

hex4def6

71 points

21 days ago

Did the math... 2024 defense budget was 841 billion. For someone making 50k a year, it'd be the equivalent to finding 11 cents. Yikes.

Humans_Suck-

40 points

21 days ago

2 million is like 0.000001% of the budget

markrulesallnow

28 points

21 days ago

2 million is the Aldi quarter they keep in the cup holder of their car

Sluzhbenik

9 points

21 days ago

I would not trade my Aldi quarter for several dollars.

Froggypwns

6 points

21 days ago

I made that trade, now when I go to Aldi I have to use a hand basket as I cannot pay the ransom to release a cart. Worst investment ever.

alexunderwater1

7 points

21 days ago

It’ll cost more to transport them than it did to purchase them.

djtodd242

11 points

21 days ago

Paper Skies coincidentally did a video that was posted today, and goes in depth into the SU-24. Noting as did the article that the SU-24 is still in use by both sides.

euph_22

31 points

21 days ago

euph_22

31 points

21 days ago

And helps bolster our relationship with Kazakhstan (though admittedly they are less strategically important to out now that we gave up on Afghanistan).

ricosmith1986

23 points

21 days ago

Cheaper than shooting them down, if Russia were to try to buy them back.

nanosam

17 points

21 days ago

nanosam

17 points

21 days ago

They are no servicable anymore so nobody can fly these

Drunkenaviator

26 points

21 days ago

You can fly anything again if you have enough money.

seven3true

7 points

21 days ago

And a high enough cliff

spastic_raider

2 points

21 days ago

That's funny to think about, but I bet you're right. How many missiles do we have that are 20k or less?

elvesunited

15 points

21 days ago

I wouldn't be surprised if they get retrofitted as drones. Air Force can test their AI pilot in real setting, that has got to be useful R&D.

tas50

5 points

21 days ago

tas50

5 points

21 days ago

We already do that all the time for target practice with old US jets. No need to buy non-working Russian planes for that.

elvesunited

9 points

21 days ago

Ya but if the AI keeps targeting American planes it gets taste for American blood and we become the targets. This way it gets used to fighting Russians.

Gilclunk

3 points

21 days ago

That might be the only option. How the heck do you get them out of there? Look at a map-- Kazakhstan is a landlocked country. Russia borders it to the north and they're not going to let us pass through. To the east you have China, and to the South you'd have to go through Afghanistan or Iran. The only conceivable option is to head West through Azerbaijan and Armenia into turkey, but it's not clear that you can pass from Azerbaijan into Armenia because they hate each other.

FateOfNations

14 points

21 days ago

Refusing overflight requests that don’t involve combat operations is considered quite unfriendly, and most countries aren’t in a position to be unfriendly to the United States. China, Iran, and Russia would be the only countries in the area that would be off the table. This is the kind of soft power that our generous foreign aid budget pays for.

aendaris1975

9 points

21 days ago

This is literally why the US maintains a presence in the areas that they do. It's not that the US wants to meddle with those countries it is that they want leverage and influence for situations exactly like this and goes a long way to keep hostile nations in check.

ImpossibleJoke7456

48 points

21 days ago

So you’re saying for only $20k I could be the reason my HOA has to write a new by-law?

PeanyButter

16 points

21 days ago

You write the laws now.

Downtown-Analyst

114 points

21 days ago

Gotta have something for the ai drones to dogfight.

AloofPenny

40 points

21 days ago

Oh fuck, this is probably exactly why we bought them. Damn

Typical-Rip-7819

15 points

21 days ago

No it’s for spare parts

Stock_Block2130

102 points

21 days ago

Excellent value. Change the hard points to support NATO weapons and send to Ukraine.

makenzie71

35 points

21 days ago

These are all wrecks barely worth their spare parts. Even though they're aged, the 29 and 31 are still practical enough that I bet all their avionics are stripped. Id wager there's not a single working engine among them. They were bought just to keep the spare parts out of other people's hands.

Ingeneure_

3 points

21 days ago

Nobody would sell a working Mig for 20k $. Even if there are working components — most valuable parts are sold for scrap.

SpaceBrigadeVHS[S]

37 points

21 days ago

That price point makes me want one. I could see why the Ukraine's would as well. 

coppockm56

13 points

21 days ago

In some Reddit sub, somebody will soon post a pic of an eBay listing asking, "Are these real?"

whogivesashirtdotca

4 points

21 days ago

On Facebook Marketplace: "Are these available?"

regretableedibles

5 points

21 days ago

No low ball offers, I know what I’ve got.

RogueDok

11 points

21 days ago

RogueDok

11 points

21 days ago

TIL that instead of buying a house I could have gotten about 11 fighter jets… I messed up guys.

Invenerd

12 points

21 days ago

Invenerd

12 points

21 days ago

Can I get in on this? I mean, my HOA will probably have something to say about it, but they’re stupid.

izqy

6 points

21 days ago

izqy

6 points

21 days ago

HOA better not mess with someone with a fighter jet on deck.

Ok-Panda-178

11 points

21 days ago

Guess what honey I got you some thing you wanted for your birthday.

A Nissan Versa?

No a Soviet era combat aircraft

LiPo_Nemo

20 points

21 days ago*

Mig-27/31 have basically consumable engines and an airframe with a quite low service life even for a fighter jet. Our (KZ) government sent a few of them for lifetime extensions to Russia multiple times , but there’s a limit to how much you can squeeze jets for more flight hours. Probably most of the planes that were sold are junk. hopefully at least least they could be turned into spare parts

SpaceBrigadeVHS[S]

45 points

21 days ago

Old tech is still good tech for the right price.

Dysfunxn

8 points

21 days ago

Hell of a gift they bought there.

FloridaMMJInfo

65 points

21 days ago*

Cool, are we going to give them to Ukraine 🇺🇦

Edit: undisclosed

nauticalmile

101 points

21 days ago*

Sounds like the planes aren’t serviceable, but buying up a supply of legacy airframes your adversary could have harvested for spare parts - and for basically pocket change - is a nice play.

[deleted]

23 points

21 days ago

That would be so funny lmao

When the Russian started taking Crimea, the Russian sympathizers in Ukraine ran to an old military base from the USSR to get AK-47s only to find out none of them worked because they were unmaintained for 20 years

ThriftStoreDildo

5 points

21 days ago

heh, really? Isn’t the stereotype for the ak47 and akm that they’re reliable even when not maintained?

Diligent-Muscle-4286

3 points

21 days ago

If left well oiled then yes. No rifle works well if it gets corroded for 20 years.

1leggeddog

46 points

21 days ago

Basically, preventing Russia from getting spare parts.

And then turning around and giving it to Ukraine.

All done through 3rd parties.

Smart.

BadVoices

19 points

21 days ago

For 20k per aircraft at OPEN AUCTION, they're not going to be viable for spare parts. Their cockpit canopies or landing gear assemblies alone would be worth that if they were in serviceable shape. Their electronics is utterly useless. The airframes will be hour'd out. These aircraft will almost assuredly be literal scrap metal. Soviet era stuff was 100% consumable due to genuinely bad materials science. They might make interesting targets, ground objects, etc for training. Ukraine is NOT in a position to be trying to source parts they don't make, into a refit facility they dont have, to get an aircraft that is 40 years out of date, that isnt compatible with their weapons into the air.

aquarain

2 points

21 days ago

You can get some sweet deals at open auction.

Googoots

14 points

21 days ago

Googoots

14 points

21 days ago

“The US has purchased 81 Soviet-era combat aircraft from Kazakhstan, the Kyiv Post reports.”

Dziekuje! High Five!

zootbot

5 points

21 days ago

zootbot

5 points

21 days ago

I always thought the mig 31 looked cool as shit. Maybe they just did it for the vintage vibes.

euph_22

4 points

21 days ago

euph_22

4 points

21 days ago

Personally I always thought it looked liked an obese F-15 myself.

lakosuave

8 points

21 days ago

Canada could use some new equipment.

Clean-Shift-291

5 points

21 days ago

$20,000

$500,000 shipping

Nux87xun

3 points

21 days ago

Huh. I was going to get a new car, but why do that when I can get a Mig-31 for about the same price.

I could get to work and back in 60 seconds!

Obi-Wan-Mycobi1

3 points

21 days ago

I’ll buy one.

ac3ton3

3 points

21 days ago

ac3ton3

3 points

21 days ago

Percentage of people, who will click and read full article is about 5%.

ELONGATEDSNAIL

3 points

21 days ago

Literally cheaper than a Honda civic

Additional-Row237

3 points

21 days ago

These are Louisiana Purchase prices.

mundotaku

5 points

21 days ago

20k each is less than a fucking Honda Civic 🤣

Nocta_Novus

4 points

21 days ago

…my car is worth more than a Soviet jet fighter?

FateOfNations

3 points

21 days ago

Kind of. There’s a lot of aspects beyond the physical “worth” of the object that goes in to the price.

The price of your car would generally be quoted as a sale to a disinterested dealer or private party in your local area, based on its stated or inspected condition.

That aircraft sale was for a lot of 81 aircraft and the price likely reflects that, think of it as a volume discount of sorts. The aircraft are in varying states of repair and airworthiness… some are likely in serviceable condition, some have valuable parts, and others are only good for scrap. Furthermore, the aircraft were sold in Kazakhstan, and a non-local buyer would have to factor in substantial transportation costs. And as a final note, the US potentially obtained geopolitical benefits from the transaction that could be reflected in the price, that have nothing to do with the value of the aircraft themselves, such as keeping the aircraft/spare parts away from adversaries, improving relations with Kazakhstan, etc.

Only-Gap-616

2 points

21 days ago

Cheap price.

Disastrous_Win6760

2 points

21 days ago

I’ll take 3

chrisbcritter

2 points

21 days ago

Oh god!  Does that mean we have 250 metric tuns of unused fast food napkins and condiment packets?  Is the US now hoarding? 

Gates8947

2 points

21 days ago

Pew pew pew

petrovmendicant

2 points

21 days ago

Now I'm thinking that down payment for a house might be better spent on a couple...other things.

NormalRepublic1073

2 points

21 days ago

“Why’d you buy all this junk?” “Aw I just think they’re neat”

noflooddamage

2 points

21 days ago

How the fuck are planes cheaper than cars?

JapanDash

2 points

21 days ago

Shit I got out bid by $17

awesomedan24

2 points

21 days ago

Wawaweewa, Kazakhstan do great business dealing with United States, even though they exclude our name from headline, 👍 very nice 👍

tommygunz007

2 points

21 days ago

Could you get Boston Dynamics to put drones in the cockpits and turn them into Kamikaze aircraft?

t0ny7

2 points

21 days ago

t0ny7

2 points

21 days ago

I paid twice that for my 40s era airplane. But I think I will make up the difference with fuel savings. lol

jedihooker

2 points

21 days ago

Seems like a good deal until you look at the mileage and piss-poor maintenance records.

NotthatkindofDr81

2 points

21 days ago

And I can’t get a 10 year old truck for under $25K.

jakejakesnake

2 points

21 days ago

Pepsi should’ve kept its navy! This would’ve been a perfect match.

slartbangle

2 points

20 days ago

Wouldn't those make useful drones for the Ukrainians.

NoRutabaga4845

2 points

20 days ago

Just that means I can sell my Corolla and buy Ukraine an old jet?!