[TalonDJ]

“People don’t want to learn, they want to quibble, they want to denigrate...they’re not interested in learning the facts.”

They read an article somewhere that confirmed their bias and they want to sound smart. Debating the pros and cons of a weapon system can be fun. But as soon as some starts throwing around hyperbole like ‘total failure’ the there is no intelligent discourse going on. Even the infamous Brewster Buffalo was not a ‘total failure’.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

No kidding. It's not ideal, but failed weapon systems have really shown the industry what not to do, so it has value. In the 1950s when a new jet type was coming out every 18 months and the aerospace dollars flowed like wine, there were some really ludicrous designs that had no business being funded and fielded.

And the accident rates were downright horrendous. The B-47, for example, took peacetime losses that would be completely intolerable today. Over the B-47's lifetime, 203 aircraft were lost, killing 464 crewmen. In 1957 & 1958 alone, 49 B-47s were lost, killing 122 crewmen. We don't see anything like that today. It's a testament to better aircraft but also a warning about complacency. In military aviation today, you're a lot more likely to have a peacetime accident than in one forward-deployed. Of course, it's been a LONG time since we've fought a worthy opponent in that arena.