Quick Sink is a very cheap solution to disrupting that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmfRi2Vl3JQ

Pizza Hut opened in the Soviet Union in 1990 prior to collapse the following year.

Although many might contest Pizza Hut qualifying as real pizza. :)

It’s a shame authentic pizza didn’t grab hold earlier, especially with the origins of pizza being egalitarian peasant food.

Two early post-Soviet pizza events, both involving Pizza Hut, are somewhat relevant here.

Not so much about the introduction of Pizza, but the Pizza Hut proxy introduction of capitalism(western success) and dissolution of communism(Soviet failure).

Gorbachev Pizza Hut commercial(post Soviet collapse and during Russian Financial Crisis):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUTIc-f1h3E

Pizza Hut also paid the Russian space program(in deep financial distress at the time) a considerable sum to have cosmonauts eat Pizza Hut in space, delivered on a Soviet-era Proton rocket carrying a 50ft Pizza Hut logo.

So pizza certainly existed in the waning days of the Soviet Union, but a deeper question might be what role did pizza(Pizza Hut specifically) play in influencing, exemplifying, or merely footnoting the troubled geopolitics between Russia and the pizza eating west?

Wouldn’t total cost of ownership be a better measure?

Maintenance, repair, insurance, fuel, residual value.

I would think Tesla’s lower residual value from price declines would result in a poorer(possibly much poorer) showing using a total cost of ownership framework.

And I would think Toyota, especially Toyota plug-in hybrids, would get a strong boost in total cost of ownership rankings.

Wouldn’t an important inflection point for EVs be winning a total costs of ownership comparison with Toyota plug in hybrids?

I don’t understand the numerous efforts, or appeal, over decades to develop a single product combining driving with flying.

Compromises due to conflicting design and regulatory requirements seem destined to result in The Homer: https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Homer

It might make sense to maintain a few with the 105mm gun for low intensity conflict against non state actors.

But we seem to be moving at velocity towards a peer or near peer adversary environment.

An AC130H Spectre(Spirit03) was shot down by an Iraqi MANPAD crew when it remained on station after first light supporting USMC units that stopped an Iraqi probing attack in 1991.

When facing an adversary with modern MANPADs(or better) and night vision/thermal targeting optics, Spectre is going to be at risk.

Leave the gunship over the horizon and/or outside of the air defence bubble and launch a swarm of cheap drones.

Drones for command, control, communication.

Drones for surveillance and targeting.

Drones for electronic and kinetic attack.

Launched, and potentially recovered, from the C130 ramp, jump door, and/or retrofittable ejection system like a sonobuoy dispenser in a P3/P8.

Potentially any C130 could be configured with palletised launch/recovery systems as well as palletised drone operator consoles.

C130 configured as an arsenal plane would probably be more capable and survivable than the current Spectre, assuming equivalent flight crew and defensive systems.