Nice, you found 5 "points" that I used in my post that were found over social media as well. Not exactly, link worthy material :/ Anyways, I hope you feel like you accomplished something with this side show, thanks for keeping the discussion alive.
A plagiarist don't follow through on his bet? Unpossible! Post links when you copypasta in the future dimwit.
Perhaps you should read the bet once more Uncle Sam. Less than 1/5 of what I posted was from the link you were so kind to provide. Little points nonetheless to build on a thought I was providing Chime in with your thoughts on the discussion at hand instead of focusing on these little details next time moron
I hate wasted war spending as much as anybody but the fact is that 1.35 trillion spent on the F-35 doesn't just disappear. A lot of it cycles back through the economy as wages and taxed profits, it creates some wealth as rising stock prices and monies in the banking system. Now a lot of it does get lost as profits parked overseas, untaxed via accounting laws and in untaxed accounts of obscenely paid CEO's and Lobbyist. And, many technologies that are developed for military systems find their way into to private commercial applications that otherwise would have been too expensive to develop.For example the monies spent on putting a man on the moon were probably paid for by the taxes on profits from the developed technologies. Ok I'll get back on the left again now.
<iframe class="imgur-embed" width="100%" height="404" frameborder="0" src="http://i.imgur.com/rNa3shi.gifv#embed"></iframe>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FAFnhIIK7s4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Neither does investing 1.35 trillion in education and infrastructure in the U.S. I think this plane was not a wise investment. Why is such a machine needed? Against whom? It's overkill. Who is even close to threatening our strategic advantage?
Our current jets have fallen behind the times and have much usage. Plane only last so many years. Against anyone the Russians, french and chinese sell their jets too. Have you ever wanted the US to use air strikes or provide security for any fledgling country?
Outside of r****ds, the only debate around the F-35 is was the program well managed. The answer is no it wasn't. That doesn't mean the military doesn't need fighter jets.
This is just a stupid argument. We have the F-22 which we spent loads on and considered the best fighter jet in the world. I don't believe we need to spend 1.x trillion to make a better version of an F-15/16. I don't think we will recoup our 1.x trillion by selling them to other countries either.
If you had a grasp of the basic facts (like what jet the F-35 is even replacing) a conversation might be possible. As it is you know nothing and a discussion is impossible.
I know enough to know that 1.5 trillion is a ridiculous amount of money - that investment could have really made a difference in our economy and strengthening our national security in much smarter ways. I mean that is essentially 4,000 dollars per American. Think of how much we wasted on tax dollars to build a jet that can't climb turn or whatever. What a stupid toy. Probably could have developed a fusion reactor.
I wasn't supporting the F-35, I was just saying the money the government spends on it doesn't go poof into thin air. Much of it cycles back through the economy in wages and taxes. I'm not privy to the science but I think I would have built a few more F-22's, Super Hornets and bought the Marines Harriers, skipped the F-35 and developed semi-autonomous drones. If you could put up 10 or 12 drones for every F-35 you'd be better off. The F-35 is essentially a flying sensor platform, I don't know why the pilot has to be in the plane, just give him the helmet and a link-up. (latency doesn't really seem to be that big of a hindrance)
Want to afford all the things our military needs badly? It's quite a list, believe it or not. Stop building the Ford class aircraft carriers. Finish the Kennedy, the second in the series, and then stop the program. With the advance of ship killing missiles of various types, and their proliferation, they have become a huge floating target. You can't hide them, you can only hope to protect them, and while we have superb ships and submarines that can do a good job of that, the numbers are simply too small, and the missiles they can carry to defend a carrier would run out far sooner than the missles an enemy could toss at them. A carrier strike force would be overwhelmed by a savvy adversary. To strike back, we would have to place them hundreds of miles away from that enemy, and the range of the aircraft to use against that enemy is far less than needed to hit them where they are. Refueling while in air simply isn't a viable solution against a determined adversary, in my humble opinion. When was the last time a carrier strike group went toe to toe with an enemy? World War II, in the Leyte Gulf, I believe. Every use of these instruments of American power since WWII has been against an enemy on shore. That, and as power projection, a "presence" to deter someone thinking of causing mischief. They are wonderful when being used for those purposes, but they haven't had to contend with someone firing back in earnest with modern weapons. Ending the program would immediately free up tens of billions of dollars for other badly needed hulls for the US Navy. Arleigh Burke-class of guided missile destroyers of the latest type. Far more submarines, our best strike force, in my opinion. And we should add diesel subs to our inventory, which are far, far cheaper to build. Heck, the Swedes have a class of diesel submarines that made us look silly during exercises. We leased one from them for over a year to test how we would do against all the potential enemies that have similar submarines in their inventory. The results, from what I have read from different sources, were scary. We need to think more out of the box. Use ships and technology much different from what we are "locked into" today, including cheaper unmanned drones with a far longer range than an F-35, much less the current strike aircraft our carriers have today (which have a much shorter range without refueling). Ships we already have that wouldn't cost a bloody fortune, but could add hundreds of defensive and offensive missiles to the fleet. An example. Put vertical launch system (VLS) magazines on the many Marine amphibious ships for both offense and defense. The Littoral Combat Ships (LCS) that we are building have very few offensive weapons and no VLS. That's absurd. Stop the program until a real frigate can be constructed, either from the LCS baseline, or do a deal with some of our allies to purchase high tech frigates they already have and are building that are vastly more powerful, and useful, than the LCS. The Danes, the French and Italians, the Spanish - heck, the Norwegians and Dutch all have excellent modern frigates. We could pay to use their designs and have our own industry build them, while also letting them build some for us, which would be good for the relationships we have with our allies and get us the ships we need far more quickly. Too obvious? Why aren't we doing that already? The US defense industry doesn't want us to. The Congressmen representing the dozens of states that have had parts of our hideously expensive naval programs, contruction scattered across the country for a reason, don't want us to. So we're looking at having a navy with far too few ships, and many ships of the wrong type for modern warfare. We are busy cutting our own throats. Building not nearly enough ships, while building a few at a time for a sum vastly more than we need to spend, and taking years to do so. I could go on, but most of you won't read this. It's too "long." The F-35? A vastly more expensive aircraft than we should have gone with, and our potential allies are developing radars that can detect them (tech stolen from us, most likely). Doesn't mean they can't do a good job. They have other advanced tech that makes them useful. It doesn't change the fact, in my opinion, that they were a mistake, like our carrier program. Hugely expensive, taking forever to build and become operational, and as a result, far too few in number and becoming easier to "kill." KC, you need to reduce that freakin' image!