Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC-US)   U.S. Military grounds all F-35s, sends them to their hangars without dinner   ( bbc.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, faulty fuel tubes, World War I, North Carolina, expensive weapons programme, F-35, United Kingdom, Fighter aircraft, World War II  
•       •       •

6842 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2018 at 10:35 AM (11 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-10-11 11:20:04 AM  

Explodo: You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


No, I don't think I would be.  How about we move those defense jobs to physics research jobs and build some particle accelerators?  They're money pits too, but at least we can learn something about the universe instead of learning how to blow up brown people.
 
2018-10-11 11:20:15 AM  

Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


If their only purpose is to service the government and can do nothing else, then hire them as government employees - it isn't like they face enough competition for capitalistic forces to reduce costs, so get rid of an extra layer of redundant bureaucracy and give the workers better job security.
 
2018-10-11 11:23:14 AM  

Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


You'd probably get a better effect spending that R&D money in the private sector than the Military.  The whole "we get beneficial stuff when we spend money figuring out how to kill people" is a logical fallacy.
 
2018-10-11 11:23:47 AM  

jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.


One crashed on top of a mud hut in Afghanistan?
 
2018-10-11 11:24:00 AM  

phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.


Plus the Marines have to go get muddy and fight for days at a time. The Navy has no time for that. Not when there are Thai hookers to bang and coffee to drink. So let the Marines go pound ground. The only time a Sailor is gonna get muddy is when he is wrestling a Thai hooker in a bar.
 
2018-10-11 11:24:32 AM  

Sharksfan: The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?


You sound like the guys who, during the 70's and 80's, complained about the cost of the F-15 and F-16 and a variety of other, hyper expensive weaponry.

Then '91 rolled around and we went into a for reals shooting war against the 4th largest army in the world and the most combat tested Air Force at the time. And all that money we sank into state of the art planes and gear allowed us to absolutely cornhole that enemy with barely any losses.

Thats why you spend a shiat ton of money on new tech. because attrition warfare sucks and its better to expend money and ordnance than lives. Just look at how the US army fared in WW2 before we got aboard THAT clue train.
 
2018-10-11 11:24:52 AM  
Fiscal Pearl Harbor...I've said it before.
 
2018-10-11 11:25:53 AM  

adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.


The space cannons fire thrust. Since its already being used by the engine right there, they just share the thrust.
 
2018-10-11 11:27:54 AM  

Evil Mackerel: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

We'ed  be lucky to to get these.
[img.fark.net image 850x306]


The Hammerhead was awesome and so were the Wild Cards.
 
2018-10-11 11:29:22 AM  

phalamir: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

If their only purpose is to service the government and can do nothing else, then hire them as government employees - it isn't like they face enough competition for capitalistic forces to reduce costs, so get rid of an extra layer of redundant bureaucracy and give the workers better job security.


The people with expertise would leave those govt jobs in a big hurry and start their own companies to do the work.  Not all research pans out.  As it is now, companies that research dead ends can be left to die without consequence.  If they were government employees, they'd have to be kept on for...how long?  It's also a lot easier for private enterprise to get rid of employees who don't produce.

Think of it as:  The govt has outsourced their defense research so that they don't have to deal with the maintenance of it.
 
2018-10-11 11:30:18 AM  

MythDragon: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

The space cannons fire thrust. Since its already being used by the engine right there, they just share the thrust.


The cannon fires behind the thing?
 
2018-10-11 11:30:59 AM  

Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.


That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!
 
2018-10-11 11:31:41 AM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


scontent-atl3-1.cdninstagram.comView Full Size
Well, footpads and thrusters...
 
2018-10-11 11:35:30 AM  
The more bumptious blather I hear from Fark's military gearheads, the more I am convinced that this thing is a f**king turkey.
 
2018-10-11 11:37:30 AM  

Explodo: That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


What good is having a R&D lead or even a Defense at all if your President is just going to hand over control to your enemy anyway?
 
2018-10-11 11:38:46 AM  

PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!


The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communal good that was done with that!  You know what modern republicans would scream about that?  They'd complain it was socialism and attempt to get it eliminated ASAP.
 
2018-10-11 11:40:31 AM  

PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!


Except in war/defense there is a very real advantage in having the best weapons, but there's no advantage until actual war breaks out other than possibly deterrence.
 
2018-10-11 11:42:42 AM  

Explodo: phalamir: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

If their only purpose is to service the government and can do nothing else, then hire them as government employees - it isn't like they face enough competition for capitalistic forces to reduce costs, so get rid of an extra layer of redundant bureaucracy and give the workers better job security.

The people with expertise would leave tho ...


But you just said these companies have no ability to exist without the government buying from them.  If the government is doing all the work in-house, the guys leaving have no market.  You pay decent wages to the researchers, let them piddle around, accept the failures as a part of the process, and live your life - this is literally what every public research university does as a matter of course.  Outsourcing R&D just means the taxpayer has to pay for the extra overhead of the company bureaucracy - the company is going to price in the failed projects for its expenses to keep itself afloat, so taxpayers get no savings ("the Islamonator costs $23B a pop - $5B for the actual patented ArabFlayer technology, $8B for the unsuccessful QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker technologies, and $10B for CEO Maxwell Wilburton Tutweiler III's pocket").  We could get the Islamonator, plus any nice side tech from QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker research, and then not have to pay MWT3 - we could even give some of that $10B to ***shudder*** the actual researchers and workers who make the stuff.
 
2018-10-11 11:43:57 AM  
The A-10s though, you can't ground them.  They will just sneak out, hunt down their own grub, and hand out with a rowdy crowd behind your back.  That is why the Air Force is trying to kick them out of the family.
 
2018-10-11 11:46:16 AM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communa ...


Or look at it like this:  We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.  It could be a real swords-into-plowshares utopia.  That wouldn't stop another country with more advanced weapons and angry, bitter citizens from coming over and killing us until we submit to their angry/bitter way of life.  It's sad but true.

I would greatly prefer the happy/healthy/educated scenario.
 
2018-10-11 11:47:37 AM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all the communa ...


Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.
 
2018-10-11 11:49:57 AM  

Explodo: Explodo: PickleBarrel: Explodo: NOLAhd: Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.

Swell. Let's have the stockholders pick up the tab for that R&D rather than the taxpayers

There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.  In order to create that primary thing you may have to pioneer some technology that has crossover value, but that research might not have been done without trying to solve the problems created by making the primary thing.  Due to the lack of market outside of defense, without someone asking for the product, the associated research would generally not be done.

Sure, the end goal is to have self-sustaining companies that can make their way in a non-government-funded marketplace, but if a company only makes specialized technology that's only useful to defense situations then that company will be perpetually on the government dime.  Losing their expertise is bad for national security.  The military knows this.  Most high-level government people know this.

You'd be really surprised how many people in the US are actually employed due to defense spending.

That's circular reasoning: Look at all the people employed in Blah sector when the government spends money in the Blah sector.  Therefore the government should continue spending money in the Blah sector so those jobs won't be lost!

The last time the govt dumped a lot of money into non-defense was....the CCC?  Look at all th ...


Did you just say: We are a warmongering country, therefore we need to spend money to warmonger to protect ourselves.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy ya'll, you can't argue with that!
 
2018-10-11 11:54:48 AM  

Explodo: We could spend all that money on having the healthiest, most well-educated, happiest citizenry in the world.


Educated healthy happy citizens dont vote GOP tho. The GOP needs angry ignoramuses to buy into their BS.

The conspiracy theorist in me tends to think that the only reason we have such a huge military budget in the first place is to keep us from having a huge education budget. Its a LOT easier to manipulate people that are uneducated & desperate.
 
2018-10-11 11:55:46 AM  

Explodo: There's this funny thing about defense work...there's generally no non-defense market for the primary thing created.


In fact, when you spend money for R&D in the private sector, there is the advantage that you have a secondary market for the primary thing you created. BONUS!

You just argued for the inefficiency of spending for military R&D.
 
2018-10-11 11:56:23 AM  

phalamir: But you just said these companies have no ability to exist without the government buying from them.  If the government is doing all the work in-house, the guys leaving have no market.  You pay decent wages to the researchers, let them piddle around, accept the failures as a part of the process, and live your life - this is literally what every public research university does as a matter of course.  Outsourcing R&D just means the taxpayer has to pay for the extra overhead of the company bureaucracy - the company is going to price in the failed projects for its expenses to keep itself afloat, so taxpayers get no savings ("the Islamonator costs $23B a pop - $5B for the actual patented ArabFlayer technology, $8B for the unsuccessful QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker technologies, and $10B for CEO Maxwell Wilburton Tutweiler III's pocket").  We could get the Islamonator, plus any nice side tech from QuranBurn, Meccassplode, and MelaninSeeker research, and then not have to pay MWT3 - we could even give some of that $10B to ***shudder*** the actual researchers and workers who make the stuff.


Kudos for the laughs via your creative names!  In reality-land, that just doesn't work though.  Can you describe a situation where that would work given political realities?  Can you describe a situation where republicans wouldn't be crying about all those "lazy govt workers"?  Can you describe a situation where non-producers are gotten rid of easily?  It's a lot harder to fire a public-sector worker than a private-sector one.  By moving some of the load to universities, the govt isn't doing it directly.  They've outsourced it to someone else.  Universities research the abstract problems that arise whilst trying to overcome things like "at this speed this material turns to shiat...we need a material that can handle conditions A, B, C whilst maintaining properties X, Y, Z."  Those problems arise because while trying to build the primary product an engineering problem was found that needed to be overcome.  If someone left and made a product that was 2x better than what the govt was making can you describe a situation where it would be politically possible for the govt to not buy it?
 
2018-10-11 11:57:20 AM  

Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.


Get this:  our Army has a Navy and an Air Force, too!

img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 11:59:32 AM  
When do we get to return those POSs and get our money back?  Better yet, scrap the F35 program move on to the next model.
 
2018-10-11 12:01:31 PM  

Man with the Red Eyes: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Get this:  our Army has a Navy and an Air Force, too!

[img.fark.net image 412x516]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:03:05 PM  

Explodo: The F35 is a research project.  They wanted to build a plane that was above and beyond what was already available, which means you're going to be pushing into unknown territory.  R&D is super-expensive.  By the time they FINALLY get all the problems worked out it will no longer be cutting edge, but hopefully your engineers gained the knowledge and experience to build the next perpetual R&D money hole.

That sounds trite, but having the lead in R&D is actually quite vital to our national interests and is beneficial to all areas, not just defense.


I know at least four people who are going to die young because we don't have a national health care system.

But yea man. Planes.
 
2018-10-11 12:04:13 PM  

PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.


The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!
 
2018-10-11 12:07:02 PM  

MythDragon: phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.

Plus the Marines have to go get muddy and fight for days at a time. The Navy has no time for that. Not when there are Thai hookers to bang and coffee to drink. So let the Marines go pound ground. The only time a Sailor is gonna get muddy is when he is wrestling a Thai hooker in a bar.


When sailors die in combat, it's a combination of being burned to death while being crushed by twisting metal.

Though sometimes they just get crushed by an incoming wall of water.
 
2018-10-11 12:08:48 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:09:30 PM  

Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!


Dude, you just cited a failure in another field as an point for you argument, now you are arguing against that point by saying "research is hard!" .

You are arguing in bad faith when you literally disregard/ hand wave your own points and use circular reasoning.
 
2018-10-11 12:10:12 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


They also do atmospheric flight, which as you know, kinda requires wings, and you'll want air intakes so you're not using up your oxidizer.
 
2018-10-11 12:13:16 PM  

PlaidJaguar: [img.fark.net image 720x446]


img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-10-11 12:13:46 PM  

winedrinkingman: The A-10s though, you can't ground them.  They will just sneak out, hunt down their own grub, and hand out with a rowdy crowd behind your back.  That is why the Air Force is trying to kick them out of the family.


Then why can't the Army adopt them?? We love the A-10, and will always cherish and respect them. They'll get their own hangers too!
 
2018-10-11 12:13:51 PM  

Sharksfan: The thing that I don't get is let's say we got into a full blown shooting war somewhere and started to lose F-35's.  What's the plan? How the heck are we going to pay to crank out another 100 or 1000 of them?


I guess we could start using all the other, older, battle-tested planes we have that actually work.
 
2018-10-11 12:14:34 PM  
We
don't
need
Jets
any
more.
#secretspaceprogram
 
2018-10-11 12:15:05 PM  

Shaggy_C: jaytkay: People criticize the F-35s trillion dollar cost and its impact on all other Pentagon and civilian programs without acknowledging that an F-35 has successfully flattened one mud hut in Afghanistan.

So much misinformation in this post. The fact of the matter is that the only combat missions flown by an F35 have been by the Israelis, which means they have flattened mud huts in Syria.

The whole of Fark awaits your apology.


Marine Corps F-35 flies first combat mission in Afghanistan (September 27).
 
2018-10-11 12:15:23 PM  

PickleBarrel: Did you just say: We are a warmongering country, therefore we need to spend money to warmonger to protect ourselves.  It's a self-fulfilling prophecy ya'll, you can't argue with that!


I am not advocating that we keep things the way they are.  I think the system is unbalanced right now and that our govt gives inadequate care to our citizens.  At the same time, I think our defense spending is very important because there's a lot of research done that is driven by defense spending.

I mentioned the other extreme where we spend all the money on improving the lives of our citizens and a possible outcome of such a scenario.

We absolutely need more healthcare/infrastructure/education spending.  Selfish people don't like that, which is why we don't have it.
 
2018-10-11 12:16:47 PM  

PickleBarrel: Explodo: PickleBarrel: Did you really just cite a failure as reason to stop spending money on R&D in a field?   Like...F-35?

Did you JUST forget about that whole Primary, and Secondary shiat that was posted above?

I hear constant circular reasoning from these warmongers and just about any argument for spending for R&D on Military can also be applied to the private sector.

The F35 is a research project.  Research is hard.  In large projects many unforeseen problems arise, sometimes even after they're "released."  It doesn't help that the govt tends to not be extremely concrete in what they want.  Did you know that the military shifts people around every two years?  That means that the guy pushing for a project that takes 3 years to complete will be gone before it's finished...and the new guy might either not share his vision for what is needed or might not even want to spend his budget on it anymore.  Mid-project requirements change!  Everybody loves that!

Dude, you just cited a failure in another field as an point for you argument, now you are arguing against that point by saying "research is hard!" .

You are arguing in bad faith when you literally disregard/ hand wave your own points and use circular reasoning.


I guess I'm missing the issue you have.  Can you clarify?
 
2018-10-11 12:16:55 PM  

ar393: phalamir: Marine

My Ass Rides In Navy Equipment


You missed out the hyphen :

My Ass-Rides In Navy Equipment
 
2018-10-11 12:18:01 PM  

Kegovitch: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Confused?  You will be after we add the Space Force to that mix.


If executed properly, a dedicated space branch isn't so stupid an idea. It's the natural evolution as technologies move from the incipient stage that kinda-sorta fits under the auspices of an existing administration to being a primary asset in its own right.

The Air Force was established once air power became a game-changer.  It was no longer realistic for the Army to run planes as a division, air needed its own administration with a primary mission of air superiority, offensive strike capability, and cargo capacity. Also importantly, it needed leadership that was rank-equivalent to the leadership of the Army to vie for funding and advocate for the branch - not someone subordinate in an organization with a primary mission of putting soldiers on the ground, rifles in their hands, advancing armored units and such.

Like air power outgrew the Army mission, space's military usefulness may have outgrown the Air Force mission. An organization with a primary responsibility for overseeing spaceborne assets might be preferable to space being subordinate to the F-35 or the B-52 replacement program.
 
2018-10-11 12:18:40 PM  

phalamir: Tr0mBoNe: Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.

I don't understand why your Navy has an Army that has its own Air Force and Navy, while also having their own Air Force.

Marines exist because people used to actually fight other people on ships - you don't want to have the guys trying to make your ship going put-put to also have to go slashie-slashie.

The Air Force used to be part of the Army.  But the Navy needed planes also to kill other ships.  The Air Force was created because Spureme High Gods of The True Air cannot accept orders from ground- and water-bound peons.  Also, having their own service lets them suck directly from that sweet, sweet Congressional teat.


You sure it's the teat they're sucking from? I heard things about sailors...
 
2018-10-11 12:20:01 PM  

Old_Chief_Scott: I detest the military's trend in the last 30 years to try and find the one aircraft that "does it all". A few squadrons of an F-35 type aircraft for special missions and a horde of simpler, more mission specific aircraft that can be built and maintained at a much lower cost. The F-20 Tigershark is a good example.


SHHH!!! Think of the Military Industrial complex and the retired Generals! They too need to keep making money after their illustrious careers!

Seriously, this is Pentagon Wars all over again. The F-35 was supposed to be filler Data Link fighters meant to augment the F-22 with some stealth. It wasn't supposed to be this all in one fighter. this idea to have a reduced force capable of doing it all for special missions is dumb. People don't seem to forget that our enemies Russia and China still have big conventional forces. the idea we would never fight militaries like that ever again was a dumb short sighted mistake.

I hate it when Eisenhower was right.
 
2018-10-11 12:22:13 PM  
My nephew is an RAF pilot, has been doing some JSF / F-35B training. He seems unaware of, or unconcerned by, the aeroplane's problems; I am not quite sure what to make of this.
 
2018-10-11 12:22:16 PM  

Gravitationally Challenged: adj_m: Public Call Box: Circusdog320: Take off the wheels...add some frickin' lasers...put a little radiation shielding on that puppy and you got yourself the beginnings of SPACE FORCE!

[i.pinimg.com image 850x531]

lol, I like how what looks to be twin giant space cannons are connected directly to one of the rear space thrusters (presumably where the space ammunition would be stored/loaded).

This picture checks out.

I also like how a space craft needs wings and what look like air intakes. LOL indeed!


Planet-side operations.
 
2018-10-11 12:23:36 PM  

Kit Fister: So, we're once again recognizing that the F35 is a massively expensive boondoggle that *still* can't make it out of the hangar?


Wasn't their a Fark military guy who said in the last military equipment thread that were were all wrong about the F-35 being a piece of crap?
 
2018-10-11 12:23:55 PM  

basicstock: NewportBarGuy: Built FORD tough.

Sorry to say, more like a '76 Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare.


Or a German car at the 99,999 mile mark.
 
2018-10-11 12:24:09 PM  
Dude. AGAIN?!?
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report