Kasz216 said:
While modern warfare is currently different. There is nothing to suggest that there won't ever be a war against two developed nations with developed weapons. To suggest there never will be a conventional war again is silly at worst, dangerous at best. There is plenty to be said about keeping an edge in military technology.
As for the F22 Lightning... that's a videogame... and the F22 is one of the best modern fighter planes developed. I can only imagine you mean the F35. Which was supposed to be a fighter better suited for onesided unconcentional warfare that could still fight in the skies. It essentially was supposed to just be exactly what you want. A fighter meant for more modern wars... that you need a lot less of. It's costs balooned out out of control, but that occasionally happens when you build unknown technologies for the first time.
They want to buy around... 225 I think? That seems... pretty reasonable honestly considering it's over the course of like... 10 years or something like that? Plus a move to F35's means the US can start selling F22's for some money. As for feeding all the homeless... all the homeless already get fed. At least the ones who are sane enough to follow the procedures to get to where the food his. In general longterm homelessness is above all else a mental health disorder, as the long term homeless almost all uniformly have a mental illness and refuse treatment. That's the real burden of taking care of the homeless. |
Oops... Not sure how I got the F-22 and F-35 mixed up... My drone statement was a little exaggerated but there probably won't be another program for a manned fighter such as the F-35 in the future. The F-35 might be one of the last manned fighters for the USA.
F-35 program as a whole has been a disaster.
"a new report says F-35 pilots can’t see that well out of the cockpit."
"Last winter, the Pentagon’s top buyer, Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, told a defense conference that the George W. Bush administration had committed “acquisition malpractice.”
“I can spend quite a few minutes on the F-35, but I don’t want to,” Mr. Kendall said. “This will make a headline if I say it, but I’m going to say it anyway: Putting the F-35 into production years before the first test flight was acquisition malpractice. It should not have been done, OK? But we did it.”
"Gen. McPeak said that the real mistake occurred decades ago, as the Air Force basked in the success of Desert Storm.
The Air Force aimed to replace the F-16 Falcon — considered one of the most successful low-cost fighter productions ever — by designing a successor in its image: lightweight, technologically advanced, with flexibility to adjust to new threats.
But then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin overruled the Air Force, and decreed that the next generation of multi-role fighter jets would be “joint” — one plane for three services — to cut costs.
“We did what we were told,” Gen. McPeak said, adding that , 20 years later, the Aspin decision has had the opposite effect.
Trying to build three versions of the same aircraft has required adding layers of different features to meet the demands of each service. Development and production has been overseen by a succession of different program managers from the three services, each with their own tweaks for the final product."
and the most ironic problem of the F-35 Lightning...
"The $237-million F-35B has been banned from traveling within 25 miles of a thunderstorm, amid fears that lightning could cause its fuel tank to explode.
The aircraft, which is ironically known as 'Lightning II,' is not permitted to fly in thunderstorms until an oxygen gauge in the fuel tank is redesigned."
http://rt.com/usa/f35-lightning-design-flaw-360/
Anyways, the feeding homeless was kind of a blank statement. I pretty much meant you could do a lot more with that money than the money pit the F-35 has been. Mainly I am for rebuilding USA infrastructure. Do we need a strong military? Sure, but we need to stop trying to be the world police force. I am more of an isolationist but if one of our allies is attacked then we should respond. I view the Iraq and Afghanistan wars as a complete waste of time, money and life. At most we should have just let the Northern Alliance take over Afghanistan with the help of CIA, special forces, and air power. Putting bases and stationed troops on the ground in Afghanistan only pisses off the locals. Who wants foreign troops setting up bases inside their country?
So replace the homeless statement with rebuilding USA failing infrastructure. We have numerous bridges that are becoming structurally unsound, highways that need to be expanded and built, and other forms of transportation to built. What do we have now? Well in shitty Texas we have highways being built with public money which are sold (usually to foreign private companies) to be toll roads. I thought double taxation was illegal?
