It's harder to start a shit-storm just by mentioning it now. What happened?
>>30481372
People are accepting best multi-role chan
Considering that it went almost 200 billion over budget, it's sad that you even have to make this argument.
>>30481403
The program hasn't even cost that much so far. You are blatantly lying. That's the way you have to be though to shit talk the F-35 these days. Either that or be an idiot.
>>30481372
NEVER
E
V
E
R
>>30481372
It's insanely over budget and insanely behind schedule.
Doesn't mean it's not a good airplane.
>>30481422
>The program hasn't even cost that much so far
It's like you're not even trying to know what you're talking about
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/f-35-jsf-operational-costs/
Soon they'll be shitting on the B-21.
>>30481441
>Cost so far
>Operational Costs
Guess how I know you didn't read your source
>>30481441
> It's like you're not even trying to know what you're talking about
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/f-35-jsf-operational-costs/
Nowhere in that article did it say the program is 200 billion over budget as of 2016.
The F-35 program has spent 90 billion as of 2014, what are the odd of them spending 110 billion in 2 years to hit the 200 billion mark by 2016, never mind 200 billion over budget by 2016.
libtard never change
>>30481441
>The price tag for all of these benefits, however, is nearly $400 billion for 2,457 planes -- almost twice the initial estimate.
This is where they came up with the $200 billion number, you might want to try reading articles you quote.
>>30481480
It's the first fucking sentence.
"Three years behind schedule and some $200 billion over its original budget, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is finally set to become operational this month."
How about you people read past the title? They estimated $200 billion, costs are at $400 billion. $200 billion of difference there.
>>30481480
Why are you just blatantly ignoring the facts and giving such a huge rim job for this pos plane?
Did you even read the article he posted?
Here's another one
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/f-35-fighter-plane-costs-103579
>>30481595
>>30481539
It's 200 billion projected, 200 billion hasn't even been spent on the program yet.
>>30481595
>Why are you just blatantly ignoring the facts
[irony intensifies]
>>30481625
>You're not out 100 dollars, you just owe 100 dollars
Do you fucking sell them for a living or something? What the fuck?
Lockheedshills in full force
>>30481705
>get BTFO with facts
>cry shill to try and maintain a faux high ground
>>30481670
Do you owe a car dealership money if you decide you are going to buy a car in 5 years?
>>30481778
It is when you say "that is definitely what I'm going to do, there is no way I'm going to back out of that"
Which has been said about the F-35 program.by the person in charge of it. Last paragraph of the Politico link.
>>30481766
>facts
You have still to convince me that it isn't $200 billion over budget and way behind schedule.
The better wording would have been, "the program is projected to code 200 billion more than original projections."
The way it was worded makes it sound like you meant that 200 billion had already been spent.
>>30481464
>>30481480
>>30481625
>>30481778
The government already stated it was "too big to fail" because its sunken costs are already so over budget.
It's easily expected to be 200 billion over budget over the course of its lifetime
Only a fucking government shill can be retarded enough to argue that being a predicted 200 billion over budget is irrelevant because it's not at that point yet
Every new weapon is always considered shit.
The difference is that this weapon has a bad case of "Bradley Syndrome". Maybe, like the Bradley the F-35 will turn out to be a decent if not superior machine of war but it is too early to tell. Also usually weapons or anything with too many cooks or things made by lobbyists instead of military experts end up sucking. The skepticism is not unwarranted.
>>30481884
>too many cooks
This honestly. They tried too hard to bring EVERYONE in on it. Just stick with one company.
I would've prefered Boeing because it was already ready to go when they demonstrated it. Minor tweaks would have been relatively nothing.
>>30481883
>expected
looks like you fucked up you said it WAS 200 billion over budget. You were proved wrong. YOU are the delusional shill
>>30481883
>muh sunk costs
The lifespan for the Teen-series fighters is finite, senpai. Besides, I have never seen anyone put a comparable figure of the total lifetime costs of some other airplane for the sake of honest comparison.
>>30481884
>DUDE, PENTAGON WARS, LMAO!
Eat shit and die
>>30481883
You've gone from "Its over budget already" to "Its expected to be"
gg, you played yourself
>>30481915
>I would've prefered Boeing because it was already ready to go when they demonstrated it.
you cant be serious ?
>>30481884
>bad case of "Bradley Syndrome"
What about we put partholes in the cockpit? So the pilot can shot at other planes.
>>30481915
There's a reason why Smiley-chan failed
>>30481928
>"Its expected to be"
>>30481922
>>expected
You know... when was there ever a government project that met, or was under the expected cost? Not that hard to say it's going to make that expected cost, and probably exceed it.
>>30481929
>>30481940
I can't remember if it was the Boeing x-32 or not. I just remember there was an airplane ready to go, could start production once the contract was signed.
>>30481915
Except for the fact that X-32 was a piece of shit when Boeing demonstrated it
Apparently the DOD decided that X-35 won the competition the day that the X-35B prototype took off vertically, then went supersonic. While the X-32 couldn't go supersonic in the VTOL configuration because it was too heavy.
Boeing then went with the 1 piece composite wing to save weight and allow X-32 to have better STOVL performance, but couldn't produce a single usable wing in months.
That was the final nail in the X-32 coffin. X-35 would require some redesign to become F-35, but X-32 would need a ton of changes to become a workable F-32.
>>30481928
You're at the point where you just want to argue semantics, which is not an argument.
There is no difference between my first post saying that it is already 200 bil over budget and saying. They're not cancelling this, so the final cost being 200 bil over budget is no different than what has already been spent
Keep rimmimg this plane and throwing fallacies.
>>30481964
Nice informative post
>X-35 would require some redesign to become F-35
And yet it's been over 15 years in development...
>>30481922
There is no difference between expected to be and already spent
That money is ear marked for the next 50 years
Good try though shill
>>30481945
Virginia class submarines.
Because that program had very low developmental costs. All the technology used in the Virginias are economized versions of those used in the Sea Wolf.
So you had the "white elephant" Sea Wolfs that were cancelled for being too expensive.
Then the "economical" Virginias, which were only economical because all the R&D money was spent during the Sea Wolf program, not to mention upgraded dockyards and supply chains to build originally planned 30 Sea Wolfs.
IIRC Super Hornet was also under schedule, but it wasn't a scratch program.
As far as that's concerned, I can't think of a single "clean sheet" program that went under budget.
>>30481924
>PENTAGON WARS
Is it a meme to hate Pentagon Wars now?
>>30481834
>You have still to convince me that it isn't $200 billion over budget and way behind schedule.
The fact that you cling to the 1990's price estimates and schedule shows a lack of intellectual honesty.
>>30482002
Ironically posting Pentagon Wars has always been considered a sign of ignorance.
>>30481980
There is a huge difference between claiming x amount of money has been spent already and x amount of money is the estimated budget overrun 50 years from now.
>>30481993
>There is no difference between expected to be and already spent
"I think the meal tonight will cost $50"
"I spent $50 on the meal"
Exactly the same, right?
fucking lel
>>30481983
X-32 would have taken even longer.
If you look at an F-35, and an X-35, there's not a lot of external differences.
Besides the 15 years it took to certify all the X-35's systems, X-32 would have also needed more structural and flight testing in addition to that.
>>30482018
you mean un-ironically.
Like people honestly using Death Traps, Spery, and Lost Victories as sources to prove their point.
>>30482113
Yes I did mean un-ironically.
Quoting it is made all the funnier when you learn how little interaction the book author actually had to do with the Bradley's development.
Muh stealth burgers, to fight sand people or other countries not able to match the US ...
>>30482002
>Is it a meme to hate Pentagon Wars now?
Yes, and it should because the Pentagon Wars is a dumbass pop-corn movie that critics like to cite as though it were a documentary. I mean, the movie seriously claims that Bradley's will emit nerve gas if it gets hit.
>>30481670
>Do you fucking sell them for a living or something? What the fuck?
Yeah, he has shares in the company and 4chan may make or break him.
>>30481983
Like every other fighter that's been started in the past ~30 years.
>>30482001
Not to mention too, the original Block 1 Super Hornets were basically just larger F/A-18C/Ds; they used the same radar, etc. It wasn't until about a decade later that the real combat improvements (the APG-79, etc) came with the Block II jets.
>>30481963
>I just remember there was an airplane ready to go, could start production once the contract was signed.
That was the Lockmart X-35. Unlike the X-32, they were able to demonstrate a fully functional aircraft without major hardware changes between test and production models (No fighter is exactyly the same as its prototype), that have stellar STOVL/VTOL flight profile, and wouldn't need a complete redesign to become the F-series variant.
>X-32
>Wasn't even the same design as the paper proposal because they had to stick stabilizers on it
>Wing design was garbage and impossible to manufacture properly
>They were planning a major redesign anyways if they won to pic related, which is fraudulent as all fuck
>They had to yank a bunch of shit off to make VTOL work
>Still couldn't fly well
>Adapting the Harrier-style lift system induced serious performance issues, including potentially fatal hot exhaust feedback
>Design's stealth shaping wasn't there and had no room in the airframe for internal weapons nays
>>30481403
Hello my communist friend. Today you win a lada granta and get to was mr Putins balls with your tongue. To claim just hand your trollfarm supervisor a note saying you would like to stik your tongue up putins ass and the Russian state apparatus will take care of the rest of everything for you.
>>30481983
>And yet it's been over 15 years in development...
It took 15 years for the F-22 to go from Y-model to IOC too, so calm your tits.
>>30482336
Sukhoi was selected to build the PAK-FA only 1 year after Lockheed was selected to build the F-35 as well.
>>30482362
Which is particularly interesting, since there's 180+ F-35s and still just a handful of prototype PAK-FAs.
>>30482362
except the pak fa is just an upgraded su 35. f-35 is a clean sheet design and more advanced in pretty much every way
>>30481372
>It's harder to start a shit-storm just by mentioning it now. What happened?
That appears to be exactly what happend here. So I'd say that nothing happened.
>>30482416
Which makes it even worse for Sukhoi.
F-35 development is about the same speed as Rafale and Eurofighter, two planes are are vastly less complicated.
>>30482058
>using restaurant meals as a shitty false analogy for money already ear marked
Not an argument
Well perhaps some people have realized that stealth on planes still means literally invisibility, and that the claims of IR sensor manufacturers is lies
>>30482001
>As far as that's concerned, I can't think of a single "clean sheet" program that went under budget.
Any next generation program will suffer delays and go overbudget. Planning for technology maturation over a 10 to 20 year period is extremely difficult, especially when steady funding is not guaranteed. Going conservative on planning also gets programs axed before they even begin. Congress is concerned about two or six year periods not decades.
>>30482446
"ear marked" =/= spent
>Will be used by one of the other country's its sold too, get shot down or fail and have its technology sold to china
>>30482458
>country's
>>30482458
>This plane which was designed for export is going to be exported
Gee wiz any more deep thoughts to share with us?
>>30481372
I dunno, but shitting on it gives me (you)s so i still do it.
>>30481372
Proven facts and logic prevailed over a cultural movement to hate on something just because. Every argument was defeated because its not Vietnam anymore and technology has progressed.
>>30482186
Were you talking about the PAK FA or J-20?
>>30482446
>money already ear marked
But that is wrong.
>>30482322
Nigga are you in your 40s or 50s, and were you at edwards during the fly off?
Because if so, hello fellow Military Industrial Complex gentleman.
To compound on your story.
Boeings Maintainers were short staffed, and worked so hard that they began to make unacceptable mistakes. One of our pilots got into the jet only to find a tool bag sitting on the seat, when he was supposed to do a demo. Tools were also on the foot panel.
Lockheed also had some interesting missteps, trying to make monolithic skin sections for the X-35. it only sort of worked. too hard for hanger climate control/ flight/ etc.
>>30482791
>Boeings Maintainers were short staffed, and worked so hard that they began to make unacceptable mistakes.
Probably because they had to spend so much time dicking with that inlet, chopping it down in sections, just to get the damn thing through the test program.
You feel bad for the guys, because you know they killed themselves to get something out there. But they just did not bring the spicy mustard to that picnic. I think they were sunk before they even got off paper and into prototyping with that design.
>>30482791
Even perfect maintenance wouldn't have saved that shitty design.
>>30482196
They also missed the opportunity to make it about an actual MIC clusterfuck.
>>30482791
I wish, I'm just really good at memorizing this kind of stuff because I've found out fascinating since I was a kid.
I think part of the problem Boeing had was in assuming LockMart would have something just as half-assed and incomplete, rather than telescoping development from the F-22 and the Convair 200/Yak series to make a conventional stealth fighter with superior STOVL performance.
>>30482452
Which si why they should use existing technologies and go from drawing board to vehicle in 2-4 years
Not having 20 year design, development, and construction times
>>30482953
What was so wrong with this thing again?
>>30483059
Just about every single imaginable thing
>>30483031
easy to say
but often times, the reason a nation starts designing a new aircraft is because the current existing technology is insufecient
>>30483119
You can have R&D programs just by themselves without wasting huge amounts of money on vehicle replacement programs that are cancelled eventually.
>>30483147
The F-22 wasn't cancelled, though, just curtailed procurement. And even then there may not be a need for more in service.
The F-35 is unlikely to be curtailed in the same way because the fleets it replaces are far larger, and it's a significantly greater capability leap compared to the F-15 to F-22 difference.
>>30483119
>but often times, the reason a nation starts designing a new aircraft is because the current existing technology is insufecient
Nope. In modern terms with how long it takes to produce a fighter, they have to start designing an aircraft 10-15 years out and pray they get it all done before the previous generation is completely obsolete. That's why the USN and USAF are already kicking off preliminary fact finding and program work for 6th gen aircraft.
>>30483147
>You can have R&D programs just by themselves without wasting huge amounts of money on vehicle replacement programs that are cancelled eventually.
No you really can't. There will ALWAYS be a significant risk involved in projecting what technology and the battlespace will look like 20 years down the road when the project you start today goes into IOC. If fundamental needs change 12 years down the road, that's your whole project in a puff of smoke. If a new technology on the battlefield obviates the intended mission profile of your project (see: B-1)? Poof. If geopolitics change to the point where the project costs too much for what it brings (see: B-2 and the fall of the USSR)? Poof. Shit, if your ENEMY is suddenly somewhere radically different as far as terrain or climate? Maybe poof. This is all shit you have to predict, and hope your predictions are close enough 20 years down the road.
R&D has massive risks, no matter what, and technology or market risk doesn't cover the half of it. That's why the Federal government is needed to subsidize it to a very significant degree in the US, and the availability of those funds allows us to do things like put VLO aircraft in combat service 35 years and counting before the rest of the world.
>>30483005
I don't think they made that assumption, it was more likely just a matter of internal trouble at Boeing - keep in mind that they had a workers strike in the middle of the competition. Lockheed would also have had more experienced personnel from the Raptor program.
>>30483225
This. Also, don't forget the domestic input on programs. Sequestration hurt everyone's timelines and scope of work.
>>30483059
basically >>30483087
However, most of the problems arose with the stupid as fuck decision to use the APG-66 as the search radar on the DIVAD.
APG-66 was the tried and true radar on the F-16, however it and it's signal processing system was poorly suited to deal with ground clutter from ground level, and without fail locked on to random shit rather than the target.
>>30482791
>in your 40s or 50s
Hello, fellow oldfag!
I thought I was the only greybeard haunting this shit hole. :)
>>30483059
>>>30482953
>What was so wrong with this thing again?
The biggest issue was that technology over-ran its performance space.
Missiles are SO MUCH BETTER at doing that job it's embarrassing. Stingers are awesome.
>>30483246
Also something I heard is that Lockheed kept more of it's General Dynamics/Convair people, while Boeing laid off a good portion of their McDonnell Douglas employees.
And with that they lost a lot of fighter building expertise.
>>30483341
Neither he nor you are the only ones. Smell that? That's the smell of aspercreme motherfucker.
>>30483059
The FCS and targeting radars were garbage, and its competitor(pic related) outperformed it in trials, but Ford was liberal with their bribes.
>>30483246
>>30483005
It is more likely Boeing culture, look at the KC-46 fiasco.
>>30483381
>sex machine
I want 3 of them. One to marry, one to fuck, and one to kill... stuff with.
>>30483225
this is why they're developing new technology
better manufacturing, materials, and adaptive tech to make factors like politics, geography and mission profiles, negligible
the development of new technology is not to predict the future and make stuff so you can better perform when the time comes, but to dictate the future and make the other guy play by your rules
if you find yourself playing catch up, its not because you predicted wrong, it's because the other guy had a better idea
>>30483341
>>30483341
Here is to remaining socially maladjusted.
>>30483773
>the development of new technology is not to predict the future and make stuff so you can better perform when the time comes, but to dictate the future and make the other guy play by your rules
>if you find yourself playing catch up, its not because you predicted wrong, it's because the other guy had a better idea
That methodology only really works from a planning perspective with incremental technologies. Paradigm shifts? You're fucked.
If you don't have space in your R&D budget as an entire nation or culture to make some crazy gambles, make a lot of mistakes and maybe find that one technology that defines the world for the next few decades, sooner or later, you're a fucking dinosaur.
>>30483842
again ,that's why you attempt to be the one making the paradigm shift
>>30484073
>again ,that's why you attempt to be the one making the paradigm shift
Yet you're arguing for defunding blue sky, tangential and high technology risk R&D. If you don't understand how a system works, why are you even commenting on it?
>>30484149
Because he's yet another one of the children on /k/ who thinks they're the only ones with the vision to see the solution, even though they have zero education or experience in the area. And he'll sit here and shitpost back at you for the next four hours because he literally cannot be fucked to take 30 minutes and read how basic R&D complexes work.
Let it go. Ain't worth it.
>>30484149
>>30484163
who's arguing for funding or defunding anything?
why do you think the comment has anything to do with your "systems"?
what methodology is even implied in the earlier post?
do you not agree that there is massive benefits to being the source of a game changing technology?
>>30484216
>who's arguing for funding or defunding anything?
See >>30483147
Which was what started this part of the conversation. Do keep up.
>>30481372
The program is a shitfest, as you would expect from something supposed to replace that much different airframes and involving several countries.
They're solving the issues one by one, it will be accepted in a few years.
>>30481372
A waste of money, should've made a new bomber/a10 hybrid with extended range and more ammo capacity.
>>30482953
>an actual MIC clusterfuck.
One of the classic development fuckups. Thing was just a mass collection of nightmares.
>>30481884
Also known as F-111A syndrome. Don't worry F-35 will be just as great.
>>30484583
I don't know if this was supposed to be sarcasm but the F-111A ended up being pretty great. It was the F-111B that was a complete shitshow.
>>30482001
VA started out over budget, and the first few cost almost as much as a -21 for a fair bit less capability.
But, then the miracles of mass production on an orderly schedule kicked in, and the price dropped rapidly, to the point where it was actually below the original estimates (accounting for inflation to that point).
The F-35 is doing something similar now; it's questionable whether it'll ever get down to the original projected baseline (plus inflation), but it is entirely possible that the final purchase price will be below that $200 billion that whining-anon is beating to death.
>>30484583
>F-111A
interdictor
>F-111B
naval interceptor
>F-35A
multirole strike fighter
>F-35B
multirole strike fighter
>F-35C
multirole strike fighter
If you cant understand the difference there is not much that can be done for you.
>>30481983
Would you rather have it in development for 30 years?
>>30484998
This, you'd be hard-pressed to successfully combine the two even with today's technology. 'Multirole strike fighter', on the other hand, has proven to be perfectly viable.
>>30483842
>Paradigm shifts? You're fucked.
?
Or you know, you spend some time thinking out what powerful lasers that can kill anything in line of sight will result in, and start developing ablative materials to counter that.
The idea that paradigm shifts can't be anticipated is nonsense. Nothing comes out of the blue.
the issue is when you have a political class, entrenched industrial class, and a military class that refuse to see the obvious.
>>30483005
>rather than telescoping development from the F-22 and the Convair 200/Yak series to make a conventional stealth fighter with superior STOVL
tfw we live in a world where "conventional stealth" is a thing
>>30481459
why, just shitting over B-2 would be enough, considering those are two identical ww2 era designs
>>30481372
People got tired of it.
>>30482002
>meme to hate Pentagon Wars
It was only ever a meme to take it seriously and think it had any basis in reality.
>>30481372
Question that isn't worth its own thread but is tangentially related:
How quickly can consecutive planes take off or land on a runway. lets imagine there are a lot of planes low on fuel waiting to land, what would be the absolute quickest they could get them down? And what's the standard gap between take offs and landings respectively if there is no great hurry? I looked and couldn't find this info easily.
>>30487027
fuck meant *aircraft carrier, not runway
>>30487027
Their maximum rate is roughly around 45 seconds: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=57&t=15767&start=570 The standard gap would depend on the sortie; an instructor might stay in the air for a while longer in case a student has a bolter for example.
To emphasise that this isn't a casual rate, the X-47B was considered to be doing well when it could recover and clear the area in 90 seconds: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/navy-makes-history-with-integrated-unmanned-manned-carr-1622988833/all
They might possibly be able to shorten it to something closer to 30 seconds, but that'd be pretty dangerous.
>>30481778
If you sign a contract saying you will, then yes.
>>30488193
Good thing no such contract exists then huh? Seriously, stop trying to spin estimations of future costs as money already spent. It does not work that way at all.
>>30483785
She was too beautiful for this world.
I like how Rutan's designs are mostly scaled up/modified VariEzes.
>>30481372
It's not a better plane than the twenty F16s it costs more than, each of which carries more air-to-ground ordnance than it does.
>muh stealth
doesn't matter when the enemy is raghead dirt farmers with rusty AKs. The Cold War is over, the Air Force is never going to get to do that last ride to radioactive Valhalla over Germany, and the tool we need for the wars we are fighting now and in the foreseeable future is cheap bomb trucks, more not trillion dollar gee wiz fast jets for the Fighter Pilot Mafia.
>muh peer opponents
Like who? Russia or China? That train goes directly to global thermonuclear war, that train has no brakes, and all sides know this, which is why it never happened and it's never going to happen. Maybe you think we're about to go to war against France? Oh, wait, they have a nuclear arsenal too.
Hi guys
>>30489936
>>30481372
>tfw I onboard for the F-35C drills in October 2015
It was pretty neat. There's a framed picture of it in the aft galley on the portside right next to the silverware
>>30489936
I certainly hope you weren't expecting a serious response.
>>30489936
>It's not a better plane than the twenty F16s it costs more than, each of which carries more air-to-ground ordnance than it does.
>twenty F-16s
Holy fuck, anon. Holy fucking shit. In 2016 adjusted dollars, the last F-16s the USAF bought in 1998 cost 27.47m dollars. However, nothing is that cheap today. Modern avionics and sensors cost far, far more. Those Block 50/52 F-16s also lacked FLIR/laser targeting, integral EW/SEAD systems (F-16J) and several other systems which are attached as pods, though integral on the F-35. This drives up actual cost even more. If you factor in the upgrades to get the 1998 F-16Cs to today's standards, it's closer to 45m. The latest F-16s (Block 60/61) sold to UAE cost 200M dollars apiece (AESA radar, integral FLIR/laser, decent avionics, better though still inferior to the F-35 internal fuel stowage with CFTs and an engine that gets close but not equal to the F-35 with a strike loadout). These F-16s STILL lacked even reasonable VLO, MADL, LPI sensors, DAS + HMDs, and several other crucial F-35 systems.
Even if we average all these costs and assume the US would by 1,000+ of the Block 60/61 birds, we're still at 120m+ per F-16E. That's MORE expensive per aircraft than the current F-35 buy.
>>30490151
Not him, but I'm going to play devil's advocate. Why would you need those systems in the first place if all you're going to do is bomb sand people and any conventional war against Russia/China will never happen in the first place?
>>30490323
>if all you're going to do is bomb sand people and any conventional war against Russia/China will never happen in the first place?
Anon, please.
>>30481422
>The program hasn't even cost that much so
OK. Cite.
>>30490323
I'm sorry, when did Russia or China sign a treaty saying they would never ever go to war with the USA?
>>30490473
>>30490499
Well, I already have some counterarguments against that, I'm just looking for some better, more fleshed out ones.
>>30490521
Counter-arguments against what?
"We will never be at war with China or Russia" is a silly statement that supposes the writer has supernatural powers and is somehow able to determine that Russia nor China will ever fight the USA or one of the USA's strategic partners until at least after 2075. Try calling Japan and telling them that war with China is an impossibility. They'll think you're mad.
>>30490323
Because not preparing for the worst case scenario gets all of us in situations like the following:
>everyone, C. 1939: "He's totally not crazy enough to actually go to war with all of us after the horror of the Great War! No one is dumb enough to court a repetition of that hell!"
>strategists before Korea, Vietnam: "Conventional war is dead, now that the US and USSR have nuclear weapons. No one will be crazy enough to start a war when nukes could be used."
>before the Punic wars: "Look, they wouldn't be crazy enough to try to come destroy us all. We've got good trade routes, good communication. We're all civilized here. We're all making money. It'd be stupid."
>before the US Civil War: "There's no way they'd succeed. They cannot win. They'll destroy the entire country's economy just to protect agrarian interests? NO ONE will have interests left! Insanity!"
Starting to get it? I can list several dozen more, if you like.
The point is, large scale conflict is both unavoidable throughout history, and nearly every single one began with a single leader or group of people on one or both sides making a serious of spectacularly foolhardy decisions based off of some variation of a simple logical truism: people will act in their own best interest. The problem comes when you expect nations to act in their own best interest and forget the people running them might have different goals. Or you expect them to see and understand their own self interest exactly as you see it. Or you forget that you might not have all possible information to actually see and understand their best interest. Or their own leaders have hidden personal motives in their own personal best interest. Or you yourself are blinded by bad information or personal onus and cannot see and act on your own country's best interest.
>>30490323
>>30490570
At the end of the day, claiming large-scale conflict is dead and thus we do not need to prepare for it is that special kind of stupid that kills entire cultures and nations. And people keep being that retarded, century after century. People just like you.
>>30490557
I meant counter-arguments against the whole 'we'll only bomb durkas in the foreseeable future and nukes forestall any conventional conflict where fancy fighter jets would actually be useful' line of thinking. I was just fishing for more fleshed out ones like, well >>30490570.
>>30490570
>>30490578
This. Expecting people, especially large groups of people, to do the logical action most in their own best interest is beyond retarded.
People will always go to war, even against their own self-interest, because that is how people are hardwired. Expecting otherwise because it would be "illogical" and not preparing to survive a plausible worst case scenario is absolutely retarded.
>>30490607
Write your own goddamn term papers, you lazy fuck.
>>30490607
>we'll only bomb durkas in the foreseeable future and nukes forestall any conventional conflict where fancy fighter jets would actually be useful
Is it really so hard to access any one of the three dozen logical and cogent arguments based in history, political science, strategy, group/cultural psychology or sociology which all explain why "we don't need to prepare for unlikely events" is such a profoundly dangerous and ignorant viewpoint?
Shit, you don't even have to couch it in military terms. Natural disasters, political/economic FUBARs, the several million ways the laws of unintended consequences have faceraped practices of best intentions throughout history, etc. This is an incredibly intellectually lazy and historically ignorant stance to take; basic high-school knowledge of history or literature should be enough to write 5,000 words off the top of your head as to why it is utterly facile.
>>30490607
Something else to keep in mind is that the more advanced the launch platform and munitions, the less collateral damage you cause. Modern western munitions like JDAMs, LGBs, and now the SDB series give the ability to reduce death and destruction to just the actual target. It's is quite noteable as well that a great many people who are escaping to Kurdistan refugee camps from ISIS-held towns manage to do so during the chaos of airstrikes. And bring a ton of actionable intel with them. Especially Yazidi women forced into sexual slavery after the all-out assault on their people's existence, genocide of the men, etc.
>>30490570
>everyone, C. 1939
?
They had been mobilizing for years before 39, and then the allies declared war on Germany
Hitler posed no threat to france/britain/UK.
Hell, Germany offered white peace as early as 1916 in WW1, so it was again the allies who were responsible for those millions of deaths.
We reap the rewards of WW2 still today, in terms of our politics slanted hard left.
>>30481372
Are people starting to accept that the Leatherman is a good tool kit?
>>30481924
U MAD BRO?
>>30491711
Sometimes I have this dream, where stormfags and naziboo revisionist/reductionists are all piled into the worlds largest dumpster and set on fire. The most glorious dumpster fire of the ages.
That's a great dream.
>>30491711
>so it was again the allies who were responsible for those millions of deaths.
Fuck off stormfag, the only thing the western allies did wrong was not dismantling Germany after WWI and giving them as much time as they did to get ready for WWII.
>>30491771
I got into argument with a /pol/tard once who accused me of being anti-white because I was 'advocating surrender', while literally arguing in the same post that every country that was at war with Nazi Germany should have just bent over for them and not fought back. Stormfags need to be gassed desu
>>30481372
Ever time I watch these I expect related
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuIbvX_B7sY
>>30492359
>dat motherfucking banana playing jump rope with an arresting cable doing 70+mph weighing 30+lbs a foot
Every time I see that, I'm like god damn. Fucking head on swivel, reflexes like a cat on meth and the balls to just saunter away after. If I was that dude, I'd have that vid cued up on my phone and never pay for a drink in a port town again. Still, you gotta wonder if his asshole has unpuckered even after all this time.
Because people realize that it's a good plane.
