F35 vs. A10?

[StCapps]

it really can't be about the budget, like the F-35 costing $1.5 trillion over the whole lifetime of the program ?

that's a drop in the bucket for a $1 trillion annual national security budget

never mind that personnel and infrastructure are the largest cost

weapons don't actually cost that much in comparison

LOL Yeah man, it’s just a trillion, for a single, semi-useless weapons system. What’s your beef?

I have no beef, merely pointing out that your posts are not really about budget

really it's just another Chicken Little fetish of yours

If it was really about the budget with him

then he would be naming superior alternatives to the F-35 to spend money on instead of just complaining about it being "a waste of money"

the fact that he can't do that, makes it obvious that it's all about his knee jerk SIFCLF nature, no matter how much he protests it's about something else

[Smitty-48]

LOL Yeah man, it’s just a trillion, for a single, semi-useless weapons system. What’s your beef?

I have no beef, merely pointing out that your posts are not really about budget

really it's just another Chicken Little fetish of yours

If it was really about the budget with him

then he would be naming superior alternatives to the F-35 to spend money on instead

the fact that he can't make it obvious that it's all about his knee jerk SIFCLF nature

he's got issues upon issues, can you imagine how fucked up his kids are gonna be ?

I hope they don't get bullied too badly, but jeez, can you imagine having a dad like this guy ? Yeesh

[SuburbanFarmer]

explain how the F-35 is not the former but the latter

explain what you think constitutes reasonable military spending and why F-35 does not qualify

you wouldn't know what reasonable military spending was if it slapped you in the face, you can't tell the difference, you just buy the anti-military derangement syndrome clickbait hook, line and sinker

Ok then. Give me one defensive military purpose that it serves, which we are otherwise lacking.

it can see better than any aircraft while being harder to see than any aircraft, it's the quarterback of the skies reading the defense in the air, at sea and on the ground, and calling the audibles for the rest of the team accordingly

name a single other aircraft that performs that role as well as F-35 for better value

you can't

The E-4 serves that role, along with others. And ground based radar.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I have no beef, merely pointing out that your posts are not really about budget

really it's just another Chicken Little fetish of yours

If it was really about the budget with him

then he would be naming superior alternatives to the F-35 to spend money on instead

the fact that he can't make it obvious that it's all about his knee jerk SIFCLF nature

he's got issues upon issues, can you imagine how fucked up his kids are gonna be ?

I hope they don't get bullied too badly, but jeez, can you imagine having a dad like this guy ? Yeesh

Pro tip: over-aggression in trolling just makes you look unstable, rather than the funny guy.

Given that you know nothing about my parenting style, and failed to point out an obvious flaw, you appear to be grasping.

[StCapps]

Ok then. Give me one defensive military purpose that it serves, which we are otherwise lacking.

it can see better than any aircraft while being harder to see than any aircraft, it's the quarterback of the skies reading the defense in the air, at sea and on the ground, and calling the audibles for the rest of the team accordingly

name a single other aircraft that performs that role as well as F-35 for better value

you can't

The E-4 serves that role, along with others. And ground based radar.

not as well

and in order to get as close to as good at it as the F-35's as possible

they would have to spend more on other things

than they would on the F-35's

your claim that it's about saving taxpayer money, holds no water

you are lying to yourself and everyone else by claiming that it is

[Smitty-48]

Ok then. Give me one defensive military purpose that it serves, which we are otherwise lacking.

it can see better than any aircraft while being harder to see than any aircraft, it's the quarterback of the skies reading the defense in the air, at sea and on the ground, and calling the audibles for the rest of the team accordingly

name a single other aircraft that performs that role as well as F-35 for better value

you can't

The E-4 serves that role, along with others. And ground based radar.

nah, E-4 Nightwatch is the airborne alternate command post for nuclear war

ground based radar is limited by the curvature of the earth, can't look down from above

[SuburbanFarmer]

it can see better than any aircraft while being harder to see than any aircraft, it's the quarterback of the skies reading the defense in the air, at sea and on the ground, and calling the audibles for the rest of the team accordingly

name a single other aircraft that performs that role as well as F-35 for better value

you can't

The E-4 serves that role, along with others. And ground based radar.

not as well

and in order to do it as well

they would have to spend more on other things

than they would on the F-35's

We’d spend more than 1.5 trillion to track incoming airborne targets? Sounds plausible, but highly unnecessary.

[StCapps]

The E-4 serves that role, along with others. And ground based radar.

not as well

and in order to do it as well

they would have to spend more on other things

than they would on the F-35's

We’d spend more than 1.5 trillion to track incoming airborne targets? Sounds plausible, but highly unnecessary.

yes you would spend more and it's not just airborne targets

you want to spend more money for less capability while throwing stones at the F-35 from your glass house about it not being good enough for the pricetag

good call, know nothing SIFCLF

[SuburbanFarmer]

not as well

and in order to do it as well

they would have to spend more on other things

than they would on the F-35's

We’d spend more than 1.5 trillion to track incoming airborne targets? Sounds plausible, but highly unnecessary.

yes you would spend more and it's not just airborne targets

you want to spend more money for less capability while throwing stones at the F-35 from your glass house about it not being good enough for the pricetag

I don’t want to spend any more money that we don’t have. Thou dost protest too much, mr Canadian.

[StCapps]

We’d spend more than 1.5 trillion to track incoming airborne targets? Sounds plausible, but highly unnecessary.

yes you would spend more and it's not just airborne targets

you want to spend more money for less capability while throwing stones at the F-35 from your glass house about it not being good enough for the pricetag

I don’t want to spend any more money that we don’t have. Thou dost protest too much, mr Canadian.

then you want to reduce capability to save money, after being shown that you can't do what the F-35 does for cheaper

again you are not about the budget, you are just against military spending in general, no matter how efficiently it is spent, and it's obvious

anything that costs money, you just claim it isn't needed, has nothing to do with whether it's needed or not