DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 15, 2016, 12:48:59 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4D0yx4DvBk#t=30
-
Three minutes and forty-three seconds of amusement.
I bet Beyoncé has never made a video that expensive.
-
Depends on what you count.
Are we going to have warplanes and qualified pilots anyway?
Then the extra expense is four hundred pounds of blue paint.
-
And many, many thousands of gallons of fuel, and spare parts and maintenance expense. Putting on spectacles like this does not defend the country. If whizbang airshows were cheap, private enterprise would be charging admission using decommissioned aircraft. This type of plane in unsuited for the sort of fighting that this country has been doing for the past thirty years or more.
-
And many, many thousands of gallons of fuel,
No, qualified pilots are required to fly enough to remain qualified, the show does not waste a thimbleful of fuel. and spare parts and maintenance expense.,
No we have to maintain aircraft just as much for cross country flight and training flights as we do for any other purpose. Putting on spectacles like this does not defend the country.,
Yes it does, better piloting is better piloting in combat also. If whizbang airshows were cheap, private enterprise would be charging admission using decommissioned aircraft. ,
They do, but it is not cheap if you need to get an aircraft team that you would not have anyway. This type of plane in unsuited for the sort of fighting that this country has been doing for the past thirty years or more.
No, this aircraft is exactly the same as current first line fighters used by the Navy and Marines. Putting them into combat is no more difficult than their normal maintenance and arming is, matter of fact this has been done. During the Korean war the Blue angels stopped putting on shows and spent some time shooting communists.
http://tacairnet.com/2015/04/11/when-the-blue-angels-went-to-war/
-
You apparently BELIEVE all this bullshit. I do not. They need slow planes like the A10, but the pilots and pilots prefer planes that go zoom! They have not been of much use since Vietnam. And now we have drones. The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels and the other bunch are all just very whizbang toys for the pilots and cash cows for Boeing and Grumman.
I would just as soon watch Beyoncé. We already have God knows how many military bands for entertainment.
-
You apparently BELIEVE all this bullshit. I do not. They need slow planes like the A10, but the pilots and pilots prefer planes that go zoom! They have not been of much use since Vietnam. And now we have drones. The Thunderbirds and Blue Angels and the other bunch are all just very whizbang toys for the pilots and cash cows for Boeing and Grumman.
I would just as soon watch Beyoncé. We already have God knows how many military bands for entertainment.
On aircraft I am subject matter experienced.
I shall defer to you on any question regarding the use of romance languages, your experience on that subject is much more extensive than mine.
But if I state that Grumman makes not a single thin dime more because the Blue Angels fly and the Navy spends very small money to run that program, I need not defer to your lesser experience.
I have actual contact with real warcraft and direct experience with the rather parsimonious Navy.
There are no additional aircraft purchased and if they were not there, there would be no less requirement to fly them.
The pilots are Olympic athlete class trained , and this is good for the whole corps, they do not remain in this specialty very long, they rotate through and return to regular duty, benefiting in skill development and skill dissemination.
The Navy does not own any A-10 aircraft , for that mission they use the AV-8B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_naval_aircraft
You can disagree for free, but to contradict, bring new information.
-
Does the Navy actually provide you with figures regarding the costs of the Blue Angels?
The more a plane is in the air, the more it costs to fly it. If it is doing barrel rolls for the amusement of the public, it is not defending the country.
Fighter aircraft do practically nothing to defend the country. They serve to give orgasmic highs to a few flyboys. I imagine that there is a cheaper app for that.
-
Does the Navy actually provide you with figures regarding the costs of the Blue Angels?
That figure is probably available , but it is not needed.
Do you imagine that all the Navy's aircraft sit idle until the US is attacked?
Pilots are required to fly a certain amount in a particular kind of aircraft in order to remain proficient.
If these planes and pilots were not putting on a show , they would still fly a lot in order to be excellent pilots.
Making this spectacle available to the public is good PR for the Navy , good show no charge to the public and the additional cost is tiny, compared to what ordinary air operations and training cost anyway.
The day may come that all warplanes are drones, but that is not practical yet.
-
It will never be deemed "practical" because the brass is adicted to the idea of a small elite of pilots in bazillion dollar whizbang planes.
They realize that they will never get their rocks off watching videos taken by drones. A medal rewarding superior drone piloting is hardly a sign of bravery, as a medal for hotdog flying q real plane in the air.
The military used to get its jollies from cavalry horses and gallant charges with swords raised high. But WWI sort of ended that in a mater of months.
There is not a lot of chance that these megaexpensive fighter planes will be eliminated in a major war with drones.
The more boring wars can be made, the less incentive the military will have to recommend them.
-
Wow , that is a well composed post , but none of it is true in the slightest.
The US and many other nations are buying a lot of drones , the arms race of robots is on and will probably grow hotter.
Drone pilots are suffering from a peculiar form of stress that used to be rare for soldiers, a Drone pilot might follow his prospective target around for a long part of his day to insure that they have the right guy and also to try to catch him in the best circumstance for reduction of collateral killing and damage.
In the USA our soldiers at no level of rank choose who the enemy will be nor do even the most senior really choose the weapons, those are civilian functions . When we are wise we have the soldiers advice and vetting , but we are often not so wise.
In your imagination soldiers are gleeful at war , this indicates to me that you do not meet many .
-
There are surely a considerable number of officers who want to punish Muslims, Putin and even the Chinese.
The constant allegations that the military needs MORE money to fight rather puny terrorist groups because they also want to b prepared for the Cold War are the result of the Military Industrial Complex pumping money into the political campaigns of guys like Rubio and Cruz.
The two best emotions to play on are hope for a better future and fear of a worse one,
Trump wants to go back to some mythical moment in which this country was somehow "greater" than it is today.
He defines greatness as a country ruled by Trump.
Someone needs to grill Trump to reveal the actual Year of Maximum Greatness.
I cannot recall of such a time. There were always wars to fight and evil to combat in every year that I have lived.
\
-
There are surely a considerable number of officers who want to punish Muslims, Putin and even the Chinese.
Hahaha!
As our agents , they certainly do!
The military is not a lobby for war , and is nothing like a lobby for war.
Neither are they the controllers of the military industrial complex, they argue and ask for better circumstances and weapons all the time, wouldn't you?
This asking for better weapons , it is not universal for soldiers?
But they are seldom the inventors , seldom the manufacturers, and never the paymasters.
They do not go to war without the elected representatives of us telling them to go.
And all that they carry is what we are willing to supply them with.
-
The weapons manufacturers certainly want to sell their wares, whether they are effective as weapons or not. And they no doubt would prefer to sell more than fewer, so if they get shot down, taht has to make them happy. When there is a war on, it is a lot easier to get Congress to spend money on weapons.
-
Oh you are thinking of the guns of Krupp.
Perhaps this happens, but it does not describe our situation now.
Our armed forces have been shrinking steadily since the end of the Cold War.
Our arms manufacturers are fewer too.
-
We have been replacing cannon fodder recruits with advanced technology. That is not "shrinking".
The Military Industrial Complex is alive and well and costing us a fortune.
They have so much money that they run TV commercials for Boeing on Sunday morning political interview shows. I hardly think they want to sell me my own personal bomber.
The government spends huge fortunes on weapons that cannot defend us against current threats.
-
There are a lot fewer machines also, the shrinking is real.
You really think we need not have strength comparable to the other very strong nations?