at the article for including pics of four F-15s as F-16s. 
Chizzang wrote:Can anybody even debate the observation that the Pentagon is our country's largest failed social program
dbackjon wrote:Chizzang wrote:Can anybody even debate the observation that the Pentagon is our country's largest failed social program
Social? wrong one.
fiscal? Definitely.
Welfare on steroids.
"The military is the only thing the federal government does efficiently"Chizzang wrote:dbackjon wrote:
Social? wrong one.
fiscal? Definitely.
Welfare on steroids.
How else can one define it - other than a social program...
There is almost zero accountability
We have a thread on this site where we're arguing if the Pentagon lost $____ X or Y trillion dollars
and they can't even be audited
Shoveling cash into a furnace and burning it at least produces heat
The hell of it is that they pissed away hundreds of billions knowing that existing technology could have easily carried us until drone fighters take over. Fvcking takers.HI54UNI wrote:U.S. Air Force's most sophisticated stealth jet is beaten in dogfight by plane from 1970s... despite being the most expensive weapon in history
The F-35 stealth jet has already cost the military more than $350billion
But in a mock battle it was outperformed by an F-16 designed in the 1970s
F-35 test pilot said new plane was too cumbersome to dodge enemy fire
He deemed it totally inappropriate for fighting aircraft within visual range
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... story.html
I am looking at it from a pure social aspect - integration, etc has usually worked quicker in the military than outside.Chizzang wrote:dbackjon wrote:
Social? wrong one.
fiscal? Definitely.
Welfare on steroids.
How else can one define it - other than a social program...
There is almost zero accountability
We have a thread on this site where we're arguing if the Pentagon lost $____ X or Y trillion dollars
and they can't even be audited
Shoveling cash into a furnace and burning it at least produces heat
Hollywood.andy7171 wrote:Who was piloting the F-16? Maverick or Iceman?
A decade from now fighter pilots will be obsolete.andy7171 wrote:Who was piloting the F-16? Maverick or Iceman?
And there won't be a need for them either.houndawg wrote:A decade from now fighter pilots will be obsolete.andy7171 wrote:Who was piloting the F-16? Maverick or Iceman?
I've seen Stealth. You're full of shit!houndawg wrote:A decade from now fighter pilots will be obsolete.andy7171 wrote:Who was piloting the F-16? Maverick or Iceman?
Yep, just like during early Nam when they said dogfighting was obsolete..houndawg wrote:A decade from now fighter pilots will be obsolete.andy7171 wrote:Who was piloting the F-16? Maverick or Iceman?
and we were all supposed to have flying cars by nowBDKJMU wrote:Yep, just like during early Nam when they said dogfighting was obsolete..houndawg wrote:
A decade from now fighter pilots will be obsolete.
...oh wait...
When's the last time that happened, the 1950s?HI54UNI wrote:He deemed it totally inappropriate for fighting aircraft within visual range
How long have I been saying this shit?ASUG8 wrote:The F-35 tried to be all things to all people and is nowhere near what it was originally intended to be. We should have stayed with the F-22 and kept pumping out FA-18s, F-16s, and F-15's with advanced electronics. Overwhelming an enemy with numbers works pretty well vs. having one asset that's not as advertised.
mrklean wrote:How long have I been saying this shit?ASUG8 wrote:The F-35 tried to be all things to all people and is nowhere near what it was originally intended to be. We should have stayed with the F-22 and kept pumping out FA-18s, F-16s, and F-15's with advanced electronics. Overwhelming an enemy with numbers works pretty well vs. having one asset that's not as advertised.
F-35 my azz. piece of shyt
If its such great stuff how come you could see it?andy7171 wrote:I've seen Stealth. You're full of ****!houndawg wrote:
A decade from now fighter pilots will be obsolete.
Credit where it due. You nailed this at least six years ago.mrklean wrote:How long have I been saying this shit?ASUG8 wrote:The F-35 tried to be all things to all people and is nowhere near what it was originally intended to be. We should have stayed with the F-22 and kept pumping out FA-18s, F-16s, and F-15's with advanced electronics. Overwhelming an enemy with numbers works pretty well vs. having one asset that's not as advertised.
F-35 my azz. piece of shyt
He did.andy7171 wrote:Credit where it due. You nailed this at least six years ago.mrklean wrote:
How long have I been saying this ****?
F-35 my azz. piece of shyt
Ive come out in defense of it - and in defense of the need for a next gen fighter.BDKJMU wrote:Who on here has been defending the F-35 in these past 6 years? (I thought some had, but don't remember).
