Page 28 of 30 FirstFirst ...
18
26
27
28
29
30
LastLast
  1. #541
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockyreg View Post
    You should of course be right (regarding European super state) but I fear there is more nationalism in the EU nations than they would like people to believe with their 'United Front' they try to display.

    I think the EU is now at a crossroads and its time they drew a line in the sand. I am from the UK and voted to leave the EU but am most definitely not one of those who want to see the EU fall. The UK will still be important trading partners with the EU and we need them to be strong both economically and politically.

    This would never happen but all EU nations need to hold a referendum as to whether they wish to be part of a federal EU with one government, one set of laws, tax harmonisation etc. Its only as a single entity both politically and economically that the EU can move forward rather than just stumble from crisis to crisis as it seems they have for the last decade.

    If this were to happen even as a leave voter I would be happy for the UK to join this, take on the Euro etc.
    Are you fucking kidding me? No offense, but you guys got out of the EU, because they were "meddling too much into British affairs" (correct me if I'm wrong) and now you're promoting a European superstate that you'd gladly join? That doesn't make any sense at all, mate.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  2. #542
    The Lightbringer Ahovv's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,015
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    Given how corrupt Russia is, I don't think even fighting it is needed. Destroying the current government isn't hard with appropriately applied definitive sanctions, and the new government can be, like in Japan or West Germany, forced to behave.

    But that requires someone like McCain in charge of the Western world, someone who understands what Russian government is like. With Obamas and Trumps - not going to happen.
    The same piece of shit McCain who armed the Syrian rebels and called them freedom fighters? You know, the same rebels which largely consist of radical Islamists who ended up fighting for terrorist organizations including ISIS?

    Yeah, he sure seems to understand the world well.

  3. #543
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Slant and I were talking about this the other day. Europe COULD fix this... if it did things like buy hundreds upon hundreds of PzH 2000s, or accelerate the replacement for the Panavia Tornado (and make it a medium-sized flying wing stealth bomber). But until that happens? Forget capability and experience. Europe is at a material disadvantage. Fact is, the huge amounts of hardware (2700 pieces) the US has been pre-positioning in Europe makes it the largest non-Russian military force in Europe.

    And we shouldn't take Russia's word that they won't start a conflict. We must militarily deter them. To paraphrase General Milley, Make America and it's Allies Feared Again.
    On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that Trump's Putinlove will create a huge rift between Europe and the US. He's POTUS, but he's only POTUS. Washington is still full of smart people that know an iceberg when they are about to hit one. I've said it before, if the US abandoned the EU in favour of Russia, they would lose their superpower status and all plans for the future you have painted in your posts (China etc.) would be out the window.

    Forcing Europe into a violent reaction of arming up and going toe to toe with Russia would shift the powerbalance more than anything since WW2. And Washington won't let their POTUS be that stupid. Their main job for the next 4 years is to keep him from being that stupid.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by caervek View Post
    Why would we need to strike into Russia?

    They send planes in: We shoot them down.
    They send tanks in: We blow them up as we have air supremacy.
    They threaten nukes: We remind them we have enough to destroy all their important cities.
    They cry and go home: We laugh.

    Fin
    Hum, Skroe makes a good point, though. We need to deter Russia before they start destroying cities. You can imagine East European reactions when they realise Europe can only push Russia back after Russia had the first strike onto their cities. Sure, Russia can't reach Berlin, but they can cross the border and scorch the Earth until Europe reacts.

    Going into Russia to establish a buffer zone is a smart move. But, @Skroe, if there's one thing Europe has learned it's that wars can only be lost in Russia. Of all the things you could or couldn't expect from Europe, going to Moscow is probably the least prudent action Europe could do. We've had three or four attempts that failed in Moscow. One of them conducted by arguably one of the top 5 military campaigners in human history.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Keeponrage View Post
    I got it. Skroe is a Sales Manager working for US Military, or more like one of these pesky door-to-door salesmen who try to talk you into buying things you don't need. That would explain his persistence!
    He's more than that, but you'd have to read through his posts to understand it.
    Last edited by Slant; 2017-01-21 at 08:27 AM.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  4. #544
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by May90 View Post
    I seeeeeeriously doubt that. KGB has always been about manipulating people for its gain, not about some high ideas of self-sacrifice.
    No, as in if we try to take him down he is rather prone to launch his nukes in a pique of infantile tantrum.

  5. #545
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post
    On the other hand, I'm also not convinced that Trump's Putinlove will create a huge rift between Europe and the US. He's POTUS, but he's only POTUS. Washington is still full of smart people that know an iceberg when they are about to hit one. I've said it before, if the US abandoned the EU in favour of Russia, they would lose their superpower status and all plans for the future you have painted in your posts (China etc.) would be out the window.

    Forcing Europe into a violent reaction of arming up and going toe to toe with Russia would shift the powerbalance more than anything since WW2. And Washington won't let their POTUS be that stupid. Their main job for the next 4 years is to keep him from being that stupid.

    - - - Updated - - -

    In essence, yes, you're entirely correct. Spot on. I think we'll see a tenure (as long as it lasts) of a lot of worry and heartache, plenty of fear, but generally speaking, a big fat net gain/loss of zero, besides a lot of pride on our part. Trump will quickly find, as Obama did, how week the Presidency can truly be. And many, many people in Washington will be working to constrain him, especially the majority of republicans who regard him, at best, a revolting useful idiot, and at worse, the antithesis of Reagan.


    But pride is important here. Americans image of themselves is under deep stresses from many sources, and most of them not even from Trump. Take the decline of manufacturing in this country. Manufacturing hasn't played a significant role in this economy for decade... and for good reason... as a post-industriial advanced economy, we've largely replaced it with a vibrant service sector that provides better jobs and better lives. However the "builder" and "the maker" occupies a particularly special place in American national mythology, in part due to our colonial national story. This makes "creation" type jobs have a very outsized importance on them, even though, economically speaking, the small business owner (of which there are many tens of millions) is fare more economically signiciant than the factory worker.

    The "decline of manufacturing" is a thing that effects very few Americans, but is a body blow against our national mythology.

    Trump's seeming disain for America's responsibility as leader of the free world is another body slam. America's global image... our place as the champion of human freedom and the universality of our values... is fundamental to our American character. To NOT here a President extol those virtues, to say he will stand up to authoritarianism, strikes at the very heart of who we are as Americans. It's been said that for the british, the Blitz is their modern national founding story. For modern Americans, the America we know was baptized on Omaha Beach after the old one drowned to death in Pearl Harbor. Our rebirth was punctuated by Hiroshima. That is, for all intents and purposes, our modern founding story. Modern Americans can far easier name post-War president and post-War events, than pre-War ones.

    Donald Trump rejects that at his peril, because the feelings are so powerful, and Americans looking inward is never an enduring thing. In the end, our self image as a just and moral country that fights for the free against tyranny, is an inseparable part of our national fabric.

    That's in part what makes Donald Trump's election so profane. As a matter of principle, his elevation defiles a special history. We've had bad policies and bad wars. We've had Presidents who committed epic screw ups, and even crimes. But this is the first time we've ever had a President who looked in the face of our core values, and saw them as disposable.

    No... the US will not abandon NATO at all. It will cause a lot of pointless angst, make needless enemies and complicate matters greatly. Russia will achieve modest, short and medium term wins. But I fully expect in 2, 4 or 8 years, transatlantic relations to be basically the same.

    But that doesn't change the fact that, for no good reason at all, Trump has declined the moral crown of "Leader of the Free World", whose acting office holder now passes to Angela Merkel. I predict that in the months and years ahead, as American yearn for moral global leadership and Trump fails to understand why, it will play a key role in ultimately destroying him.

    But today, after that "American Carnage" obscenity was uttered in a place where some of the greatest American oratory was made, I think Americans have learned the bitter taste of a country that truly abandon's its calling in the world. Trump better be careful. In time, American's fickle nature and desire to renormalize will devour him whole.
    Quote Originally Posted by Slant View Post


    Hum, Skroe makes a good point, though. We need to deter Russia before they start destroying cities. You can imagine East European reactions when they realise Europe can only push Russia back after Russia had the first strike onto their cities. Sure, Russia can't reach Berlin, but they can cross the border and scorch the Earth until Europe reacts.

    Going into Russia to establish a buffer zone is a smart move. But, @Skroe, if there's one thing Europe has learned it's that wars can only be lost in Russia. Of all the things you could or couldn't expect from Europe, going to Moscow is probably the least prudent action Europe could do. We've had three or four attempts that failed in Moscow. One of them conducted by arguably one of the top 5 military campaigners in human history.

    - - - Updated - - -



    He's more than that, but you'd have to read through his posts to understand it.
    Invading Russia with ground forces would be stupid, but it wouldn't come to that.

    One of the most significant things the US did in Europe in the post-Cold War era was beging to appoint Air Force Generals and Navy Admirals to the position of Supreme Allied Commander - Europe, when, prior to 2000, with one exception, it had been the domain of the Army exclusively. The NATO military commander reflected how the US intended to fight a war against Russia. Pre-2000, it was with heavy armor in Europe. Post-2000, it's been with bombers, attack aircraft, warships and long range cruise missiles.

    Russia certainly took notice of this. The Kosovo Wars and the Iraq Wars mortified them because the easy at which the US and its allies ripped apart Saddam and Milosevic's forces mirrored largely how such a conventional conflict would go with the US at that time. 2003 Russia was certainly ahead of 2003, but only to a point. Russia's emphasis on A2/AD, irregular forces, jamming, artillery all trace its orgings back to the US ripping apart two country's well trained and equipped ighting forces, and then putting Naval and Air community people in charge of European defense.

    But in the context of a purely European approach to continental defense, theoretically anyway, what the US did is worth emulating. Europe doesn't need to be able to drive tanks into Red Square. But like the US has been able to do for decades ever since the Tomahawk cruise missile in the Vertical Launch System arrived, Europe must have the ability to destroy Russia's war capacity using long ranged conventional missiles. And it will taken many, many hundreds. Even thousands. From the Russians perspective, the US has greatly complicated their "force protection" (a US term), a concept the US spends an absolutely absurd amount of preparation and defense on. Or to put it simply, going back to Carthage and Hannibal, the first action before staging a military attack is to prepare defenses against an enemy's counter attack.

    So considering, again theoretically, if Europe had 10,000 land attack cruise missiles (whose very existence is a type of defense in depth itself), all aimed at Russian installations. This would force Russia to defend against that, somehow, because staging an attack would be ruinous (this is the essence of deterrence as a concept, nuclear or otherwise) against Russia's ability to CONTINUE the attack. Their straight forward options are active defenses (missile interceptors, destroying missile launch sites) and passive defenses (such as greatly distributing their military forces to multiply the number of aim points Europe has). But with sophisticated intelligence gathering and advanced missiles (such as ones that can be launched and find their own target), certain types of defenses won't work.

    In the end, absent the US, that would be the point for Europe doing this. A powerful large ground force could "hold" Russia, only needing to fight to a draw and prevent them from establishing lasting footholds, while deterrence systems - long range missiles - robbed Russia of it's ability to make War beyond what was fielded. THese existence of these two levels (among others) would act as a deterrence against Russia before hand.

  6. #546
    The only danger Europe faces is from Germany. Russia isn't invading anyone, cut the bs.

  7. #547
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    The only danger Europe faces is from Germany. Russia isn't invading anyone, cut the bs.
    Shockingly, the Greek doesn't like the country he owes money to, and favors the country that would give them a repayment-free handout for the small price of their immortal soul.

    Also, just going to show the flag on this issue again, Russia invaded Ukraine, first in Crimea and then in the East, and annexed the former while creating a frozen conflict in the latter. The first change in borders in Europe through military force since World War II.

    You really know how to pick the winners Ulmita.

  8. #548
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Shockingly, the Greek doesn't like the country he owes money to, and favors the country that would give them a repayment-free handout for the small price of their immortal soul.

    Also, just going to show the flag on this issue again, Russia invaded Ukraine, first in Crimea and then in the East, and annexed the former while creating a frozen conflict in the latter. The first change in borders in Europe through military force since World War II.

    You really know how to pick the winners Ulmita.
    Your views are beyond sad. If USA didn't sponsor the coup in Ukraine we wouldn't have any of this. And good for them for defending their population in eastern Ukraine. Any country would do the same. The borders of Europe changed due a referendum =)

    Lastly, i am shocked how some people can be so braindead that fear a country that acted when their national security was in stake and take the side with the most warmongering country ever to walk this planet. Do you know how many countries are you currently invading and bombing?

    Americans should be banned from talking in manners like this.

  9. #549
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Your views are beyond sad. If USA didn't sponsor the coup in Ukraine we wouldn't have any of this. And good for them for defending their population in eastern Ukraine. Any country would do the same. The borders of Europe changed due a referendum =)
    A referendum that was deeply flawed, illegal, and recognized only by a handful of Russia's pals.

    Anyone can hold a vote. North Korea holds votes. Votes aren't inherently legitimate. The sanctity of the process is what is legitimizing. And the Crimea poll was a joke in that regard.

    As for "dending their population in eastern ukraine", there was nothing to defend. It was an astroturfed "uprising" brought about by Russian irregulars.

    Boy would you be singing another tune of Turkey decided to "do a Crimea" on parts of Greece. And if Turkey did, who do you think Russia would back? Greece which does nothing for it, or the country they're trying to pal with, Turkey?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post

    Lastly, i am shocked how some people can be so braindead that fear a country that acted when their national security was in stake and take the side with the most warmongering country ever to walk this planet. Do you know how many countries are you currently invading and bombing?

    Americans should be banned from talking in manners like this.
    You know there is a distinct irony for people like you. I mean you're wrong on your point completely, but consider this. You cheered for Trump, just like many Putin lackeys did. Putin wants to return the world to the great power system of the 19th century and end the post-1945 US-led international world order. He sees Trump as a guy to enable that.

    He, like you Putinistas, really hasn't thought this through though. Under such a system, in which you'd get to live the experience of a United States utterly unleashed and without restraint - a super power turned super predator - who would be a bigger loser than rather poor and declining country like Russia. Trump may be a bit of an isolationist. But his successors won't be. It's not in our DNA.

    So be careful what you wish for. Your options are the US-led international world order, or a pre-modern order where the US strikes up deals with countries that directly benefit its interests, at the expense of ones that don't. What value does Greece offer America over Turkey in such an arrangement? Hell, maybe Turkey we'll just be friends with Russia and we'll become friends with you and pit you against each other. It's not like we haven't done that before.

    Partnership or victim hood. Your choice. My country, the world's only superpower, that one that you deeply resent, will be just fine regardless. I will be fine. You, my Greek friend, will cannot offer such a guarantee in a world where America First leads to a superpower unleashed.

  10. #550
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    A referendum that was deeply flawed, illegal, and recognized only by a handful of Russia's pals.
    Are you insinuating that Crimean population didn't want to return under Russia's rule and were in fact forced to?
    Or are you saying it doesn't matter what people want for a referendum to be legitimate and that "legitimacy" trumps reality?
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  11. #551
    "Trump plans to keep using social media, including Twitter, once he’s in the White House to sidestep the press and communicate directly with his followers."

    That's actually...very interesting.

  12. #552
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    Are you insinuating that Crimean population didn't want to return under Russia's rule and were in fact forced to?
    Or are you saying it doesn't matter what people want for a referendum to be legitimate and that "legitimacy" trumps reality?
    I'm saying that

    (1) There is no such thing as a legitimate election at the point of a gun.

    (2) the referendum was illegitimate. Procedure legitimizes.

    (3) even if Crimea did want to leave Ukraine, seizing it via an invasion and attempting to legitimize it via a flawed vote is a deeply illegal way to do it. Procedure legitimizes.


    Russia's terrible sin in their illegal Crimea action is multifaceted.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Mindflower View Post
    "Trump plans to keep using social media, including Twitter, once he’s in the White House to sidestep the press and communicate directly with his followers."

    That's actually...very interesting.
    Excellent. Excellent.

    His Twitter account is nothing but a gestation chamber for unforced errors. The more he tweets, the more ammunition he loads in his opponents arguments.

  13. #553
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    I'm saying that

    (1) There is no such thing as a legitimate election at the point of a gun.

    (2) the referendum was illegitimate. Procedure legitimizes.

    (3) even if Crimea did want to leave Ukraine, seizing it via an invasion and attempting to legitimize it via a flawed vote is a deeply illegal way to do it. Procedure legitimizes.
    1. So you say that Crimean population was forced?
    2. So you are saying reality doesn't matter?
    3. So you are saying that Crimean population was forced and reality doesn't matter at the same time now?
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  14. #554
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    1. So you say that Crimean population was forced?
    2. So you are saying reality doesn't matter?
    3. So you are saying that Crimean population was forced and reality doesn't matter at the same time now?
    (1) I'm saying that EVEN IF every single man, woman and child in Crimea wanted to join Russia, holding a referendum while an occupying foreign military power (Russia) is illegitimate by definition. You cannot hold a free and fair process in such a setting That is the international norm. You don't get to decide if you like it or not. The international community has spoken.

    (2) Because of (1) the actual referendum was illegitimate. Procedure counts most. Again, international norm.

    (3) I'm saying that political action without ANY external interference, such as from Russia, is the only legitimate way to change a border. Any other way is illegitimate.

    I realize some Eastern Europeans like yourself have a complicated relationship with how rules and norms legitimize. But I'm afraid that's how things work on this planet nowd ays. Just because the War Criminal Vladmir Putin and his lackeys don't subscribe to that any longer, doesn't mean their position has any validity.

  15. #555
    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    1. So you say that Crimean population was forced?
    2. So you are saying reality doesn't matter?
    3. So you are saying that Crimean population was forced and reality doesn't matter at the same time now?
    He's saying that regardless of the outcome, in a democratic decision process the way you reach the decision is as important as the decision itself. If you foul up that process, it renders the decision invalid. He's also saying that in international law, you usually don't invade a region, occupy it and then try to legitimise the seizure with a poll that you hold at gunpoint to later say "See? We did what they wanted!"

    That's not how it works. It could've worked if you had the order of them holding a poll (without gunpoint, mind you), Ukraine ignoring it and then Russia annexing Crimea by force. As it stands, we'll never know for sure if they wanted to or not. He has spoiled the whole situation and left us with a question that we can debate until the end of time, because there won't be a definitive answer to it. This is why the order in which Russia did it was fucked up. This is why international law doesn't agree with what Russia did.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    But that doesn't change the fact that, for no good reason at all, Trump has declined the moral crown of "Leader of the Free World", whose acting office holder now passes to Angela Merkel. I predict that in the months and years ahead, as American yearn for moral global leadership and Trump fails to understand why, it will play a key role in ultimately destroying him.
    I'm not even sure Merkel wants that crown, btw. Her "free world leader" status is a bit wishful thinking on the side of the people that hype her up like that. She doesn't seem to have the tendency to think big enough. Her scope is pretty much limited to Europe. So should the US withdraw, which I still doubt, then the rest of the world has a problem. Europe wouldn't, as we have a pretty stable system with a lot of work to do in front of us. We can keep ourselves busy for another few decades, given the time to do it without white noise and interference coming from Russia. Or perhaps, especially with white noise coming from Russia, it seems to be a good motivator for everyone here.

    I am not sure a cruise missile system or even conventional weapons are going to be the next super strategy. It seems everyone is gearing up for actual cyber warfare. Why send a cruise missile to take out a power block when you can simply switch it off. Or, knowing typical Russian safety measures, just switch off the cooling system of a nuclear reactor. The funny thing is, nobody considers "hacking" an act of war, yet. Russia seems to think they can just go in and hack whoever they want and we actually barely react to it. This attitude is slowly changing and I'm wondering what this will lead to. It's probably the more interesting question rather than which type of conventional weapon we'd employ to take out their military installations.
    Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
    PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.

  16. #556
    The Unstoppable Force Elim Garak's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    DS9
    Posts
    20,295
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    (1) I'm saying that EVEN IF every single man, woman and child in Crimea wanted to join Russia, holding a referendum while an occupying foreign military power (Russia) is illegitimate by definition. You cannot hold a free and fair process in such a setting That is the international norm. You don't get to decide if you like it or not. The international community has spoken.

    (2) Because of (1) the actual referendum was illegitimate. Procedure counts most. Again, international norm.

    (3) I'm saying that political action without ANY external interference, such as from Russia, is the only legitimate way to change a border. Any other way is illegitimate.
    So should Crimean population be forced back under the yoke of Ukraine? You know JUST for the legitimacy's sake?

    I cannot care less about international norms when they go against people. Neither should you.
    All right, gentleperchildren, let's review. The year is 2024 - that's two-zero-two-four, as in the 21st Century's perfect vision - and I am sorry to say the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of still-masked clots ridden infertile senile sissies who want the Last Ukrainian to die so they can get on with the War on China, with some middle-eastern genocide on the side

  17. #557
    Quote Originally Posted by Skroe View Post
    Shockingly, the Greek doesn't like the country he owes money to, and favors the country that would give them a repayment-free handout for the small price of their immortal soul.

    Also, just going to show the flag on this issue again, Russia invaded Ukraine, first in Crimea and then in the East, and annexed the former while creating a frozen conflict in the latter. The first change in borders in Europe through military force since World War II.

    You really know how to pick the winners Ulmita.
    And there is what they did to Moldovia.

    There is a good reason why Ukraine desperately tried to get away from Russia's sphere of influence--just like everyone else who sees any chance at all.

  18. #558
    Quote Originally Posted by Hextor View Post
    Saab will present their Gripen NG on 14th-18th of feb.
    The Gripne is an great aircraft, with a ton of advanced features that have informed many aircraft designed since. But it is also an aging design and the Gripen NG is just a modestly modernized version of a 1990s solidly 4th Generation Aircraft.

    The problem with the Gripen is the same problem with Canada's proposal to drop the F-35 and buy Super Hornets. In today's world, when you buy an aircraft, you're committing to own that aircraft for about 25-35 years. Maybe more. So if I country were to place an order for Gripens now, they'll get their first ones in about two years, at which point they'll serve probably until the 2050s or 2060s. At that point, the design will be over 65 years old.

    A key reason the F-35 is so complicated and expensive is because, unlike the F-22, or F/A-18E, it is begin designed with future proofing from the get go. A key element of it is a Gripen-style modular and highly serviceable design that in the future, should allow for relatively easy replacement of components. The system software is being built around a plug-and-play open architecture - the first aircraft like that. The F-35, from a systems point of view, is exactly what you'd build if you asked the question "how can a fighter be relevant in 2050 when it was bought in 2015". The answer is, make it very easily modifiable and intrinsically survivable.


    There SHOULD be more rivals to the F-35, but they've failed to develop for many reasons, which is the problem... it's forcing countries to choose between staying the course with the F-35, or going to older but modernized systems.

    Something like the Gripen or the Super Hornet makes sense... if and only iff the country in question commits to buying new jets in the mid to late 2030s at the latest, and reselling these. You'll save some money now, but you'll have to commit to a truly fifth generation platform by that time. And for the US's part, the sixth generation aircraft should start to show up.

    All of this kind of gets back to the original sin of the F-35 program: it was a mistake to not simply modestly modernize the F-22 technology base and put it in a smaller air frame. Much of what is the F-35 probably should have waiting for the F-22 successor program, that had the F-35 not dragged on so long due to it's ambition, would be flying prototypes around now, instead of five to eight years from now. If we had been more modest with the F-35 a decade and a half ago, there wouldn't even be a question about what allies should be flying.

  19. #559
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Your views are beyond sad. If USA didn't sponsor the coup in Ukraine we wouldn't have any of this. And good for them for defending their population in eastern Ukraine. Any country would do the same. The borders of Europe changed due a referendum =)
    You do remember where that kind of thinking led the last time?

  20. #560
    The Unstoppable Force Belize's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Gen-OT College of Shitposting
    Posts
    21,922
    Quote Originally Posted by Mindflower View Post
    "Trump plans to keep using social media, including Twitter, once he’s in the White House to sidestep the press and communicate directly with his followers."

    That's actually...very interesting.
    It's really simple: control the message.

    He figured out most press wouldn't bend over for him, so it's easier to bypass them and tell his followers what he wants them to hear.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •