The world's newest aircraft carriers

If course I responded .. I stated you have no provided any evidence that backs up your claim... which is the norm for you.

Anyone can have an opinion but, is it informed ?

 

There is no military industrial complex as people like to think Giftedone. There is not a single corporation in the United States that makes the majority of its revenue via weapons and weapons support systems contracts.

 

Your claim that big money does not own defense contractors and that this money does not influence politicians and thus US foreign policy .. is beyond laughable nonsense.

 

I didn't say it did not influence. I simply think you (and others) are radically overestimating the influence of defense contractors.

If defense contractors have so much influence why are primary U.S. weapons systems (combat aircraft, naval vessels, tanks) extremely old by historic standards?

 

What exactly do you think the MIC refers to ? (Serious question)

The influence of the defense lobby is well established ...what are you talking about.

Then you make some silly comment about our aircraft (and other things being old). We were supposed to have replaced these with the F-22/ and then F-35 .... both of which have turned out to be massive boondoggles due to in part to the problem under discussion ... "Political lobbying".



In addition ... your argument is very bad in light of the fact that Total military spending was roughly 300 Billion in 2000 ... increased to over 900 Billion under Bush and topped 1 Trillion under Obama.

 

my brother a retired naval commander confirmed that nato submarines were indeed able to close in on Carrier groups and "tag" a carrier while remaining undetected.

 

Your claim of military spending "topping 1 trillion dollars" has already been proven wrong several times over.

 

Neither the U.S. military nor any major aircraft manufacturer wanted to build a combat aircraft like the F-35. The F-35 was forced on them by Congress to "save money".

 

probably wasted money as I imagine drones will replace most combat aircraft very soon. Without the burden of a pilot drones can far exceed the performance of a plane with a human at the controls.

 

The slavish worship of drones reminds me of when people thought missiles would be inevitably replacing manned combat aircraft.

That didn't work out very well.

 

they said too that about horseless carriages replacing the horse and wagon and we know how that ended...drones have effectively replaced ground attack planes already, fighters are next...long range missiles have indeed replaced most bombers and cannons on fighters, fighters now can engage in combat without even seeing their opponent because of missiles...

 

It's very likely that the Hague will make it a war crime to use armed drones in combat.

 

Nobody says that.

 

OMG ... not this silliness again ... I gave you the numbers for God sake's and the link. What is your problem ?

You want to claim veterans spending is not part of the Total Military Spend ... then when asked if you think the cost of treating wounded .. you say Yes. Don't blame me for your inane contradiction.

Then you blubber this nonsense about me being proven wrong when you have done no such thing. It is you - by your own words- that is wrong.

Then you completely avoid stating what you think the MIC is which so all you have done is run and hide from the topic.

Go away .. fk off.

 

I pointed out that the information you linked to was in error. Completely debunked. And you cannot find a credible source that will make the claim that U.S. military spending is one trillion per year. Not one. The only ones you can find are sources that are consistently critical of U.S. military spending.

 

And entire government sponsored study in United Kingdom determined that very idea back in the 1960s IIRC.

 

You did not debunk anything other than yourself. Your claim that the VA is not part of Total Military Spending is laughable nonsense.

Then you admitted that treating wounded veterans was part of Total Military spending ... so you debunked yourself.

 

Most veterans don't suffer wounds Giftedone.

 

PTSD is a wound you don't see but is as real as any bullet hole, and it doesn't heal.

 

Is it shorter to Baltimore or by Bus ?

 

They did not say manned aircraft will be replaced by missiles, they said the number of manned aircraft types and number of companies making manned aircraft will decrease.

 

Most veterans don't suffer PTSD.

 

back in the sixties they had no inkling of how much further our technology would be at this point in time...I can't think of many things drones can't do or will be able to do very shortly...

I can easily recall many gear heads telling me the internal combustion engine will never be replaced by electric powered vehicles but here we are on the thresh hold of the electric age and AI autonomous driven vehicles...I've no hesitation predicting piloted fighter aircraft will be replaced by drones before those piloted aircraft have reached the end of their useful lifespan...drone aircraft will accelerate and maneuver well beyond human physical abilities would allow...

 

You like many others are putting way to much emphasis on the ability to endure heavier G forces.

If G's were the be all end all of maneuverability, then no manned combat aircraft could evade SAMs and AAMs but they routinely do.

 

how do you know? have you asked all of them? have they told you that? are you there with them when they seek help? and how many never seek help because they either don't know they have a problem or are afraid to admit they even have a problem?