| ▲ | MomsAVoxell a day ago | ||||||||||||||||
>No, obviously that's not what they're saying. It is what they are saying, because they have misunderstood the point: You talk about 'efficiency' while there are children dying, limbs severed, bombs still falling. The F35 is there, it has one purpose: murder. Turn that immediately into another, singular purpose: life. Nobody is saying "manufacture new F35's that only drop pansies". The point is, de-weaponize. That can be done with far greater ease than anything else. And that is the only point that matters, while limbless children are dying by the minute. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | 15155 a day ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
All of this random F-35 shit is completely missing the point. The F-35 isn't "there" - no aircraft is "there" because the costs to operate them far eclipse their acquisition costs, always. If you said "scrap the F-35s, spend money on humanitarian purposes" - you'd have a cogent (albeit naive) point. "Use one of the most expensive per-flight-hour aircraft in the world to do a mission it can't do and wasn't built for" is not intelligent. Roughly, just considering fuel: the F-35 burns ~10,000 lbs/hr of JP-8 and can haul just 18,000 lbs of relatively small/multiple payloads. A 747 burns ~20,000 lbs/hr and can haul over 300,000 lbs of palletized loads. See the issue? | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||