Trump names new fighter jet after himself

[Snowball]

Trump was in charge when the program reached the actual prototype phase, and he is in charge when it goes into service.

sorry, but DARPA says Obama did it.

DARPA wins.

 

[nikcers]

The inevitable implosion and collapse of society as we know it, will be the result of the central banking, debt based, monetary scheme.

The cause will 100% be internal, as a result of the international hijacking of our government and country.

Not because of China or any external factors.

And definitely not due to a lack of arms.

50 years ago, there were enough nukes to end all life on Earth 30 times over.

We had a lot of nuclear weapons back then because our delivery methods were crude and you didn't want someone to be able to nuke you first and not be able to nuke them back because they somehow found and hit your stock pile or your weapon failed to launch or hit their target.

It really doesn't matter if I have 20 nuclear weapons if I can't deliver them because they found my stockpiles and bombed them first but if I have 1000 stockpiles of 20 and you somehow destroyed 80% of them and I fail delivery half of them I can still hit your most important military targets.

It was never for destroying the whole world over. It was to make sure you can defend against a war against a military super power and the USA and the Soviet Union were military super powers.

 

[69360]

F-16s aren't a really a superiority fighter that can defeat other F-16s or 5th and 6th generation aircraft equivalent in a fight.

They could simply overwatch and you lose every time.

They don't want to bring knifes to a knife fight or knifes to a gun fight.

They want dirty tricks even if it is a knife fight they are going to throwing sand in their eyes.

Plus any potential adversaries could always defeat us with simple numbers if we had military parity.

They are good enough to defend our territory. Why do we need more?

 

[nikcers]

They are good enough to defend our territory. Why do we need more?

We don't want to be able to just defend our territory we want to defend the lives of our people. Ukraine and Russia are defending territory but they are losing the lives of millions of people.

We want to defend the people of our country before they could ever reach our territory and they have jets that can defeat F-16s.

 

[TheTexan]

We don't want to be able to just defend our territory we want to defend the lives of our people. Ukraine and Russia are defending territory but they are losing the lives of millions of people.

We want to defend the people of our country before they could ever reach our territory and they have jets that can defeat F-16s.

We've got these two great military inventions called oceans. And-- a gulf of our very own

 

[nikcers]

We've got these two great military inventions called oceans. And-- a gulf of our very own

We want to build defenses on our oceans and we don't want those to be able to be penetrated because once they can be penetrated they will be able to reach our people.

So Taiwan and Japan and Australia are our fence and once they get past our wall they can reach our people.

Right now our ability to defend our people exists because we have superiority jets but soon the F22s would just fall apart. Obama cancelled the program and stopped building superiority aircraft.

The G forces on air frames on aircraft that supercruise at mach 2 speeds just don't last 100 years like sub sonic b-52s either.

The F-47 is going to be able to defend the pacific regions that are going to be vulnerable a few years from now.

 

[69360]

We don't want to be able to just defend our territory we want to defend the lives of our people. Ukraine and Russia are defending territory but they are losing the lives of millions of people.

We want to defend the people of our country before they could ever reach our territory and they have jets that can defeat F-16s.

The United States is a nuclear superpower. No other country is ever attacking US territory with jets.

So the only reason to build the F-47 is overseas aggression.

 

[nikcers]

The United States is a nuclear superpower. No other country is ever attacking US territory with jets.

So the only reason to build the F-47 is overseas aggression.

Of course they would use jets. We already established that fact. You just said f-16s were good enough.

Russia has SU-35 jets that are as powerful as F-16 jets. They get shot down and lose people.

Russia is a nuclear super power and they are losing hundreds of thousands of their people.

We don't want to just be able to defend our territory we want to defend the lives of our people.

We don't have a war doctrine like they do.

Their culture and war doctrine is inspired from the Romanov Tsars where their rulers will send millions to die to defend territory or to steal more territory from another country.

We don't go to war to defend territory we go to war to defend our peoples lives.

You build your supply of weapons in case you have to go to war just in case you have to go to war.

Just like you want a robust supply of water and fire trucks just in case there is a fire.

 

[69360]

Of course they would use jets. We already established that fact. You just said f-16s were good enough.

Russia has SU-35 jets that are as powerful as F-16 jets. They get shot down and lose people.

Russia is a nuclear super power and they are losing hundreds of thousands of their people.

We don't want to just be able to defend our territory we want to defend the lives of our people.

We don't have a war doctrine like they do.

Their culture and war doctrine is inspired from the Romanov Tsars where their rulers will send millions to die to defend territory or to steal more territory from another country.

We don't go to war to defend territory we go to war to defend our peoples lives.

You build your supply of weapons in case you have to go to war before you have to go to war. Just like you want a robust supply of water and fire trucks just in case there is a fire.

Russia is never going to attack the US. We have no need to build this new plane. There is no threat.

 

[nikcers]

Russia is never going to attack the US. We have no need to build this new plane. There is no threat.

That's what Obama said when he cancelled the F-22.

He said it was a cold war weapon we didn't use.

The cold war with Russia was over he said. Russia isn't building a 5th generation fighter jet or modern nuclear weapons so we don't need them.

We dismantled the peacemaker ICBM and the F-22.

Now China is building thousands of 5th and 6th generation fighter jets and thousands of new nuclear weapons.

If we don't start building the fighter jets and modernized nuclear weapons now we don't have them if we need them.

That means we automatically lose any war that potentially happens in 10 or 15 years from now.

So we are in a new cold war and we need new cold war weapons in case there is a hot war.

 

[69360]

That's what Obama said when he cancelled the F-22.

He said it was a cold war weapon we didn't use.

The cold war with Russia was over he said. Russia isn't building a 5th generation fighter jet or modern nuclear weapons so we don't need them.

We dismantled the peacemaker ICBM and the F-22.

Now China is building thousands of 5th and 6th generation fighter jets and thousands of new nuclear weapons.

If we don't start building the fighter jets and modernized nuclear weapons now we don't have them if we need them.

That means we automatically lose any war that potentially happens in 10 or 15 years from now.

So we are in a new cold war and we need new cold war weapons in case there is a hot war.

There is never going to be a conventional war with Russia or China. If there is a nuclear war, there are no winners. So again, no need for this new plane. It's a huge waste of taxpayer money.

 

[nikcers]

There is never going to be a conventional war with Russia or China. If there is a nuclear war, there are no winners. So again, no need for this new plane. It's a huge waste of taxpayer money.

Of course there were winners and losers in the last cold war.

Just look at Russia right now. They surely didn't win.

You think if we had a time machine and brought JFK to 2025 and he asked how the Soviet Union is doing and we told him what's happening right now he would think the Soviet Union won?

Who knows who will even be our friends and allies in 15 or 30 years from now?

30 years ago Ukraine and Russia were best friends.

Ukraine even decided they didn't need to have nuclear weapons anymore because the cold war was over and they thought they would never have to go to war with Russia.

I don't want to use cold war weapons but I want them in case we need them.

 

[acptulsa]

Of course there were winners and losers in the last cold war.

Just look at Russia right now. They surely didn't win.

They didn't?

I'm looking. I'm looking at the lives of the Russian people (where we aren't setting up puppet dictators on their borders). I'm comparing their plight to that of those living in Russia between 1917 and 1989.

You're telling me they didn't win?

They're better off. Are we better off than we were 1917-1989?

If we aren't, it's because of the Deep State. If you think Lockheed and Boeing aren't part of the DS, I want some of what you're toking. I don't feel so unsafe in my bed because any potential invaders will likely detect the ANG F-16s coming to get them. I'm sorry you do.

Stealth is profitable, because carbon fiber does fatigue sooner, so it's less rebuildable. But is stealth really necessary for defense? Indeed, defense often involves deterrence. Is stealth even advisable for defense? And do the new designs even improve upon the Falcon's performance in any area except stealth?

 

[nikcers]

They didn't?

I'm looking. I'm looking at the lives of the Russian people (where we aren't setting up puppet dictators on their borders). I'm comparing their plight to that of those living in Russia between 1917 and 1989.

You're telling me they didn't win?

They're better off. Are we better off than we were 1917-1989?

The Russian people at this rate won't have a future. In 50 years there will be no one that speaks Russian.

They are going through demographic collapse and their economy is a god damn gas station and the world is moving away from using gas.

Under the Soviet Union the Russians (Soviet Russia) had 100s of millions of people in client states that guaranteed the future of the Russian people.

Their kids and their kids's kids and their kid's kids. They had a future.

 

[acptulsa]

The Russian people at this rate won't have a future.

At this rate, they'll live long enough to bury us, because they aren't invested neck-deep in suicidal Israel.

 

[nikcers]

At this rate, they'll live long enough to bury us, because they aren't invested neck-deep in suicidal Israel.

Israel isn't being suicidal. They are defeating a threat before that threat has a chance to kill them.

The price of arming Israel is easily monetized by the economic benefits we get from our trade with them.

It's cheaper to arm Israel than it costs. We sell arms to literally 100s of countries around the world and we are the biggest gun store in the world.

 

[nikcers]

Stealth is profitable, because carbon fiber does fatigue sooner, so it's less rebuildable. But is stealth really necessary for defense? Indeed, defense often involves deterrence. Is stealth even advisable for defense? And do the new designs even improve upon the Falcon's performance in any area except stealth?

Modern stealth in the NGAD makes it more stealthy than the F-22.

That's what the NGAD is supposed to be.

The Raptor beats the Falcon every time in a random encounter.

Modern ceramic materials and material science that didn't exist in 1981 when we designed the raptor exists now so it can go faster and farther on a tank of gas which is needed for the distances of the pacific ocean.

We can also network an unlimited amount of drones to the F-47 so it can't be overwhelmed by 1000s of J-20.

We can definitively stretch the life out of the f-22s and strap big ass gas tanks to them for now but once they fall apart from the g-forces we won't have air superiority.

The Chinese Jet fighters are knockoffs of the F-22. They stole the designs from the USA. So you want superiority in a fight against them if you have to fight them.

Falcons aren't any cheaper if they lose 4 out of 5 battles. Even if it were 1 to 1 we value the lives of our people who fight wars. They are our sons and daughters and neighbors. We aren't their king sending our vassals to war to defend our territory.

 

[acptulsa]

I wish I knew who ordered us a resident neocon with its knickers in a twist.

I'd express my undying gratitude.

 

[nikcers]

I wish I knew who ordered us a resident neocon with its knickers in a twist.

I'd express my undying gratitude.

The neoconservative foreign policy is much different than what I would ever advocate for.

This is more of a cold war strategy that predates the neocon foreign policy.

Mutually assured destruction works.

This is closer to an Eisenhower doctrine and a Nixon Doctrine than a neocon foreign policy.

Right now we have mutually assured destruction but in 10 to 15 years from now we won't if we don't make the investments.

 

[unknown]

Mutually assured destruction works.

This is closer to an Eisenhower doctrine and a Nixon Doctrine than a neocon foreign policy.

Right now we have mutually assured destruction but in 10 to 15 years from now we won't if we don't make the investments.

If we only had a mind blowing stock pile of nukes.