›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

Quick Links

F-35 VS Human Genome Project

CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437
in Off-Topic Discussion

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] UncommonPosts: 0
    The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • WolfenprideWolfenpride Member, Newbie CommonPosts: 3,988
    Originally posted by greenreen.

    What we need is a huge jello fountain in each main town - that's what money should be spent on - who wouldn't jump into it, the young, the old, and the people who wish they were birds and could fly.

    Please make this a reality. image

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,414
    Clearly you do not understand the logic in a plane that can take off like a helicopter.  Imagine how much smaller our aircraft carrier need to be.  The human genome project only saves people from health reasons.  Smaller aircraft carrier with helicopter planes saves americans from being blown up.
  • CalmOceansCalmOceans Member UncommonPosts: 2,437
    Originally posted by Cleffy
    The human genome project only saves people from health reasons.  Smaller aircraft carrier with helicopter planes saves americans from being blown up.

    I don't know why you make that distinction. People who are sick aren't worthy of saving their lives?

    There are way more people who die of diseases every day than there are people who die in wars, way more, people who have died from wars in the US is a rounding error compared to people who die from diseases.

    Let alone all the people who suffer from disease, millions of americans suffer from disease and need help but aren't getting it because billions are wasted by the military.

    The human genome project is helping countless of researchers, countless of people with seriouses disease are going to get helped by this down the line, and it cost a fraction of what that plane cost.

    The amount of money spent on that plane is totally unacceptable and wrong. The military budget is out of control in the US.

    Money should be spent on people who need it the most, and that sure is not the military.

     

    For the money spent on this plane you can buy Australia, it's higher per year than the GDP of Australia.

  • GruntyGrunty Member EpicPosts: 8,657
    Originally posted by CalmOceans
    Originally posted by Cleffy
    The human genome project only saves people from health reasons.  Smaller aircraft carrier with helicopter planes saves americans from being blown up.

    I don't know why you make that distinction. People who are sick aren't worthy of saving their lives?

    There are way more people who die of diseases every day than there are people who die in wars, way more, people who have died from wars in the US is a rounding error compared to people who die from diseases.

    Let alone all the people who suffer from disease, millions of americans suffer from disease and need help but aren't getting it because billions are wasted by the military.

    The human genome project is helping countless of researchers, countless of people with seriouses disease are going to get helped by this down the line, and it cost a fraction of what that plane cost.

    The amount of money spent on that plane is totally unacceptable and wrong. The military budget is out of control in the US.

    Money should be spent on people who need it the most, and that sure is not the military.

     

    For the money spent on this plane you can buy Australia, it's higher per year than the GDP of Australia.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sarcasm

    "I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone.  It's not.  The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone."  Robin Williams
  • HulluckHulluck Member UncommonPosts: 839
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by Cleffy
    Clearly you do not understand the logic in a plane that can take off like a helicopter.  Imagine how much smaller our aircraft carrier need to be.  The human genome project only saves people from health reasons.  Smaller aircraft carrier with helicopter planes saves americans from being blown up.

    We've had them since back in the Vietnam war, they're called Harrier Jump Jets. Why design a failure ( F35 ) to replace a success ( Harrier )?

    Clearly, I anticipate an explanation of the logic you, and apparently my government, use.

    The Harrier isn't a stealth platform.

  • BarbarbarBarbarbar Member UncommonPosts: 271

    Scenario: An American general sits with David Letterman. As they chat he draws something from his pocket. He hands it over to Letterman and the other guest, and asks what they think it is.

    Letterman looks at it and says; it seems to be one of those Swiss Army knives. No says the General, it is not. That there, is an American bayonet.

    Letterman looks abit bewildered and asks; so is it any good. The General replies: Well the knife is abit dull, but it does have a spoon that can also be used as a fork.

    And the Russians...? Letterman enquires.

    The general answers. The new Russian bayonets are over a foot long and sharp as hell.

     

  • HulluckHulluck Member UncommonPosts: 839
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by Hulluck
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by Cleffy
    Clearly you do not understand the logic in a plane that can take off like a helicopter.  Imagine how much smaller our aircraft carrier need to be.  The human genome project only saves people from health reasons.  Smaller aircraft carrier with helicopter planes saves americans from being blown up.

    We've had them since back in the Vietnam war, they're called Harrier Jump Jets. Why design a failure ( F35 ) to replace a success ( Harrier )?

    Clearly, I anticipate an explanation of the logic you, and apparently my government, use.

    The Harrier isn't a stealth platform.

    And? Updating the Harrier rather than trying to replicate it from scratch ( and failing ) would still be the preferred method, no?

    Um, where has it failed?  It's had issues like the Raptor which according to the wiki, The F-22 is better as far as stealth goes.  But this ones suppose to replace every fighter and their roles minus the Super Hornet according to it's wiki page.  That's  while having a signature size of a beach ball / marble.   Some of the best people in aviation have been working on these things.  Think they got a good grasp of the challenges and know what they are doing.  If they thought a 45+ year old jet could be retro fitted they would of done it in a heart beat.

    If you are saying it can't do a vertical take off or land vertically you took someones word for it rather than looking it up. Youtube. Heck the wiki page shows it doing a short take off and vertical landing. Explain how it doesn't work?    If it were just about the cost.  Depends on the person I guess.  Doesn't bother me because I know other countries are building theirs. 

    Just thought I would add. The U.S.  isn't the only country working on this fighter.  Taken straight from the wiki:

    "The United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Turkey are part of the development program; Israel, Singapore and Japan may also equip their air services with the F-35."  

  • BarbarbarBarbarbar Member UncommonPosts: 271
    Originally posted by Hulluck
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by Hulluck
    Originally posted by OG_Zorvan
    Originally posted by Cleffy
    Clearly you do not understand the logic in a plane that can take off like a helicopter.  Imagine how much smaller our aircraft carrier need to be.  The human genome project only saves people from health reasons.  Smaller aircraft carrier with helicopter planes saves americans from being blown up.

    We've had them since back in the Vietnam war, they're called Harrier Jump Jets. Why design a failure ( F35 ) to replace a success ( Harrier )?

    Clearly, I anticipate an explanation of the logic you, and apparently my government, use.

    The Harrier isn't a stealth platform.

    And? Updating the Harrier rather than trying to replicate it from scratch ( and failing ) would still be the preferred method, no?

    Um, where has it failed?  It's had issues like the Raptor which according to the wiki, The F-22 is better as far as stealth goes.  But this ones suppose to replace every fighter and their roles minus the Super Hornet according to it's wiki page.  That's  while having a signature size of a beach ball / marble.   Some of the best people in aviation have been working on these things.  Think they got a good grasp of the challenges and know what they are doing.  If they thought a 45+ year old jet could be retro fitted they would of done it in a heart beat.

    If you are saying it can't do a vertical take off or land vertically you took someones word for it rather than looking it up. Youtube. Heck the wiki page shows it doing a short take off and vertical landing. Explain how it doesn't work?    If it were just about the cost.  Depends on the person I guess.  Doesn't bother me because I know other countries are building theirs. 

    Just thought I would add. The U.S.  isn't the only country working on this fighter.  Taken straight from the wiki:

    "The United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Canada, Norway, Denmark, and Turkey are part of the development program; Israel, Singapore and Japan may also equip their air services with the F-35."  

    That's not really the point, that it's better than an old old Harrier. It flies at Mach 1.6, when it's adversaries and rivals flies at Mach 2.2. (F-22, Swedish JAS-39, Sukhoi 35 and PAK-FA). It is said that it even accelerates very slowly to top speed, and will be blown out of the sky.

    Read the RAND simulation. First 240 Super Hornets vs 240 Sukhoi 35s. Not a single Super Hornet came back. Then 240 F-35s vs 240 Sukhoi 35, only 30 F-35 survived. Only the F-22 Raptor could come out on top.

    http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/verbatim/133273/f_35-fares-worse-in-rand-wargame.html

    The Sukhoi 35 is a very good plane, but the Russians are soon coming out with the 5. generation PAK-FA. Which has the stealth capabilities of the F-35 (beach ball), while it has the avionic capabilities of the F-22. Costing a quarter of the price of these planes.

Sign In or Register to comment.