Really Fast Aeroplanes!

#67

They do still use them for conventional bombing. If anything, it sounds like cost is the main reason they’re not used much:

Side note: William Langeweische, the author of that piece, writes excellent long-form articles about aviation and disasters. Had a really good one about the sinking of El Faro, a cargo ship.

0 Likes

#68

William Langewiesche is also the son of Wolfgang Langewiesche, author of Stick and Rudder, considered to this day one of the finest books ever written on the fundamentals of flying airplanes.

Aviation runs in his blood.

1 Like

#69

Night flying…

0 Likes

#70
0 Likes

#71

They’re running out of people to fly the really fast aeroplanes.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/dod-personnel-notebook/2019/04/new-study-shows-grim-outlook-for-future-of-air-force-pilot-shortage/

My solution. Just have less flying death machines. Then you won’t need so many pilots.

0 Likes

#72

Question for the sake of clarification, the death machines, for the pilot, or as more of an export operation?

1 Like

#73

We probably still need the death machines. The world isn’t exactly stable at the moment.

The problem is the same problem with teachers and spies. The people who would be good at it aren’t allowed to do it or wouldn’t be compensated enough to even consider doing it.

1 Like

#74

Do we need as many? Half as many is probably fine. Could use the savings to pay the teachers and spies more.

0 Likes

#75

The nature of air warfare means we need a lot.

Not enough pilots means the US doesn’t rapidly acquire air supremacy in any conflict. Without air supremacy, a lot more people die and war descends into combined arms attrition and protracted engagements.

It takes a lot of planes to achieve true air supremacy. Drones can’t do it yet. Every hour that goes by with contested skis means pilot losses in a real war. Having fewer pilots means you lose more pilots.

0 Likes

#76

Other countries don’t have as many. What if there’s war and we don’t help them? They’re just fucked and they don’t care and are willing to risk it?

0 Likes

#77

Europe is probably only as stable as it is due to the complete air supremacy of the US military. Same with certain parts of Asia…

0 Likes

#78

I’m not gonna say what the president says, that they should pay more. But I will say, let them send us pilots.

0 Likes

#79

I think the US needs to pause the whole discussion around whether the rest of the world that relies on our military might should pay more for the privilege.

Right now, the industrialized world relies on us, and for better or worse we are responsible for that level of stabilizing military power. I don’t want to change the status quo until after we defeat fascism in our own country.

0 Likes

#80

You got a a partial chicken and egg situation. Cutting military expenditures could very well pay for some quality education, free college for everyone?, that would go a long way towards eliminating domestic fascism.

Also, if the country is headed in a bad direction, probably better for it to have less military might, not more.

Anyway, what I was saying. Some of those countries have mandatory conscription Finland, South Korea. Let them send us pilots.

0 Likes

#81

Or we could just raise taxes on the wealthy. That would cover everything.

0 Likes

#82

Why not both? Aim high. Instead of just free education and health care for everyone, we could go above and beyond. Free transportation for everyone. Free food for everyone. Free Internet for everyone.

0 Likes

#83

The only things I fear more than US military hegemony is non-US military hegemony or multi-state military parity.

1 Like

#84

Don’t ya think we could manage to achieve US military hegemony while simultaneously cutting military spending, or at least halting it?

Like I’ve heard the story that we produce tanks the military doesn’t want (though admittedly I don’t have a source for it)

And I’ve also heard the story that as of 2015 we literally can’t even show what we spent 21 trillion dollars on. Here’s thetl:dr

I feel like if we don’t know what that shit was, then it must not be that important. New directive. If you can’t report it, next year, after the congressional budget is assigned it’s slashed by the amount you couldn’t report last year.

Even if it’s all classified whatever nonsense, it should be something we can disclose how much it cost and within reason where the money went, even if it’s like just what state or country it went to.

0 Likes

#85

Well we do have a lot of… problems… with our public/private partnerships in the military and expenses. It’s also a jobs program and a place where some people get training for civilian jobs. It’s just a very complicated very intertwined almost inbred system at this point. Can we spend less, absolutely, but it’s a harder question than healthcare and cutting it would be even less popular… so it’s a fight.

0 Likes

#86

My proposition is only a cut inasfar as they can get their own reporting under control. I’m currently dealing with a SOC2 audit at work and the amount of nonsense I’m having to prove we report/build so that we now report it is staggering.

We don’t do anything anywhere near as important as the military.

0 Likes