F-35 is a mainframe with wings. The shit it can do while integrated with AIAMD boggles the mind. 23:15. No, that's not a Harrier. F-35B has V/STOL capabilities. 25:05: Most of them were just experimental planes like YF-17 or F-20 Tigershark. If the U.S. military is satisfied with the prototype/experimental plane then they get the official "F" designation. Like F-18 Hornet(and F/A-18 Super Hornet) F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II
24:59 ooh, I actually know this! The YF-17 (the Y means it's a prototype) was competing with the F-16 for a low-cost, high performance, multirole fighter and lost. However the Navy really liked the YF-17 and developed it into a carrier-based version: the F-18 Hornet. F-19 was skipped and there's a few theories as to why, ranging from a black project that never saw the light of day, to the original designation for the Nighthawk stealth fighter, or even maybe because Northrop thought giving their newest plane a odd number made it sound too Soviet. Speaking of which, the Northrop YF-20 was a low-cost fighter meant for the export market, which was basically an old F-5 given a better engine and radar. The F-21 was about thirty-three Israeli Kfir fighters on loan to the Navy for training for a couple years in the 80's. There's the famous F-22 Raptor, and it's competitor the YF-23. That brings us to the F-35. So originally the program was called Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and Lockheed-Martin's submission was designated X-35. Had the military followed procedure it would've been been eventually redesignated F-24 on entry into service, but then the media misinterpreted X-35 as F-35 and next thing you know everyone and their dog was calling it that.
Hi Rave, for aircraft numbering, yes, there were 34 different models that existed for whatever reason before the F35. The going after the F16. The YF17 was simply I test bed or proof of concept I believe, same goes with the YF19, the F18 currently serves with the Navy, which replaced the F14 and is slowly being replaced by the F35. The F22 replaced the F15 (kinda) and the YF23 was what Northrop had made while competing against the F22 for the air superiority fighter contract. That was before Lockheed won the contract with the F22. No idea on the F20, F21, and 24-31 though. The YF32 was the bid Boeing presented before Lockheed’s F35 was chosen over it. Some of those numbers that I have named either only ever existed on paper, or largely never existed to begin with. Case in point, I can’t find anything on an F33 or F34 existing at all and I can’t for the life of me figure out why they skipped them and went straight for the F35. Like there were only two prototypes built, the YF32 and the YF35. My guess is they were drawing proposals that got rejected and burned later on.
All of Lazerpigs videos are highly recommended, at the very least for the amazing ad-reads. (The videos about french tanks and the one about the T34 are my favorites tho)
34:47 It's actually not. The full phrase is just 'Jack of All Trades, Master of None'. It was originally created in the late 19th century to deride those who prefer to get a more generalised set of skills instead of mastering a much smaller set of skills, evidence suggests 'Is better than a master of one' was tacked on sometime after the turn of the 21st century, and completely reverses the entire phrase's meaning.
53:46 Blacktail, who I am ashamed to admit is a furry like me and many others, except he is so far down the armchair military copium that it was only through LazerPig that people have started to wisen up to his insane takesa and designs. (Yes, he designs and draws vehicles. The most infamous being the "Tigerwolf" tank which is just a heavier, more cramped sh!ttified Abrams...)
The issue with "Professional" Videogame/film critics is that the only requirement to be considered a "professional" consists out of being payed to review things. This means they get money from the publisher to review a game/movie. Of course the publisher is more likely to come back for later reviews if their stuff is reviewed with a high score so "professional" reviewers intentionally make them look better (which is why "professional" reviews often have a much higher score then the public review score). In addition to this "professional" reviewers have a time limit and will often not play the entire game and just focus on the main story. You don't need a decree or experience in the industry to write a good review. Just make good points with well researched arguments (constructive criticism). Decree's or experience would only make sense if you were reviewing the creation which is never being reviewed. The only thing that matters is the finished product which does not require experience in the industry.
I'd say the more important aspect is being the end user. Regular people are the end user of movies and video games. The purpose of these products is to entertain us in some way. And if a game or a movie fails to entertain its intended audience, then it doesn't take a degree or some kind of specialised education to make the judgement that it sucks and criticise the faults. If people with degrees and professional experience argue that the target audience is wrong and should like it, then those "professionals" are just completely out of touch with their audience and objectively wrong in their assessment. Obviously, any random civilian or even a journalist wouldn't be qualified to make a similar assessment about combat aircraft. But pilots and maintenance crews certainly would be, even if they're not aircraft designers. It doesn't matter if a design looks pretty in the offices of the design bureau or pleases generals and politicians for being cheap to build if it's a complete hangar queen and still regularly gets pilots killed on the rare occasion it's actually ready to fly.
I remember PBS nova had a special about the F 35 doing trials up against whatever Boeing made to try to get the government contract against it. Remember it being pretty cool you get to see the process of what they wanted out of the F35. Also, if you’d like to see another underappreciated tral, I would recommend DJ peach cobbler is good gaming videos, but he also has great videos about history, especially the ones about Roman history and the Spanish conquest of the new Americas
Both the A-10 and F35 are in Ace Combat 7 too, and I love the A-10. Doesn't mean it's nor dogshit in a dog fight, and even worse at evading anything. The F35 can dominate just about anything, even a majority of the bosses feel like child's play compared to other aircrafts. I still occasionally use the A-10 on the ground focused missions, because hehehe BRRRRRRRRRRT, but the F35 can actually carry more bombs too so it's more effective, just not as fun.
@@TheCanadianGuy56 Just in case you aren’t joking and don’t realize, raptors are just… medium to large birds of prey (hawks, owls, eagles etc) so they decidedly can fly 😅! The dinosaurs were named after them, for their similarities. The hornet thing, though, is a good point I’d not thought of before, haha.
@RocketSurgn_ oh I know, I was joking, Raptor is actually a classification of bird, not a species. Hawks, eagles, and other birds of prey are just often referred to as raptors. The local airbase in my town trains hawks to keep birds out of the airspace, and held a few classes when I was a kid to teach kids about birds.
26:30 The E is "Elegant" because it can mean whatever the grifter wants it to mean depending on his audience. "Efficient" is something that can be quantified by people other than the grifter and collapse the grifter's argument.
Ah yes I need to be a chef otherwise I have no way to realize the plate of shit I was served is a pile of shit. While having no expertise in engineering, aeronautics etc is a big issue media can be criticised without having to have made a movie. If a game, movie or book is bad most people can tell. While there is some subjectivity to wheter you like something you can still objectively look at it why something does or doesn't work. For example I love the edf series but I'd never say they are good games since they have barely changed over time and in many cases just lack basic features you'd expect from modern shooters. I'm still playing the shit out of edf 6 at the moment but it's dumb fun and not a masterpiece by any metric.
I do have to give Lazerpig a little bit of pushback on how much he hates the A-10. He has a huge problem with the statistics of the A-10 being responsible for more friendly-fire kills than any other aircraft we have, but doesn't acknowledge the context behind that particular statistic. The context being that the A-10 has, for the most part, been the only plane in our fleet specifically designed to engage ground targets, and has engaged more ground targets than any other plane we have. Of course the A-10 Warthog is going to have more friendly-fire kills than any other plane, it's the only plane we have that was specifically designed to engage ground targets and nothing else. It's inevitably going to have more friendly-fire kills out of sheer statistical probability. It shoots targets on the ground that are actively engaging with our own ground forces, and for the most part other planes don't really DO that. If a plane doesn't engage ground targets, chances are it's not going to have even a possiblity of friendly-fire. You know, because the ground is where our troops usually are, so if you don't shoot the ground, you're probably not gonna be at risk of accidentally shooting your own troops. I'm willing to bet that, if the F-35 were to completely replace the A-10 in the role of engaging ground targets, and it were fielded in the same conditions as the A-10 for the same length of time that the A-10 has been operating, there's probably a decent chance the F-35 would boast very similar friendly-fire statistics. But idk, I'm not an expert, this is just something that I've thought about and that I've heard brought up by military personel who have experience with the topic, as well as something I don't think Lazerpig has taken into consideration (or at least, it's not an argument I'VE ever heard him engage with).
Nah. A10 was spite project and its effectivness was long time ago and mid at best. Ardvark took most of its job when it was in use and was better at it.
Well, I think having a significant record of friendly fire incidents is a solid starting point to criticize no matter how it compares or doesn’t to other airframes. Something was wrong for that many to happen whether it’s equipment, tactics, communication or whatever. Not in the industry myself, so don’t claim expertise, this is all just my impression including both Laserpigs argument (that I mostly tend to agree with even though I’m fond of the flying gun) and all the other info and discussions I’ve come across about it.
Beyond the friendly fire statistics LP also does a pretty good job of showing the stats for armored vehicle kills (the thing it’s supposed to be best at) they claim are also applied VERY loosely to the point that it’s not that meaningful. As for the friendly fire incidents, most (to my memory) were during relatively high intensity conflicts of the Iraq wars. Of course that makes sense- far more friendly vehicles to mistake for one of the also much more common enemy vehicles, and active combat against an organized military has a way of adding to potential confusion. The A10 spent the vast majority of its service life, though, in low intensity counter insurgency areas giving CAS against small infantry and maybe some technicals, which it’s big gun and slow/low flight profile fits great. It just didn’t have the optical aids at the time of the Iraq conflicts to reliably identify friendly, which can be helped with a targeting pod, but the F35 is just far more built to do out of the box. Realistically it seems a lot of the friendly fire issue was poor communication that would apply to both, but the -35 is designed around being an information coordinator that offloads some of the piloting tasks with better avionics freeing up the pilot to better manage target ID etc, using the far better sensors the -35 has. It’s an unfair comparison to decades newer designs and sensor technology, but I just don’t see it having the same issues with target ID. Misidentified friendlies happens in active combat, but both advances in tech and the entirely different design philosophy would presumably make a huge difference.
Imagine buying a flying trashcan that can't flight during a light shower or can be shut down remotly by the US DoD.. You basically sold your sovereignty buying that garbage.. Oh right. The entire flet has a less than 40% readiness rate... And more than a million spare part missing... Meanwhile s400 go brrrrrrrrr
I find it difficult to listen to a non American talk about anything military related since their country probably wouldn't exist, and if they did, they wouldn't have the ability to make this video if the American taxpayer wasn't paying for it
@RocketSurgn_ Obviously, you've never looked into the military spending of the majority of countries. Maybe you don't understand that America has the only blue water navy that then protects the "free" trade of the rest of the world. Perhaps you don't know the amount of military bases in sh*thole countries just to keep them from genociding each other. For fun, why don't you look up how many of America's "allies" actually pay their share to NATO and how long have they been stiff us.
@@paddywop918 Well, I’m an American military brat with an aerospace degree that follows military equipment analysts (from US AND other countries, weird huh?). So maybe you can guess whether I’m aware of the spending differences and makeup of military equipment/manpower in NATO etc. The only country with even 1 super carrier, much less 11 (one of which I watched sail past my apartment a few weeks ago), by some measures 4 of the 5 largest air forces in the world (with the Air Force and Navy solidly #1&2) and all the other proportionally extreme levels of spending on tech and numbers. Cool, but we also get real solid value from allied nations, they have extremely effective planes, tanks, systems etc. The US has a far larger economy that can support a lot more, that has nothing to do with how wildly ignorant and arrogant it is to dismiss their contributions much less analysis just because you want to feel self important.
@RocketSurgn_ I can tell you went to college with the paragraph of nothingness. Who cares what your parents did? If it matters, all of my uncles served, and my dad was force recon, but it doesn't. Since you're so in touch with NATO numbers: How many members have met their 2% and for how many years did they not? Now that you're looking at the numbers, tell me how many years Americans overpaid on their 2% commitment? Now, look at the formation of NATO and then look on a map for the Soviet Union. Now that we know it no longer exists, we can add up all the years of NATO existing when it should've been disbanded. How many trillion dollars is that? We're 36 trillion in debt because people like yourself who think these countries are our allies when really they are leeches.
![These Guys Are LYING?! | LazerPig React [Bradley Wars]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ldGeSPUqWgE/mqdefault.jpg)
![These Guys Are LYING?! | LazerPig React [Bradley Wars]](/img/tr.png)
![NUKES GONE MISSING?! | LazerPig React [America's Missing Nukes]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/s_cvyYmysbw/mqdefault.jpg)
Is it just me, or does Dan Ward look like a card-carrying member of the Blackout Panel Van Enthusiasts Club?
@15:40
"Why did he just show british people?"
Dude's from the UK, he knows what makes a good jump-scare.
I mean, we were the boogeymen of the planet for a hot minute there, so I guess it tracks.
If he wanted to scare people he should have just put a image of Birmingham that place is scary as hell
F-35 is a mainframe with wings. The shit it can do while integrated with AIAMD boggles the mind.
23:15. No, that's not a Harrier. F-35B has V/STOL capabilities.
25:05: Most of them were just experimental planes like YF-17 or F-20 Tigershark. If the U.S. military is satisfied with the prototype/experimental plane then they get the official "F" designation. Like F-18 Hornet(and F/A-18 Super Hornet) F-22 Raptor or F-35 Lightning II
24:59 ooh, I actually know this!
The YF-17 (the Y means it's a prototype) was competing with the F-16 for a low-cost, high performance, multirole fighter and lost. However the Navy really liked the YF-17 and developed it into a carrier-based version: the F-18 Hornet.
F-19 was skipped and there's a few theories as to why, ranging from a black project that never saw the light of day, to the original designation for the Nighthawk stealth fighter, or even maybe because Northrop thought giving their newest plane a odd number made it sound too Soviet.
Speaking of which, the Northrop YF-20 was a low-cost fighter meant for the export market, which was basically an old F-5 given a better engine and radar.
The F-21 was about thirty-three Israeli Kfir fighters on loan to the Navy for training for a couple years in the 80's.
There's the famous F-22 Raptor, and it's competitor the YF-23.
That brings us to the F-35. So originally the program was called Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and Lockheed-Martin's submission was designated X-35. Had the military followed procedure it would've been been eventually redesignated F-24 on entry into service, but then the media misinterpreted X-35 as F-35 and next thing you know everyone and their dog was calling it that.
@@pyronuke4768 And the X-29 was some NASA experimental.
Hi Rave, for aircraft numbering, yes, there were 34 different models that existed for whatever reason before the F35. The going after the F16. The YF17 was simply I test bed or proof of concept I believe, same goes with the YF19, the F18 currently serves with the Navy, which replaced the F14 and is slowly being replaced by the F35. The F22 replaced the F15 (kinda) and the YF23 was what Northrop had made while competing against the F22 for the air superiority fighter contract. That was before Lockheed won the contract with the F22. No idea on the F20, F21, and 24-31 though. The YF32 was the bid Boeing presented before Lockheed’s F35 was chosen over it. Some of those numbers that I have named either only ever existed on paper, or largely never existed to begin with. Case in point, I can’t find anything on an F33 or F34 existing at all and I can’t for the life of me figure out why they skipped them and went straight for the F35. Like there were only two prototypes built, the YF32 and the YF35. My guess is they were drawing proposals that got rejected and burned later on.
Even the company building the X35 was surprised by the designation, they were seriously expecting it to be called the F24 right up to the last moment.
37:00 We stopped having to look our victim in the eye when we invented artillery. Can't see the guy when he's miles away in a trench or behind a wall.
All of Lazerpigs videos are highly recommended, at the very least for the amazing ad-reads.
(The videos about french tanks and the one about the T34 are my favorites tho)
I like one abaut Black Agnus. Such a badass story. :D
34:47 It's actually not. The full phrase is just 'Jack of All Trades, Master of None'. It was originally created in the late 19th century to deride those who prefer to get a more generalised set of skills instead of mastering a much smaller set of skills, evidence suggests 'Is better than a master of one' was tacked on sometime after the turn of the 21st century, and completely reverses the entire phrase's meaning.
53:46 Blacktail, who I am ashamed to admit is a furry like me and many others, except he is so far down the armchair military copium that it was only through LazerPig that people have started to wisen up to his insane takesa and designs. (Yes, he designs and draws vehicles. The most infamous being the "Tigerwolf" tank which is just a heavier, more cramped sh!ttified Abrams...)
The issue with "Professional" Videogame/film critics is that the only requirement to be considered a "professional" consists out of being payed to review things. This means they get money from the publisher to review a game/movie. Of course the publisher is more likely to come back for later reviews if their stuff is reviewed with a high score so "professional" reviewers intentionally make them look better (which is why "professional" reviews often have a much higher score then the public review score). In addition to this "professional" reviewers have a time limit and will often not play the entire game and just focus on the main story.
You don't need a decree or experience in the industry to write a good review. Just make good points with well researched arguments (constructive criticism). Decree's or experience would only make sense if you were reviewing the creation which is never being reviewed. The only thing that matters is the finished product which does not require experience in the industry.
I'd say the more important aspect is being the end user. Regular people are the end user of movies and video games. The purpose of these products is to entertain us in some way. And if a game or a movie fails to entertain its intended audience, then it doesn't take a degree or some kind of specialised education to make the judgement that it sucks and criticise the faults. If people with degrees and professional experience argue that the target audience is wrong and should like it, then those "professionals" are just completely out of touch with their audience and objectively wrong in their assessment.
Obviously, any random civilian or even a journalist wouldn't be qualified to make a similar assessment about combat aircraft. But pilots and maintenance crews certainly would be, even if they're not aircraft designers. It doesn't matter if a design looks pretty in the offices of the design bureau or pleases generals and politicians for being cheap to build if it's a complete hangar queen and still regularly gets pilots killed on the rare occasion it's actually ready to fly.
I remember PBS nova had a special about the F 35 doing trials up against whatever Boeing made to try to get the government contract against it. Remember it being pretty cool you get to see the process of what they wanted out of the F35.
Also, if you’d like to see another underappreciated tral, I would recommend DJ peach cobbler is good gaming videos, but he also has great videos about history, especially the ones about Roman history and the Spanish conquest of the new Americas
Both the A-10 and F35 are in Ace Combat 7 too, and I love the A-10. Doesn't mean it's nor dogshit in a dog fight, and even worse at evading anything. The F35 can dominate just about anything, even a majority of the bosses feel like child's play compared to other aircrafts. I still occasionally use the A-10 on the ground focused missions, because hehehe BRRRRRRRRRRT, but the F35 can actually carry more bombs too so it's more effective, just not as fun.
@@TheCanadianGuy56 At least in AC7 A10 can destinguish between friendly and enemy. :d
F18 is the hornet/super hornet which is a major naval fighter.
F-22 is the raptor, which is a incredible air superiority fighter
Extra hilarious as hornets hate water, and raptors couldn't fly 😂
@@TheCanadianGuy56 Just in case you aren’t joking and don’t realize, raptors are just… medium to large birds of prey (hawks, owls, eagles etc) so they decidedly can fly 😅! The dinosaurs were named after them, for their similarities. The hornet thing, though, is a good point I’d not thought of before, haha.
@RocketSurgn_ oh I know, I was joking, Raptor is actually a classification of bird, not a species. Hawks, eagles, and other birds of prey are just often referred to as raptors. The local airbase in my town trains hawks to keep birds out of the airspace, and held a few classes when I was a kid to teach kids about birds.
@@TheCanadianGuy56 It… can be hard to know what people don’t know on the here, haha. Fair enough.
@RocketSurgn_ yea some jokes or sarcasm don't translate the best with text compared to vocally.
26:30 The E is "Elegant" because it can mean whatever the grifter wants it to mean depending on his audience. "Efficient" is something that can be quantified by people other than the grifter and collapse the grifter's argument.
34:06 most of those supposed "longer original versions" aren't actually original and are quite recent inventions.
This has reminded me of the need for Liam vs. Pig showdown
AND FOR TODAYS SPON-I mean source FOR WHY THE A-10 IS THE BEST PLANE AND CAN BEAT THE F-35 IS WAR THUNDER!!!!1!2!2!!2!1!1!1!!11!
Ah yes I need to be a chef otherwise I have no way to realize the plate of shit I was served is a pile of shit. While having no expertise in engineering, aeronautics etc is a big issue media can be criticised without having to have made a movie. If a game, movie or book is bad most people can tell. While there is some subjectivity to wheter you like something you can still objectively look at it why something does or doesn't work.
For example I love the edf series but I'd never say they are good games since they have barely changed over time and in many cases just lack basic features you'd expect from modern shooters. I'm still playing the shit out of edf 6 at the moment but it's dumb fun and not a masterpiece by any metric.
You should watch the insane engineering of the F-35B by Real Engineering.
"When war is dehumanized both victory and defeat become miserable and God no longer lends a helping hand." - Treize Khushrenada
I do have to give Lazerpig a little bit of pushback on how much he hates the A-10. He has a huge problem with the statistics of the A-10 being responsible for more friendly-fire kills than any other aircraft we have, but doesn't acknowledge the context behind that particular statistic.
The context being that the A-10 has, for the most part, been the only plane in our fleet specifically designed to engage ground targets, and has engaged more ground targets than any other plane we have. Of course the A-10 Warthog is going to have more friendly-fire kills than any other plane, it's the only plane we have that was specifically designed to engage ground targets and nothing else.
It's inevitably going to have more friendly-fire kills out of sheer statistical probability. It shoots targets on the ground that are actively engaging with our own ground forces, and for the most part other planes don't really DO that. If a plane doesn't engage ground targets, chances are it's not going to have even a possiblity of friendly-fire. You know, because the ground is where our troops usually are, so if you don't shoot the ground, you're probably not gonna be at risk of accidentally shooting your own troops.
I'm willing to bet that, if the F-35 were to completely replace the A-10 in the role of engaging ground targets, and it were fielded in the same conditions as the A-10 for the same length of time that the A-10 has been operating, there's probably a decent chance the F-35 would boast very similar friendly-fire statistics. But idk, I'm not an expert, this is just something that I've thought about and that I've heard brought up by military personel who have experience with the topic, as well as something I don't think Lazerpig has taken into consideration (or at least, it's not an argument I'VE ever heard him engage with).
Nah. A10 was spite project and its effectivness was long time ago and mid at best. Ardvark took most of its job when it was in use and was better at it.
Well, I think having a significant record of friendly fire incidents is a solid starting point to criticize no matter how it compares or doesn’t to other airframes. Something was wrong for that many to happen whether it’s equipment, tactics, communication or whatever. Not in the industry myself, so don’t claim expertise, this is all just my impression including both Laserpigs argument (that I mostly tend to agree with even though I’m fond of the flying gun) and all the other info and discussions I’ve come across about it.
Beyond the friendly fire statistics LP also does a pretty good job of showing the stats for armored vehicle kills (the thing it’s supposed to be best at) they claim are also applied VERY loosely to the point that it’s not that meaningful.
As for the friendly fire incidents, most (to my memory) were during relatively high intensity conflicts of the Iraq wars. Of course that makes sense- far more friendly vehicles to mistake for one of the also much more common enemy vehicles, and active combat against an organized military has a way of adding to potential confusion. The A10 spent the vast majority of its service life, though, in low intensity counter insurgency areas giving CAS against small infantry and maybe some technicals, which it’s big gun and slow/low flight profile fits great. It just didn’t have the optical aids at the time of the Iraq conflicts to reliably identify friendly, which can be helped with a targeting pod, but the F35 is just far more built to do out of the box.
Realistically it seems a lot of the friendly fire issue was poor communication that would apply to both, but the -35 is designed around being an information coordinator that offloads some of the piloting tasks with better avionics freeing up the pilot to better manage target ID etc, using the far better sensors the -35 has. It’s an unfair comparison to decades newer designs and sensor technology, but I just don’t see it having the same issues with target ID. Misidentified friendlies happens in active combat, but both advances in tech and the entirely different design philosophy would presumably make a huge difference.
@@RocketSurgn_ But Ardvark was serving alongside it, have much more success rate and were not likely to hit frendlies. It was bitch to service tho.
It's an interesting hypothesis, and importantly it's one that can theoretically be put to the test.
Imagine buying a flying trashcan that can't flight during a light shower or can be shut down remotly by the US DoD..
You basically sold your sovereignty buying that garbage..
Oh right. The entire flet has a less than 40% readiness rate...
And more than a million spare part missing...
Meanwhile s400 go brrrrrrrrr
There are still S400s around?
I find it difficult to listen to a non American talk about anything military related since their country probably wouldn't exist, and if they did, they wouldn't have the ability to make this video if the American taxpayer wasn't paying for it
Is that… a serious take or just shitposting sarcasm or something? I’m going to hope it’s the latter…
Bait af mate. You need to step up your trolling game.
@RocketSurgn_ Obviously, you've never looked into the military spending of the majority of countries. Maybe you don't understand that America has the only blue water navy that then protects the "free" trade of the rest of the world. Perhaps you don't know the amount of military bases in sh*thole countries just to keep them from genociding each other.
For fun, why don't you look up how many of America's "allies" actually pay their share to NATO and how long have they been stiff us.
@@paddywop918 Well, I’m an American military brat with an aerospace degree that follows military equipment analysts (from US AND other countries, weird huh?). So maybe you can guess whether I’m aware of the spending differences and makeup of military equipment/manpower in NATO etc. The only country with even 1 super carrier, much less 11 (one of which I watched sail past my apartment a few weeks ago), by some measures 4 of the 5 largest air forces in the world (with the Air Force and Navy solidly #1&2) and all the other proportionally extreme levels of spending on tech and numbers. Cool, but we also get real solid value from allied nations, they have extremely effective planes, tanks, systems etc.
The US has a far larger economy that can support a lot more, that has nothing to do with how wildly ignorant and arrogant it is to dismiss their contributions much less analysis just because you want to feel self important.
@RocketSurgn_ I can tell you went to college with the paragraph of nothingness.
Who cares what your parents did? If it matters, all of my uncles served, and my dad was force recon, but it doesn't.
Since you're so in touch with NATO numbers: How many members have met their 2% and for how many years did they not?
Now that you're looking at the numbers, tell me how many years Americans overpaid on their 2% commitment?
Now, look at the formation of NATO and then look on a map for the Soviet Union.
Now that we know it no longer exists, we can add up all the years of NATO existing when it should've been disbanded.
How many trillion dollars is that?
We're 36 trillion in debt because people like yourself who think these countries are our allies when really they are leeches.