Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.
So then DEI is actually bad, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.
Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.
We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.
If you've bought an appliance recently you'd have realized that the stuff built in the 60's was better made and built to last.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.
So then DEI is actually bad, right?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.
Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.
We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.
If you've bought an appliance recently you'd have realized that the stuff built in the 60's was better made and built to last.
Anonymous wrote:It always seemed odd that USAF could not buy sufficient semi-modern tanker aircraft to replace the KC-135s from the 1950s and maybe early 1960s. They bought a few KC-10s, based on the DC-10, but are retiring the newer planes and keeping the old ones. Very odd.
Same with the B-52. There ought to be an affordable non-exquisite bomber to replace the B-52.
We also need a non-exquisite affordable fighter to replace the F-16s and their non-stealth missions. Not every fighter/attack airplane needs stealth.
Anonymous wrote:It’s the whole defense contracting system. They over promise, underperform, exceed budgets and can’t manufacture what they make.
The US was known for logistics. Not anymore.
Look at the THAAD and Patriot systems. The defense contractors tested it and said 100% effective. Real life is like 25% and 0% against anything moving at March 4. They promised 600 a year for THAAD and delivered 96.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.
So then DEI is actually bad, right?
Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.
Anonymous wrote:This is very much a case of white guy DEI mediocrity. We HAD qualified people, they were just replaced by Trump-approved a$$ lickers. Between that and the fact that we build weapons systems to make people rich, our capabilities suffer.