Always a struggle for me. I saw Canada’s demo CF-18 at an airshow a few years back and was having simultaneous thoughts of “so this is why we can’t afford clean water for our indigenous communities” and “HOLY SHIT IT SOUNDS SO COOL”.
Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.
idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just “here’s some money” and there’s also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.
it’s also worth noting that we’re comparing two irrelevant things here, it’s like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they’re comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
I was actually basing my complaint on the comparitive cost of the B-2 stealth bomber, and the (at the time) cost of repairing the ogalala aquifer, estimated to cost about the same as the 2 billion dollar aircraft.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.
“F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”
“F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”
btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.
1000 feet is beneath the typical hard floor for domestic operations, and practically right on top of you. You’ve never seen one beneath 5000 feet unless you went to an air show, more likely than not they’re operating 12,000 feet or higher. I’m wondering if you actually know what “at altitude” means?
You also “ummmmm ACHTUALLY’d” your way right on past the point entirely. So congratulations on not only creating an idiotic straw man but also falling to grasp the concept of what we’re even talking about.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet.
to be clear, i wasn’t the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.
i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. “operational altitude” for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that’s irrelevant here, we’re talking about the ground.
I see military spending as a necessary evil, it’s like paying your insurance policy against the evils in the world. There will always be someone with a stick willing to beat someone weaker than them. So you could theoretically spend that military money on something “more useful”, but if all your friends do that as well, you won’t be able to enjoy that nice world for very long.
Also, people usually highly overrate how much a country spends on defense and underrate how much is spent on social security. Where I live, in Belgium, with a similar military budget as Canada (in terms of % of GDP) they did a survey once and asked people to estimate how many euros out of €100 of tax money went to the military and other things. People on average thought it was €6.1 to the military and €17.4 to social security. In reality the proportions are just €1.3 to the military and €37.5 to social security.
So I guess what I’m saying is: it’s okay to enjoy the cool noises without guilt. You paid for it, it’s necessary, and at least they’re providing people with some entertainment now.
Canadians and Belgians can probably feel okay. As an American I’m disgusted by the waste. But that’s kind of our bag and there’s a long list of things that we waste money on.
America is a very unique case with these metrics, but its wortj noting most of our allies can also skimp on defense for the same reason. Whether thats worth it or not is a more political question
Always a struggle for me. I saw Canada’s demo CF-18 at an airshow a few years back and was having simultaneous thoughts of “so this is why we can’t afford clean water for our indigenous communities” and “HOLY SHIT IT SOUNDS SO COOL”.
Frequently those problems could be solved for the cost of a single aircraft.
You can’t afford clean water for indigenous people because they couldn’t buy one fewer aircraft.
You needed all 138.
Can’t afford clean water for indigenous people when you want to exterminate indigenous people.
idk about this one, idk much about canada, but water infrastructure is more complicated than just “here’s some money” and there’s also the inevitable governmental over spending problem that seems to encroach everything.
it’s also worth noting that we’re comparing two irrelevant things here, it’s like me comparing the worlds loudest yell to the sound of an f35 flying at altitude. Yeah they’re comparable to each other. In the sense that they both make noise.
And when standing on the ground, the yell is louder, even though the military spent 80 million dollars on the jet. You’d be surprised how far cash can go in the right hands. (The right hands being critical)
I was actually basing my complaint on the comparitive cost of the B-2 stealth bomber, and the (at the time) cost of repairing the ogalala aquifer, estimated to cost about the same as the 2 billion dollar aircraft.
oh cool we’re just fucking, lying now. That’s the sound level of the f35 at altitude.
“F-35 produces 115 db at ground level, on take-off”
“F-35 at minimum (cruising) power at 1,000 feet was 103 db”
“F-35 at 121 db at 1,000 ft, and 500 mph”
(https://www.safeskiescleanwaterwi.org/noise-level-comparisons-f-35-and-other-aircraft/ ripped from here if you’re wondering)
btw just for the record, talking about excessive cost of the f35 is extremely redundant. It has an incredibly high R&D cost but that’s literally because it’s the most technologically capable plane ever built. Over time given enough production and a probably 50 years of service, it will shrink in comparison.
1000 feet is beneath the typical hard floor for domestic operations, and practically right on top of you. You’ve never seen one beneath 5000 feet unless you went to an air show, more likely than not they’re operating 12,000 feet or higher. I’m wondering if you actually know what “at altitude” means?
You also “ummmmm ACHTUALLY’d” your way right on past the point entirely. So congratulations on not only creating an idiotic straw man but also falling to grasp the concept of what we’re even talking about.
to be clear, i wasn’t the one that made that comparison. Naturally you can fly planes at altitudes other than one specific number, that seems to be a feature of most planes.
i believe generally, in the space of planes, the ones that fly in the sky, not the mathematical ones. It refers to an operating altitude. However, i was using it to refer to that specific altitude. “operational altitude” for something like a military jet is not going to be specifically defined, compared to something like, a boeing 737 for example. There is likely to be a maxmimum operational altitude, naturally. Planes need air to fly through, obviously. But that’s irrelevant here, we’re talking about the ground.
I see military spending as a necessary evil, it’s like paying your insurance policy against the evils in the world. There will always be someone with a stick willing to beat someone weaker than them. So you could theoretically spend that military money on something “more useful”, but if all your friends do that as well, you won’t be able to enjoy that nice world for very long.
Also, people usually highly overrate how much a country spends on defense and underrate how much is spent on social security. Where I live, in Belgium, with a similar military budget as Canada (in terms of % of GDP) they did a survey once and asked people to estimate how many euros out of €100 of tax money went to the military and other things. People on average thought it was €6.1 to the military and €17.4 to social security. In reality the proportions are just €1.3 to the military and €37.5 to social security.
So I guess what I’m saying is: it’s okay to enjoy the cool noises without guilt. You paid for it, it’s necessary, and at least they’re providing people with some entertainment now.
Canadians and Belgians can probably feel okay. As an American I’m disgusted by the waste. But that’s kind of our bag and there’s a long list of things that we waste money on.
America is a very unique case with these metrics, but its wortj noting most of our allies can also skimp on defense for the same reason. Whether thats worth it or not is a more political question