How The Defense Industry Lit A Trillion Dollars On Fire - Cracked Explains
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 ноя 2016
- SUBSCRIBE HERE: goo.gl/ITTCPW
The defense industry has a giant toilet, used exclusively to throw taxpayer dollars in.
Buy Tickets to the Cracked Live Podcast this Saturday, November 12th: sunset.ucbtheatre.com/perform...
CLICK HERE for our NEW SERIES, TALES TO GET SCARED TO - goo.gl/MDlNKK
CLICK HERE for more, WE'RE NOT ALONE - goo.gl/cC9L5o
CLICK HERE for more ROM.COM: The Series - goo.gl/5mabAx
CLICK HERE For more AFTER HOURS: goo.gl/Nrg6Jh
CLICK HERE For the CinemaSins Team-Up Playlist: goo.gl/6Fr465
WATCH every episode of STARSHIP ICARUS here - goo.gl/21RejZ
See more www.cracked.com
LIKE us on: / cracked
FOLLOW us on: / cracked
FOLLOW us on: / cracked 
Приколы
At this point only a fucking DEATH STAR could satisfy America.
Hedgehog Fox Even then, our government would find some flaw in their planet destroying space station and go to work on "The Death Star Mark II"
Skrew the Death Star.Only a Halo Array will do!But that also requires an Ark to maintain all the Halos.Welp what is an extra 8,700,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Dollars to a country who is 20,000,000,000,000 Dollars in debt anyway?
Even then, Marco Rubio would say we need to buy expensive camo for it, or put better lazers on it, or build more.
Actually, America IS the world's Death Star.
François Hollande lol.
Lockheed only spent $15M on lobbying to get the F-35 going? That may be the GREATEST return on lobbying EVER by a company.
Nerv ClaX ikr? 15 million and in return over 1 trillion in spending. goddamn give those guys an award
"That may be the GREATEST return on lobbying EVER by a company."
Sadly, it is not.
$15M a year, not $15M in total.
you should also put the extra money to get all those other nations into the project, it seems that almost all western block countries, plus Japan and South Korea, will get the F35. You would think that after the Eurofighter Typhoon european countries would try to do it again for the Harrier/Tornado replacement, but no, let-s have Lockheed martin do that for us.
or maybe they won a design competition against boeing to accomplish a mission designed by the dod?
All that money could have been used to develop a Gundam.
Anit that the goddamn truth, shit as much we spent on it that shit better transform into a damn gundam if we talking putting lasers on the damn thing.
ACAY imagine the number of people needed to maintain it
Luke Johnson We can design machines to unlock the blast armor from the chasis. We could also have a diagnostic system that can communicate with the maintenance system to automatically make repairs and adjustments as necessary. But then again we also run the risk of a real world Solid Snake trying to destroy it before we break out into world war. *shrugs*
Eh, F-35, Gundam, same thing
ACAY and probably would've been rolled out faster than the magic plane into operations. tho realistically gundams arent aerodynamic and would be easily taken out by fighter jets unlike in the anime
Are the rivers on your world map just random lines?
they are "cracked", wink wink nudge nudge
Yes
Wait there isn't a gigantic river going through the Sahara desert?
DoomFinger511 thats The nile
DoomFinger511 or the nile is the gigantic river, but it doesnt go that way
This video is too true. I'm in the military. We waste SOOOO much money!! Your tax money is like crack and we're all addicted. Most of us want to stop spending on useless things, but then the politicians cut the budget across the board and we end up getting no raises or having to pay out of pocket for health care and housing. PLEASE STOP US FROM BUILDING SHIT WE DON"T NEED. The A-10 is a perfect example. There's no reason we couldn't have designed a newer, slightly upgraded model. Instead we dump a trillion dollars into the F-35. Another example is the Oliver Hazard Perry class Frigate. We could design a slightly newer version with all new equipment, but instead we designed a new ship from the ground up and get stuck with the LCS, one crappy ship with 2 completely different designs with no interchangeable parts!! We build bases in foreign countries that we never even intend to use!! AAAAAHHHH!!!!
El Duderino More people need to see this comment.
El Duderino What branch and what's your MOS?
No raises? Paying for health care and housing out of pocket? I don't know what military you are in but it isn't the United States. If it is then you are doing something very wrong like getting elective surgeries (more than one because the military will pay for one) and living in a house built for a king.
And raises: The military has received a raise every year for at least the past thirty years. True the last few years have been smaller but the military has outpaced civilian raises for those years and has matched or bettered them every year for the past thirty years with two exceptions.
Military spending is not perfect but you don't have to make things up to prove your point. Or maybe you are just adjusting the truth? Do you count buying toothpaste as health care?
Richard Theodore, it's not true that the military will pay for one elective surgery. What El Duderino said is very true about the American military. The navy sent me to a civilian facility for health care and I had to force them (yes force them) to pay my medical bills because collectors were coming after ME, not the navy.
Just by every thing you said says to me that you are not in the military.
'Millitary spending sometimes accidentally invents stuff'
Why not send some to research and new inventors if that's the goal
Being an informed voter is depressing.
Vance Corsey having better weapons that your opponent is really nice.
america already does, i would prefer a new antibiotic seeing as we haven't discovered a new one in 40 years and bacteria is becoming resistant.
+Rawrersome Yeah, but wouldn't that be the case against every country on Earth for the next 15 years if we just sat on our hands and did nothing?
chaumas but in what world would that happen. it's wishful thinking.
you know, "while mid-air" lmao im dead
Obama's line against Romney was completely fair game. Romney walked into it by fear mongering about a shrinking military, and he deserved to look stupid for that one. I think pointing out the absurdity of that point brings us closer to legitimate debate at least. Just because Romney spoke in a polite way doesn't mean he wasn't subverting legitimate debate.
Hardly. His reply was a red herring (argument and had NOTHING to do with Romney's assertion our military's numbers were shrinking and incapable of doing its mission. FYSA our logistical situation is hardly ideal, as we simply don't have enough air and sealift assets to support our troops overseas if a protracted war did break out.
Is American went to war with my country they d have a soldier for every person here (our populations just over 1 mil)
Now, no one is suggesting that America should cut its spending on military to the point of incapability, but if your spending a literal trillion dollars on a plane that objectively worse that the ones you've already got, something has gone very wrong.
That trillion dollars covers the life of the pane and its flight hours dude. people who comment most of time have no idea what the fuck they are talking about I bet none of you can name where most of that money goes i'll give you hint its not on warships or planes or guns or anything used in fighting itself.
Aside from the fact that the hardware alone had already pushed past 1.4 trillion when this video was uploaded, it turns out that under realistic conditions (such as those in service and wargames) the maintenance cost is waayyyy higher than was initially expected.
If that trillion was supposed to cover lifetime flight hours, those are very few hours.
@@brandonstrife9738 lmfao of course your name is Brandon. Hey Brandon. A trillion is a thousand billions. Why don't you tell us where that trillion goes, genius? Let us know if you think it's so justified. Bet you won't. In spite of the evidence, I bet even you aren't stupid enough to try that shit. Because you know it's unjustifiable.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The F35 is not "objectively worse" than what the US has. You have been watching too much Russia today
Thank you for not just making this a text video. As a legally blind person, I appreciate it.
n1 blind dark souls player on the net
There will be one on Tuesday...
Nasuth Can you read this?
i can hear your comment
Elisha Runyon - Short answer: Yes
Long answer: Legally blind and totally blind are different distinctions, altho there is obviously some overlap. I can still see well enough to read things if I put in extra effort to focus on the text, plus the ability to zoom in on a web page with my browser's zoom feature -- something that does not affect the video itself. In that same vein, I can use the Windows text reader to read comments to me, but it can't do that with the video either.
It is our politicians that are out of control. They must approve every nickel of spending, and they do. For a crummy $50,000 campaign contribution a defense contractor can get business worth billions of dollars. What a deal.
If only there were some way to regulate that kind of corruption. Like, with some kind of civil anti-corruption agency to keep tabs on that stuff, and maybe some... regulations, of some kind.
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT
-A10 Warthog
Stalin, Your Leader they should just leave the A10 in battle support and teach civilians how to fly them in battle when we are at war. I’d sign up! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt (30mm cannon noise)
Hehe, d'you mean the "Puma"?
The Warthog is the one plane we should all fear not the SR71 not the F22 not the F35 not the Euro Fighter Typhoon or Dassault Rafale, not B2 Bomber or Night Hawk f-117 not the Harrier Jump-jet why? the Warthog is a Tank in the sky that can even fly with most of a wing missing and the other wing full of holes when on the rare occasion you are able to actually pierce it!!!!
Meanwhile they could have put all that spending into infrastructure. Creating jobs doing something that will grow the economy and lead to longterm stability.
Serah Wint I thought we could only spend on hookers and BBQ chicken, thanks for clarifying.
They are. Did you pay attention to the video? Military spending creates jobs inside of the US. he specifically pointed that out.
Serah Wint shut up
RealCoolGuy Jobs that create, in my opinion, useless products. Infrastructure is more valuable than more murder toys.
Serah Wint They did put it into infrastructure, infrastructure of the military.
Former president Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex and here we are.
"these numbers mean nothing to you. Let`s put it in star wars terms" just beautiful! a true work of art!
HOW COULD YOU FORGET NASA MAKING TANG AND VELCRO?!?
Yeah, Tang (excuse me, TANG) was worth half a trillion dollars, and couldn't possibly have been developed by private industry for peanuts.
Sales of Tang were poor until NASA used it on John Glenn's Mercury flight in February 1962, and subsequent Gemini missions. Since then, it has been closely associated with the U.S. manned spaceflight program, leading to the misconception that Tang was invented for the space program.
If we spent this much money on education and free college I wonder where we would be as a country?
Bat5hade..... we would literally have money left over to do it like 4 times and then some
visit Scandinavia to find out
i see why it can be seen as good, but at the same time we need to educate people. those engineers and scientists wont be alive in 2070
Lol I should of looked at the comments before leaving this exact same comment.
With people actually able to build the F35 that they envisioned all those years ago.
Why? Because if they didn't line the pockets of the industry fat cats, it might get spent on health or education.
And that can't be allowed to happen when CEOs are down to their last $20million!
Martin Vargic buddy, ypure replying to a lot of comments, but thats the cost theyre at right now, and guess what, theyve gone 50%over budget!
Fuzzycat incoming triggered millionaires
Danny Leon Ironically, there is a high statistical likelihood that you're a triggered millionaire without even knowing it...
Validation. I love it. I've been saying for 6 years now that the F-35 is a piece of shit. It was supposed to complement the F-22, which suffered from similar cost problems, but more than fulfilled its AA role requirements than the F-35 will reasonably ever do. The F-35 was acceptable back then because the F-22 shouldered most of the combat functionality goals set out by each military branch. If the two crafts work as a team they would probably rule the 5th gen skies for decades. But nowadays the F-22 was cancelled because of insane production costs and the F-35(also insanely priced) is left to take on the F-22's roles too. I think a repeated battle simulation between an equal number of F-35's and Russian Su-35's will end in F-35's losing on average. Unless the F-35 can initiate the battle with severe enemy casualties via their superior BVR weaponry capabilities for every single engagement, it's advantages in AA roles are very slim and situational. In other words the F-35 could "possibly" handle its new AA roles if it had to always had to initiate engagements and never respond and defend. The F-35 is a one trick pony, because they already discontinued the one trick horse version it was supposed to complement.
The US model for our air-frame life cycle is flawed in my opinion. We've lost war-games against India... of all places. The way it was described to me was this... Our F-16s were beat by Indian F-4s. The way this was done was that the US planes, while newer airframes, had never received updated equipment such as radar and targeting systems. The Indian F-4s, however, had been upgraded, and therefore could see and shoot at our planes long before we could do the same to them. I have no doubt that the F-35 will be superior to any other plane as it comes off the line, but what about 10-15 years down the road? I don't think so. You are right, however, regarding the shared responsibilities between the 22 and the 35... it seems the AF didn't learn its lesson from the F-4 in Vietnam (very similar situation).
Rae West My information was second or even third hand... I heard it from my Physics Instructor (F-16 Pilot) at USAFA, who had heard it from other members of his old unit... looking at the list of operators for the F-4, it might have been the Koreans that were participating in the war-game.
Defense spending is nearly a trillion dollars and they still pay soldiers near minimum wage.
its half a trillion
Less
we get alot of benefits though
That's a lie. I started out in the Infantry as a PFC. Made 2 grand a month. I make 50k a year now, that's 2800 a month after taxes. When I made 32k a year, that was 2400 a month after taxes. Soldiers do not need to pay for housing and their food costs are ridiculously low. Soldiers are well paid. I had more wealth as a soldier than I do now as a homeowner and taxpayer.
That's something to chew on.
because they dont save their money or make plans for a good transition out the military
Isn't it refreshing to see a debate like Obama and Mitt Romneys?....ahh the good old days...
Gatzlocke if you want substance watch the first televised debate. They actually talked about problems and ideas, and personal attacks were basically unheard of. They attacked the ideas not the individual.
. . . Why?
Why the fuck would you vote for a reality TV star who may've slept with a child?
what is "may've"?
+Ashleigh Then Trump will bankrupt the US and pocket the dividends from it, just like he does with his businesses. Not American, so I hope you do vote for Trump so I can laugh at you guys for 4 years or so.
stefan.agnello contraction of "may have." should've, could've, would've, shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't, etc.
Department of Offense
TickedOff Priest clever.
also known as D.O.O.
It was initially called the Department of War
Department of Joyously Exporting Harmonious Democracy
And it should be renamed the Department of War, because it has never functioned in a defensive role. It has never defended the US from any attack. It has, however, waged war every single day since the inception of World War II. Not one day has passed since then during which the US was not engaged in military offensive operations in one country or another.
Did I not understand what Obama said at the beginning? It didn't sound like he thought Mitt Romney thought we lived in musket times. It sounded like he was explaining that the lack of one form of military technology does not necessarily mean underfunding. It could mean that some things go obsolete.
Did I misunderstand that? Or did Alex?
I got it the same way...
makes more sense too.
ofc he mean that the video just make stupid assumption.
Obama's deliberately trying to paint Mitt Romney as old and out of touch, and it worked.
But wasn't Obama right here? The US military wasn't being underfunded, so calling out lack of boats as a sign that it was seems spurious.
I mean, does it count as deliberately painting someone as something unflattering if the facts agree with you?
It sounds more like Mitt Romney was trying to paint Obama as irresponsible.
Obama's point was that doing a 1:1 comparison to previous era's was absurd and rightfully so; in 1916 the US was entering into WW1 and as such it made a lot of sense to have a large fleet to protect shipping in the atlantic due to the appearance of those newfangled Uboats the germans had, and in the 60's and 70's russian aircraft were much more comparable to american aircraft in terms of performance.
nobody in the comments is mad enough at the fact that he called the extended universe 'fanfiction'
i will fight you all
star wars is dumb tho. at least we can agree on that right
Not in general, but light-sabers are.
Dusk 11715 if you apply our laws of physics yes in their universe not so much
Had to mention the tie... the crooked, crooked tie.
Angry Applesauce and now that's all I can see.
FlannelLemon
exactly... and then Donald's perfect tie was an especial punch in the gut. :P
The four-in-hand is narrow and tied asymmetrically, so it's meant to be at least a little crooked.
While I enjoyed the content, I was also distracted by the massive rivers that apparently run through Australia.
Geoff David those are veins
Ahh yes, my mistake.
They're 'paint crack' texture effects.
Ah, so it's not the Nile running sideways through Libya?
Yeah, there's also apparently an enormous river bullseye in the western U.S. that I didn't know about.
to replace the A-10 with an F-35 is like replacing your pitbull with a Chiwawa.
My doberman has jaws and four legs, the teacup poodle has jaws and four legs, and can fit in more places. How does it not make sense to replace Dobermans with teacup poodles?
Also for folks following along - the A-10 probably has the most distinguished record of being an aircraft that the Air Force keeps trying to cancel while the pilots fight tooth and nail to keep it in the field because it's so good at what it does (kill tanks).
More like replacing it with a cat. It has teeth and claws, sortof. But it is sooo temperamental! If it isn't facing the ideal conditions, it doesn't do any of its jobs right. If the F-35 doesn't "feel like it" then it won't get the job done. At best it is more subtle about getting any job done, again like a cat. But then, only if it feels like it.
Then, it has a very limited altitude that it is meant to fly at, and it is assumed that this is the ideal altitude for all engagements. It isn't for treetop level engagement, and no matter how you cut it we will always need planes that fly a very low altitude.
Obviously you dont know what a F35 is for. Just because it looks shinny and cool, doesnt mean its not meant for ground support. To be honest, the A10 is a dinosaur, slow, bulky, with no radar defense.
***** With upgrades it would be fine. I agree, you can't mothball an aircraft and then wonder why it doesn't work. But with updated electronics, an internal weapons bay, and so forth, it would work just fine. And easily more reliably than the F-35.
The Army and Marines offered to buy them from the Air force, but the air force had a shit fit over that offer.
Please keep making more of these. Intelligent, funny, and really well timed. Thanks!
i wonder what would happen to america (or ... the world), if that 581 billion .... suddenly went to the education budget.
F0r3v3rT0m0rr0w they would just buy golf cars for the securities.
Henry Becerra sounds like very expensive golf carts ....
The golf cars will be made of 5 (now unused) tanks each.
That will stop those damn college parties from happening
Just means more iPads and iWatches for all... More administration overhead... More fancy buildings and interior decor... And if Republicans had their way, many more charter schools without standardized testing...
***** Oh it could be way worse like by mandatory arming of teachers and faculty with firearms with paid training, giving every non-teacher big bonuses, and buying new books only to be thrown away (which I've personally seen done). I previously outlined the most-likely scenario. Large sums of money without real initiative and positive goals behind it will only be wasted...
Oh, "lines of code"... I thought he was about to say "lines of coke"
That would make so much sense.
*Sniff*
It needs to have bombs, LOTS OF BOMBS!
*Sniff*
And needs to be stealthy and invisible to radar!
*Sniff*
And should be able to use a runway, and a ship, AND GO STRAIGHT UP!
*Sniff*
AND GIVE IT LASERS!
*Blood comes out the nose*
Three different versions. F35A is the normal runway. F35C is CATOBAR and the F35B is what fucked with the design because the Marines wanted a STOVL. It is invisible to radar, it can carry a lot of bombs. More than the F16. Stealth and BVR missiles essentially make dogfighting pointless. That's not to say that it can't dogfight. The F35 can pull over 9G, but missiles easily do 20+. That compounded with the fact that the helmet mounted display allow for high off-boresight lock on which allow pilots to launch missiles without having the jet pointing at the enemy.
All this means that whichever plane gets to launch its missile first will most likely win. This is why stealth is so important. I don't remember which paper it was, but they studied the chances of victory in dogfights. First plane to fire a missile had an 80% chance of winning the engagement. Stealth technology plus recent advances in missile technology allow the F35 to launch the first missile. If it does get to the point of a dogfight, the F35 is still able to maneuver.
Michael Zhang Yeah they said that in the 1960s for F4 Phantoms too. Then the Russians showed us , yeah close combat is still a thing in the air. also, the F35 can't even stay in the air long enough to give air cover. the thing looks like a fat duck.
Michael Zhang just a question regarding the F-35's bomb load capacity, where exactly do these many bombs go? With only 2 small internal weapons bays, I think it could carry 2 bombs tops… that's 2 bombs less than the F-16. Under the wings? Well, better forget stealth then.
Lol. I'm guess that alot of those lines are useless or harmful. All that money spent and they can't afford a proper compiler or sort through and remove the unnecessary code themselves? That's probably causing the system to just stop working or not respond. At this point I think all that filler code is a feature.
Obama's point about horses and muskets, was that we have fewer number of ships because technology has changed. In 1917, a navy needed many battleships, cruisers, all kinds of ships that are now largely obsolete. These days, if you have a few kick ass aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, you own the waters and skies. The fact that there are fewer number of ships does not mean that the force is weaker. This is Obama's point. He's not literally implying Romney needs to be made aware of the lack of muskets. Was that even a serious remark Wisecrack? If so, I'm disappointed.
There are only 3 Blue water navies in the world, The USA, UK and France. The entire strength of the UK and French fleets could match 3 or 4 Carrier Battle Groups. The US has 20.
Nice info. Sorry, but what's your point?
The butthurt is strong with this one.
Yes you can do it with less with the technology of today, but you risk relying on nuclear weapons and killing everybody
How do you figure ships are obsolete? Our Navy can shell 90% of human population. Because people live by the coasts!
Maybe we could buy some 80's migs and put in some $100 Bluetooth packages?
hahaha!!! maybe put alexa on it or Google assistant...
Might as well call it the F35 Paperweight.
A paperweight about a trillion dollars more useful, and cost effective.
tdylan Also at least 400% more efficient in paper- to table pressurizing.
What's wrong with american f22 raptors anyway? Why is the f35 necessary?
It can't be a paperweight, it gets launched in the air when the door opens.
SonofRiggnarok you can still throw a paper weight
Please fix the map behind you. The rivers are all messed up.
That's the joke.
Mahmoud Elsharawy it hurts my eyes
I think it is supposed to be a pun. Like the world is 'Cracked.'
Turn the tanks into FEMA housing
I love this guy. Great post, Cracked!
The A-10 is a monster. It's like a flying tank. It could probably lose a wing, an engine, and have more holes in it than Swiss cheese and it would still fly home and land safely. God it is an awesome aircraft.
" It could probably lose a wing, an engine, and have more holes in it than Swiss cheese "
lolno.
It's armored but there's a reason it cannot fly in any area that has any anti aircraft capability (Manpad or AAA).
I know lol but it is one of the most heavily armored and reliable aircrafts out there. It's one of the greatest tank killers out there.
It is an admirable aircraft, but it is in dire need of a replacement.
The company that made them no longer exists and parts are getting harder and harder to come by.
Seems kind of ridiculous to replace such a machine. The recent wars have only proven it's vast use in warfare. It's like giving an incredibly useful tool for building a house to a construction worker then decide "Hey let's take this useful tool away and see how they do I'm sure they will be just fine." (Sarcasm)
Every year the cost of operating the A-10 goes up.
Eventually it will get to the point where the cost of using it will outweigh the cost of finding a replacement.
This is inevitable for every piece of technology, but especially aircraft.
Welding armor is a skill true. But those people learned that skill it didn't just happen. New people could learn that skill too. Not a viable reason to build useless tanks.
Did you miss the part where that guy worked for BAE lol? he has to spew bullshit
If you fire the welders, the new ones can't just pick up the skill and chances are the old welders won't train the new ones because they would have moved on.
It's that same crap where it's like "If you stop production now, what will happen when you need it?"
That super-cool, new useless tank to fill up the desert is just around the corner!
My point is it was done before it can be done again. Plus the fact that we will never need tanks is the main reason to stop making them. How many wheelwrights are there today? Do we worry their skill is going to be lost?
Gamesman01
I'm in agreement with you. They're trying to make excuses as to why they need people to work on making unnecessary tanks. "Because we will lose skilled workers and we'll only have idiots who'll weld the expensive armour on incorrectly!"
i knew the f-35 was a boondoggle but holy shit
this is like the ultimate definition of a concept in software development called "Scope creep", where more and more chefs enter the kitchen and ask for more and more things from the product your software team is developing
Shoulda just kept the F-22 project going with other variants being made like every other plane in existence. The F-35 is a big waste of money, and even needs an all new tanker aircraft for mid air refueling unlike the F-22 Raptor. And the Raptor was deigned for one job, air superiority, which is a good base to cover in combat. Also as far as I am aware this is the first time any country has built an all new aircraft that is incapable of doing anything better than another one that was already in production. Personally I feel like the US still needs more Raptors than what we've got as well as upgrade the hell out of it like what was done to the F-14 Tomcat, F/A-18 Hornet, F-15 Eagle, and the F-16 Fighting Falcon, to name a few
They also need to refresh all the goddammed a10s.
It works, we dont need to fix it.
My problem with having 1 fighter do everything is that when 1 weakness gets exploited, then the entire air force goes down the drain. With the A10, and F22 they specialized in their specific tasks and could execute them brilliantly. Having one machine do all those things to a mediocre degree is asking for disaster.
Spot on Julian.
+mayunaise Well, we do. It is just that we don't need to replace the plane, just upgrade it. In particular, we need to upgrade the electronics.
Sorry dude, but let me explain some problems with that. I already went on a long rant for this video so I'll just directly respond to what you said. The raptor has some huge logistical flaws, and unfortunately shouldnt be produced, only maintained. It's more expensive than the F-35 and unfortunately wasn't made with forethought, as it's incredibly hard/expensive and maybe impossible to upgrade the avionics of the craft, unlike the f-35 which is designed to be modified. Also, the f-35 doesn't "need" that new tanker (f-18s can be modified in an hour to be tankers), though it's a nice touch. Now being in naval aviation for 4 years I can confidently answer why; aircraft carriers need tankers, and we don't have f-22s. The necessity comes from the fact that we send a back up jet up to let returning planes refuel incase they miss the wire trying to land, which often happens at night or in poor weather conditions. These tankers prevent these aircraft from running out of gas and crashing if complications arise, as well as extended the range on long distance missions, making us almost completely self sufficient as a small small floating airbase. However, that tanker then becomes the last jet up and has no back up if they have trouble landing, it's incredibly risky to launch in awful weather and then you are risking more lives. That automated tanker you mentioned is cheaper, doesn't get people killed, is better at landing itself, and pretty much provides a relatively expendable resource that can be used in combat arenas or emergency landings. Now if you want a really argument against the f-35, it isn't so much against the individual fighters, but the quantity. See, one fighter greatly increases the capabilities of outdated fighters by sharing information and even doing things like guiding missiles fires by other platforms, that those platforms otherwise couldn't guide themselves (when their sensors don't keep up with the f-35s). That being said, having multiple f-35s gets more redundant at their quantity increases. It's like giving your group school project an encyclopedia to reference, then giving them multiple copies of that same book expecting it to help everyone. Another big flaw, is that the existing f-18 super hornet has a sortie rate 3x that of the f-35, being a logistical masterpiece, allowing much greater sustained ordnance dropped. The f-22 is an amazing air to air fighter that, unfortunately, has never shot down and enemy fighter, making it only a tool for deference against competing nations which we'll probably never fight anyway.
Hey Cracked, it's even worst then you think. "The Joint strike fighter" is a NATO agreement. Meaning that some of them are made for other countries and many parts are also made in other countries.
If all that money was spent on education research and development and direct investments into the economy, it could probably compensate for the job-loss from stopping to produce military equipment and also create much bigger advantages for the general public, because inventions actually helping all the people wouldn't just be made sometimes on accident, but on purpose. Besides all the knowledge could be made publicly available right away because it is public research and if it isn't done for the army it won't be a danger to national security.
Go away you socialist!
Mr8lacklp guess what, Obama did that. He spend over a trillion dollars doing that, it was called the stimulus package, and he did nothing but make the economy worse and waste taxpayer dollars. But from what you've said you probably haven't paid any taxes in your whole life.
worldfamousGI by which measure?
worldfamousGI
He didn't spend nearly the amount that was spent on military in that same timeperiod. And most of it didn't go into research.
You mean the guy who signed off on less drone strikes than obama, and who didn't expand the gov'ts rights to spy on it's own population to the extent that obama did? yeah we all forgot him... don't get me wrong the drone footage is amazing even when they hit funerals and birthday parties, but some people get slightly offended by the US killing innocent people.
I'd watch a 30 minute version of this every week.
you're my favorite CRACKED video personality by about one trillion percent.
Seriously CRACKED, I love these "actual issue" vids.
this why Jill stein is the best candidate running. we can't get flint mich clean water but we have pledged to send thousands of troops to eastern Poland by next summer.
we are an oil company with a military right now
The president could lower it through many different actions. It is the discretionary budget is where they get their money from.
If Obama was interested in lowering the spending maybe he shouldn't have bombed more counties than any president not in a world war and expanded the drone program.
Obama didn't try to do shit. He sure has a voice and control when it comes to tpp but not when expanding all the wars he said he would end which would lower spending?
You are an apalogist
realscummy by law the president controls treaties like tpp, and congress controls the budget. Anything he could have done to limit the budget, would have been pounced on by republicans as an overreach of his official powers, and more importantly unconstitutional.
There is a difference between bombing a country's government, and bombing a multi-national organization with the consent of foreign sovereign governments.
Mac McGruff firstly, we just this month started bombing a new country for no reason which Obama defends and signs off on.
Secondly, tpp is just an example. He never has any control or political clout until it is time for him to act like George Bush and then he can deport more Latinos than bush and Reagan combined and make 90+% of the Bush tax cuts permanent.
He is not powerless. He has a voice and he has huge political clout. He CHOOSES not to use it for these issues. Just like he tried to increase our troops in Iraq but couldn't because bush signed an agreement saying he wouldn't so he fought it and found a way around it.
Stop pretending Obama is some delicate snow flake, he has started and sustained more war than any president before him, he has expanded the surveillance state, he has bailed out and given cover for the rich. He has done everything bush did and more.
Sounds like you're trying to compare a state/municipal issue to federal issues.
Yeah because federal treaties aren't a federal issue. Lol.
Next
Solid video. I want more like this!
One of the best vids I've seen by Cracked in a while. Well done.
Look up A-10 footage you'll see why the Marines want to keep them around.
It's disgustingly combat effective for a role basically no one else has ever even tried to design a plane for?
Because that's basically my understanding of it. The A-10's a dedicated close air support and tank hunting platform. No other plane has been designed for the job, probably because the A-10 is such a nightmare to compete against: it has 100% market share among those who can afford (and are able) to buy it. It's been upgraded so many times that there is only one tech you could bring it doesn't, Directed Energy Weapons. VTOL isn't an option, because strike helicopters fill that role, only they don't out compete the A-10 either. And even if you did go the DEW route, it would take about 10 months to make up a 'Laser Pod' to mount on it, assuming they didn't just screw you over by using the insane weight and size of the main cannon to replace it with a DEW via retro fitting.
It's a plane so effective for so long that even when the original plans were lost, it was decided to reverse engineer it rather then try to make a replacement.
No company even wants to TRY to compete with that!
Sorain1 Northing like knowing the thing going brrrrrrrrttttttt has got your back
Sorain1 the a 10 is the best troop support plane in the world , it saved my life and the lives of so many
it is really useful, A 10 and bronco... that's what our military used during the war in Marawi... ended the war within 6 months...
There are several misconceptions here.
1. The US military spends too much? The US military is 16% of the total budget. That is not that much more than other European nations. Not all nations are 350 million sized.
2. Tanks... Unless you want your balls being hold by other nations. You have to have a economical viable defense industry of your own. While one can have a debate of if funding is spent wisely on shit tanks vs good tanks etc. The aspect of ordering new tanks despite having old ones. Is to enable the tank production facility, which is private, to stay afloat. Its a necessary evil if you like. The West cant buy their tanks from Russia because guess what. If there is a conflict with them. Guess how many news tanks they would be sending... zero. Same thing that happened with Argentina during the Falklands war. France, allied with the UK, stopped sending them very important missiles.
3. Both Russia and China are NOT reducing their military spending. Russia has increased it the last decade by ca 100% or something and China has increased theirs by ca 150%. China is actually investing heavily in their military at the moment. Some even going so far to claim they have placed nuclear missiles on their man made islands that are "civilian usage only", yeah right.
4. If it makes you feel any better. Its not just the US that is paying for the F35 program.
Lobos222 - China spends 5% of federal spending on military and they have 1 trillion people. China's increase in spending is slowing down.
What fucking war are we fighting ? It doesn't take $600 Billion/yr to fight Isis. We've got bases in dozens of countries yet we're fighting nobody.
Our budget should be $200 - $300 Billion.
Then we can reform and spend less on healthcare/education. We need a budget on materials and not salaries.
Our stupid fucking congressmen.
SoulFlavor18
Reintroduce national service and the US could make allot of savings, but if you think cutting the military. The primary source USA gets so many indirect benefits that makes it the wealthiest nation on Earth. Wont have negative side affects. Then you are fooling yourself.
All this "bases cost money" talk needs to be put in perspective. If a military base costs 5$, but because you have that base there you gain 15$ extra trade and you wouldnt necessary do that if it wasnt there. Then the base pays for itself. Shutting it down wouldnt mean you save money because overall revenue would fall with it.
Example, IF Maliki allowed continued US bases in Iraq. ISIS would never have captured Mosul. Which would have saved a ton of money considering the circumstance. Then you have the less likelihood of that nation turning its trade away from the West and so on...
"China's increase in spending is slowing down."
This is factually wrong. They have increased spending pr year with about 10% over a decade now. That Chinas economy has been increasing and thereby kept the % of budget increase similar over time doesnt mean they are spending less $. Far from it! Secondly, having 1 trillion people doesnt automatically mean they CAN spend more than the US. But in an i-nation context the size of the nation CAN be an indicator of what they can afford. Which is why for example Belgium pr Citizen actually pays more for their military than the US does.
"We need a budget on materials and not salaries."
LoL, you want budgets to not include salary cost? Okay then, dont start a bis because you will go broke!
How dare you sir! The Chinese are honest people, when they buy an aircraft carrier they use it as a ship based casino! and those islands you speak of are nothing more than friendly fishing ports, with small runways for planes low on fuel. I bid you good day sir.
We're fighting no one? I guess the spending worked!
+Paul Frederick That's why I keep trying to tell my doctors, I should be paying them when I'm healthy, not when I get sick!
Actually, I think Obama's argument was quite good. We don't need fleets of huge ships anymore, it's archaic, and Obama was just contrasting that to other archaic things the armed forces rarely use. Things like aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, and missile cruisers make huge battleships and whatnot obsolete. Edit: As a military aviation buff, those numbers (And letters!) certainly mean something to me! And a plane can be good at air-to-air combat without being good at 'dogfighting', which is up-close gun combat, which rarely happens in the age of missiles. I am offended, internet video! And as for a Star Wars comparison, the JST would be more like a combo of a B-wing, X-wing, and A-wing. A Star Destroyer is more like a combination aircraft-carrier/battleship. Oh, Oh god, I'm such a dork.
Cassuttus Tshirt The real admiral Nimitz would have easily preferred 2-3 Nimitz carrier battlegroups compared to the entire ww2 pacific fleet.
Air-to-air combat also doesn't specify air superiority as opposed to interception. It may be 400% better at interception, but not likely air superiority combat. And then, interception of what? Again, air-to-air VS what? In one test, it was found that against China's "common" fighters, it would lose an air to air engagement, provided that the numbers are based on producibility. We simply can't produce enough of these for them to be worth anything. You get pretty much no bang for your buck.
I am personally offended that this channel doesn't have more subscribers. This is wonderful.
A lot of other countries have also put in billions of dollars in the JSF too ;)
Drunkduck Here in the United Kingdom, Our new aircraft carriers have been designed specifically to support the F 35. If they don't work, we will essentially have two very large floating metal islands.
***** We opted for the F-35B too, and didn't fit cats and traps. These will use a Ski ramp STOL mode. So we can't even sub in another aircraft. A stupid decision by a government that will probably need to be retrofitted, costing millions in the future.
Its a shame as the actual carrier is an amazing ship with some revolutionary design. It has 2 separate islands, one for ship control, one as control tower. But the Aircraft launching system has just been repeatedly meddled with by successive governments changing things.
Yes The USA bullied them into that
Theodoяe Kяap Oh big bad USA bullying entire countries D: that sure sounds possible!
Great video guys. Keep doing videos like this please. Oh and escorte mission of corse.
Highly under appreciated video. Well done!
Yes, the F-35 is an overreaching, underachieving pile of cost-ineffective technowazz.
However, you did make one error in your critique: dogfighting refers to close-range fighting with the gun or short-range missiles. Most (about 4/5 IIRC) air-to-air kills are actually done at medium to long range with radar-guided missiles; this is not considered "dogfighting", and the F-35 should be pretty good at it (assuming the computers don't derp at the wrong moment.)
Presumably, F-35 proponents anticipate its lethality at range will make up for the lack of manoeuvrability. They said more or less the same thing 50 years ago about the F-4 Phantom II, which didn't even have a gun when it was introduced. That didn't turn out so well in practice. It'll be totally fine this time though, right? ;)
actuality it turned out great.... the only missile variant preformed alot better than the variant with a gun that was introduced later
James Rowland it was Vietnam we weren't so advanced you fool missiles we not the best we live in a agent where a ship can send missiles miles inland and hit that shit in Vietnam we couldn't do that
were
age
The A-10 is a tank in the sky
If a tank and a crop duster had a kid...
I saw a Northrop conceptual A10 stealth successor rendering a while back. Still A-10 proportioned, with stealthy body angles and skin, essentially. The A-10 does serve a nearly unique role in support of ground troops. Only Russia has anything even comparable, the Sukhoi 25. The large straight wings, tough air frame, and powerful engines give it superior low altitude, low-mid speed maneuverability.
CmdrGendoIkari The only problem with it was that it was more money. It could have been a cool plane if they would have invested in a replacement during the 90s when the military asked for it. The choice was either refurbishing the a10 or building a replacement that could actually survive against a modern military. With an a10 replacement built back then, the F35 wouldn't have needed to be such a compromise, and consequentially have been a cheaper, better plane.
Mac, the F35 will always have been designed with ground attack in mind. Look at the F15 and F22 "air superiority" fighters are used for ground attack. Building a lightweight AA fighter would have meant changes would be needed to be made in the future (at no small expense) to upgrade it for ground attack.
It's not like the F35 suffers for it anyway. EOTS and DAS greatly improve situational awareness, which is super important for air combat. Look at air combat records for the Gulf War, where fights were won when one plane got the jump on another, or a plane crashed before it could be shot down in a dogfight.
ArsArma my point was the F35 could have been designed more in line with the F16 or F/A18, had the close in CAS not been as much a factor. The F22 was designed from day one as basically "not a pound for air-to-ground" and was upgraded for that function.
My main fault with the design had the stupid requirement for being the same basic airframe for the jump jet version. The F32 had the better Harrier type ducted system without the need for a dedicated lift fan. A separate CAS and
v/tol plane would have been preferable to the added complexity the f35c added.
I love the F35 and believe those sensors and the advanced function radars are going to make it a formidable aircraft. It could have been done cheaper without the varied and conflicting requirements. More in line with being a great analogue to the F15--F16 teaming now with the F22. It might not be as good in a close in dogfight as the f16, but the F18 wasn't as good a close-in dogfighter as a modernized F14. The F18 is still a greater overall plane than the F14 could ever be.
The VTOL isn't as big a factor in the... er... form factor as people think. What you're looking at with the F35 is:
1) Fuel. Most legacy frames need drop tanks to carry as much as the F35 for the ranges the services need, but tanks increase drag and RCS.
2) Single Engine. It has to produce enough thrust to carry large payloads, and do it on a single engine to drive down costs and maintenance.
3) Weapon Bays. For stealth. Since the F35 has to carry 2k class weapons, the bomb bays have to be deeper than the F22 (which can only carry up 1k bombs internally), and it is has a single, large engine, the bays have to be made on each side, making the plane wide.
The lift fan on the F35B replaces the forward fuel tank, located just aft of the cockpit, which carries about 5k pounds of fuel (a little over an hour's worth).
BAE system wouldn't leave my school alone. The just come and beg us to work for them.
Anne Marie Scott engineering?
Damn, they must need a janitor really bad.
IizUname I go to an all girls high school so the turn up several times a year and just pled us to be apprentices so they don't look sexist. I've been taken on trips by BAE systems with other school schools and they all say they get nagged just as much. It's one of the downsides of being a Glaswegian teenager
Anne Marie Scott Yes, blame it on quotas and appearances. Those evil fucks.
+Livid Imp lol
OK, cracked ... keep this up and i'll stay subbed.
Loved this video guys. Please make more of them.
Marky Rubes and the Frowny Bunch. Brilliant. And I'm still reminded how much better most of the Frowny Bunch was than the twat we got.
New guy is making strides
I actually understood the plane reference better than the star wars reference.
The A-10 is a slow, heavily armored, heavily armed flying tank, than can hover over troops for hours at a time and soak up ground damage, perfect to help troops in the ground.
The F-16 is a plane designed to dodge fight like no other, the F-15 is just a good overall fighter with strike capabilities (that means it can hit ground targets)
the F-18 and Harrier are not Air Force but Navy/Marines, and they both suck at everything.
The British used Harriers to great effect, the US built and operated versions had a tendency to crash. It probably came down to the quality of the components used in the US version being inferior. The British always go for quality over quantity. (the US values quality but does like quality, the Germans don't compromise on either and the Russians love quantity, not sure about Chinese tanks, we haven't seen their news ones in action but I'd imagine that their pretty good.)
The A-10 isn't armoured like a tank, the 'bathtub' only protects the pilot and a few critical systems. It's still quite vulnerable overall.
You gotta admit though. The Harriar's meathod of VTOL is pretty cool. Also the F-22 outclasses the F-16 in dogfights.
Well done. Keep up the good work.
Buzzfeed is the kids' channel, Collegehumor the adolescent channel and Cracked the grown-up channel.
Scott K
No. I've been watching it for years. It ranges from goofy humour to clever humour to serious commentary like this. But Buzzfeed posts stuff that is mostly aimed at teens-early 20s. Collegehumor used to, although as its own audience has moved into their 30s the content has started changing too.
So... instead of butter, the USA has based its economy around guns?
Katrina Payne. Of course they have; every major power forever has been a massive military power. One surefire way to get economic power; is to have your people feel protected and invulnerable. The US, Mexico, and Canada are the only countries in the world right now; that don't have to worry about the threat of invasion or revolution, and consequentially spend more money on butter.
Of course! That way you can run roughshod over the rest of the world and force them to give their butter to you.
Mac McGruff Dood, Canada's military scares most of the world. We will literally come into a war armed only with a knife and completely naked and fucking own the people there.
People like Canada being "peace keepers"--as it means there is a chance Canada is not going to kick ass.
90% of America's military "victories" are done by Canada (when it wasn't actually a military victory by Russia).
Canada is like the nice polite elderly neighbours upstairs that are secretly mega terrible serial killers to Americas frat boys in a basement all talking about "how awesomely drunk" they are.
And the Canadian army--when they actually are outfitted with equipment--while it is ridiculously outdate, that just mess shit up even worse when it tends to work when the American's stuff does not work.
Canada is Hannibal Lector, Mexico is Buffalo Bill... and USA is like... some frat dude with some guns.
Our airforce wasn't even issued airplanes to train with (or when they got out) and somehow it was one of the better air forces during the first Great War.
Maphisto86
it seems Canada mostly gives you guys the butter... so that we can just have you take credit for all the really fucked up shit we've been known to do.
Katrina Payne We will accept that blame / credit and apologize endlessly for it. ; )
*Warning: This comment is really long, props to you if you stick it out. It should, hopefully shed some light on a lot of the misunderstanding surrounding the US defense budget. TLDR at the bottom, I wouldn't blame you for skipping right to it.*
A little more context; defense spending is largely "out of control" because modern military equipment is fucking expensive. A single M1 Abrams costs between $4 and $6 million. So that $100 million worth of Abrams per year is around than 20 tanks per year. Things like ships, individually, have price tags in the billions USD. Even the small things: bullets, shells, body armor, uniforms, soap, food, water, fuel, housing, pencils, paper, printer ink, computers, Porta Johns; anything needed to keep the military running (basically everything under the sun) is included in that defense budget. This is the US military industrial complex running at almost minimal capacity. The reason these tanks *need* to be produced is because it's infinitely more benefitial to have a production line operational 24/7 at lower capacity than it is to shut it down and rush to start it back up when it's needed. These are lessons tried and true that you can find in any in-depth examination of the wars we've fought over the past century. Logistics is everything in modern warfare, and the US military is the strongest in the world because of our production capacity and our logistics system. Any increases in spending generally indicate, obviously, an increase in production, which indicates the expectation of armed conflict in the near future by the top brass. I.e. North Korea's saber-rattling, ISIS and Russia's flexing has lit a fire under the Pentagon's ass, so they build more toys.
I won't lie, the F35 has been a train wreck as far as development and production is concerned. However, as far as the "dogfighting" issue, the Pentagon is 100% correct. It mostly comes down to semantics, but bear with me. Not all fighters need to dogfight. In fact, dogfighting has become almost completely unheard of over the past 30 years. Dogfighting refers to the acrobatic dance of death that older aircraft used to take part in to shoot each other down. Only we needed to do that then because we were shooting at each other with guns. Now we have guided missles that can down aircraft from beyond the range of sight. Hell, 9 times out of 10, one side can't even get their airplanes off the ground before they're destroyed.
I'm not going to argue over any points of moral contention, I just thought I'd point out why things are the way they are.
One final note to drive home just how ludicrously expensive a Modern professional military is. Take one average soldier, a grunt, with most average wage possible for active military personnel. He gets paid around $90,000 (*including benefits* domestic housing, health care, education and cost of living expenses *domestically* i.e. to care for his family) anually. On duty he is provided with 3 meals a day, clothing, weapons, ammunition , medical supplies, entrenching equipment, helmets, boots, body armor, compasses, maps, GPS, radio equipment, eye protection, blankets, ass wipe, etc. Now multiply the cost to pay, equip and supply that soldier by 2 million. That's not even counting the hundreds of thousands of civilians employed by the military (doctors, teachers, laborers, cooks, etc) or the 1+ million reservists. It's so easy to look at the defense budget and be shocked, when you don't understand the mind-boggling scale of Modern militaries. The fact that we can seemingly sustain this cost indefinitely is what makes the US so absolutely terrifying in regards to sheer military power. Again, this is at *almost minimal capacity!*
TLDR: Shit's expensive and missles are op.
Nastrael Rowe It also doesn't help that some of our allies that we help arm often end up becoming our enemies(ex. mujahadeen) or arming our enemies(ex. Saudi Arabia), and to a lesser degree they end up eliciting more hatred from the enemy (ex. Israel) which helps them with recruiting.
Assuming if military spending was reduced,
I wonder if we'd be more cost effective at pushing tech progress and creating jobs if either taxes were proportionally reduced or if funds were redirected to another government body like NASA or universal healthcare/education.
Damn, awesome post man. I loved the points you brought up, but couldn't you take this reasoning and apply it to China and Russia's military as well? Because you stated it yourself, modern professional military are expensive as hell. Yet they're still far far behind us in spending.
lolyermad The US military is just a lot larger and more active currently. Most of the cost difference comes from maintaining and improving the US Navy and Air Force (new ships like the DDG-1000 and aircraft like the F35 being produced) and conducting operations around the world.
While China and Russia have large modern militaries, they're also comparatively static. Neither have navies nearly as large (they may be the 2nd and 3rd largest, but together they're still not even 1/3 the size of the US navy) or the network of military bases that the US boasts. They don't project their military power in the same way the US can and does. All of that strategic movement (ships, aircraft, land forces, supplies) is extremely expensive. Oil consumption alone costs billions annually. You also have to consider that the US has been actively fighting minor conflicts almost continuously over the past 20 years and every bomb bullet and bandage used has a price tag. Lastly there are the differences in quality of equipment and support structure that play a major difference. We haven't really seen what China or Russia can do with their current militaries, but they don't appear to have the expenses of maintaining a network of satellites surrounding the entire world or the expenses of having unmanned aircraft airborne and conducting strikes with guided missiles from 6,000 miles away, 24/7/365.
To make a long story short, China and Russia don't use their militaries to a similar degree. If they were more active and built fleets that can actually touch the US, we would most likely see much more similar numbers.
Nastrael Rowe You're very knowledgeable. Thank you for the input.
There are also significant issues with contractors regularly overcharging the DOD for sub par services. The revolving door of the military industrial complex, with the complex (corrupt) relations between certain business people and certain politicians. But yes, even if those problems were solved, shit's still expensive.
Informative...thank you
"security wise, America is basically teamed up with itself" best fucking quote ever!
The map in the background drives me crazy. It's like they said "Fuck you, rivers!"
You're a comedian?! Wow you could have fooled me...
You want him to trip or attempt to trip you?
PeterWDawson ?
Sam Gilfellan
The typo you fixed.
Oh... what was it again I fixed it pretty quickly I thought
Sam Gilfellan
'Fouled.'
Good job Cracked!
Keep it up you all are brilliant
YEAH 'MURICA , Planes that are big, dumb, and expensive!
They should also add that the US dragged quite a number of other countries into the F-35 adventure.
4:50 officer friendly just got an upgrade, **radio's in Apache and ground support** catching theif's is now easier than ever, **in the background: FIRE!! car blows up**
Sequester! My sides hurt 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Another pretty good episode! They are on a roll!
No shit, everyone knows US defence spending is out of control and horribly misappropriated. But the revolving door of the military industrial complex lobbies congress to continue our self destructive spending habits. Until we get money out of politics there is practically no conceivable way to curtail defence spending.
Martin Vargic sure, also the US military can be a tremendous force for good. Any time there is a disaster multiple LHDs help distribute relief. Any time there is a genocide the US will certainly be there to lend a hand. However, its clear that
1. we spend far too much
2. we spend in absurd ways
Both of those factors are due to our current system which allows private defence manufacturers to use there vast monetary resources to influence our military spending. The F-35 is a perfect example. Our current military missions usually involve fighting small, fairly poorly equipped insurgent forces. In that case our money should be going towards training specialized anti terror forces, intelligence networks/gathering, drones, and the occasional air support aircraft like the A-10 or AH-64. So why on earth are we spending upwards of a trillion dollars on a steath aircraft designed for air to air combat against advance enemy aircraft, especially since our current gen (F-15/16/18) are more then capable of fulfilling that role and then some? Really I think the answer is simply legalized political corruption. And the shameful result is a system of decision-making that is less influenced by the best tactical course of action and rather what defence industries want for their bottom line.
Great channel!
There's also always a huge jump in the quality of prosthetics following a war.
Oh, Adam, you ruin everything.
Yeah defense spending may be a little bit high.
But loOK AT HOW COOL THIS NEW MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR NAVY BOAT IS:
www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/fort-lauderdale/fl-zumwalt-fort-lauderdale-coast-20161104-story.html
That thing also barely works and is horribly over-budget.
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/17/the-u-s-navy-s-expensive-new-warships-are-breaking-down-at-sea.html
www.wired.com/2015/12/the-new-3b-uss-zumwalt-is-a-stealthy-oddity-that-may-already-be-a-relic/
Tassadarky Zumwaits not bad. it's actually a decent piece of machinery, the navy didn't order a whole fleet of them, and it's very useful for testing out a lot of new ideas. every engineering project is over priced and over budget from a certain point of view. but unlike the f35, the zumwait is actually a good ship
***** In both cases only time will tell, I'll give you that.
Barak Obermer looks cool but when will we actually need to use such a boat, when everyone we fight is still using warships from 1994? its a waste of money for us to keep doing this.
Because we can destroy all of their 1994 ships from a distance and they cant do shit in return? Sounds like a good reason.
Marky Rubes and the Frowny Bunch--I like it!
This is better coverage of defense spending than all combined television outlets have done over the past two years.
BAE, is British Aerospace. Its the UK's leading defence company
JD1010101110 It's also the UK's leading disgraceful corruption company. ^_^
Adam Osborne Builds good drones, vehicle armor, attack subs, and harriers though.
Man imagine if school or the news told me everything alex just told me with infographics!
I could end up being an informed voter or something, too bad I have to rely on cracked for all this info and perspective
Tina M all the info they have is from public sources. Discerning the trash/propaganda/fear-mongering from real information is what makes an informed voter
One of those videos I wish I could like twice
Welp, happy Birthday to this very informative video.
Let's make America sane again.
Meanwhile, the F22 Raptor exists and we stopped making them for no reason, aka, this bullshit
Patrick McHugh meanwhile.....we can't find a use for the f22 raptor.
sure it's the best thing in the world.... but what need does it fulfill that our current, or cheaper I.e f35 does not fullfil?
It's spending for spendings sake.
"for no reason"
It was an air superiority fighter in an era where it had no competition.
Now we're looking for an update to ageing air frames.
I never understood why we thought we needed an air superiority fighter when they people we are fighting against don't even have planes at all. Given our current enemies, we could probably use a bunch of P-38s and be just as effective. Heck the fact that prop planes fly slower might even be an improvement as our current problem seams to be figuring out who is even an enemy!
The reason for that is because Russia and China exist.
You can argue against going to war with them, but you generally want to blow your potential adversaries out of the water when you can.
Somerandomguy12314 The war, if any is economic, not conventional.
Not to mention the US ais already ahead of both.
I always thought cracked was ultra biased, this is actually greatly informative!
The guy at 5:44 wasn't even talking about military stuff being manufactured outside the US. He was questioning whether America was "the greatest country in the world" after being asked. It's the first episode from 'The Newsroom'.
Cracked most of your channel went to crap, but this one was great, hope to see more like this. From: an ex-subscriber.
F22>F35. It appears that the Air Force didn't learn anything from the F-4... damned "make it do everything" mentality...
"Make it do everything... except fire guns. We don't need guns because it's the future and everything is going to be missiles"
[lots of F-4s shot down in dog fights with guns]
"We've reconsidered..."
Philo Janus *sigh*
Just keep regurgitating common word of mouth. I'm done telling you idiots to do research.
zack im not even going to try to explain to you why you are wrong.... you obiousliy dont know anything about what the f22 and f35 are and their roles....
philo, today around 90% of all air to air combat kills are with missiles.... and this number will rise even more when the f35 and f22 are going to see combat
You're talking out of the wrong end of your body here. That's exactly the mentality that brought you the F-22.
And the F-15.
And the F-16.
And the F-18.
Ironically enough, the thing it definitively didn't bring you was the F-4. It didn't have an integrated cannon, and actually, that was okay. Once pilots learned to use it properly it got impressive kill ratios, better even than the ones who had been given a cannon.
The A-10 is hated by Canadian ground forces because it causes way too many friendly fire incidents. Nobody wants to work with It. It almost never gets to use its cannon because it has to stay above 15k feet to avoid surface to air missiles. It "can't turn, can't run, can't climb" to a vastly worse extent than any actual multirole fighter. As for loitering, props can far outlast the A-10 and match its top speed too.
This was way better then expected
I find it depressing that a comedy channel goes into more depth on our excessive military spending than the mainstream media.
Discount John Oliver.
there not america's bae, it is called british aerospace... ok maybe it is americas bae
whoooo! York, PA represent!
Hurrah for context! Really wish more shows on RUclips would use it...