The transport airplanes are also there. Aid has been dropped from them to Gaza and some of it killed people and it was generally a drop in the bucket compared to aid entering via land. Instead of fantasizing about F35s which are a very expensive way of delivering incredibly small amounts of things we should fantasize about getting more trucks to deliver stuff where it's cheap and massive amounts. That's a lot more tractable and achievable. We can also fantasize about what peace looks like and it doesn't look like dropping things from F-35s, that's generally what you do when you gave up on peace (which holds for both bombs and supplies).

Since the "ceasefire" about 21,000 tons of medical aid has entered Gaza. The amount of water already delivered is also immense and if you were to replace/complement this with desalinization you need to build a proper desalinization plant or repair the one that was already there. Let's fantasize about what more is needed and working with the different parties to get there. An F-35 can carry about 10 tons. So you'd need 2000 sorties to deliver a similar amount under the most ideal conditions each sortie costing something like $100K. A C-130 about 20 tons and has about x3-5 less operational cost per hour. It's not just about carry capacity it's about systems to deliver them (like parachutes or whatnot) which a C-130 is already fitted with. So for air delivery of stuff (which is ridiculously low volume and expensive) the C-130 is the preferred choice between the two. We also happen to have an inventory of things on pallets that are ready for C-130s. It's still not a great choice anyways. A commercial truck can carry 40 tons and operating costs would be something like $100 and the trucks are also already there and moving. If we need to get more of those that's what we should work on (and for all those options you need to work with the people on the ground and in the region. The problem isn't capacity/capability it's the politics and the situation on the ground.

If we're fantasizing maybe start with Lennon's "Imagine no religion" ;)

> The F35's are already there, they are highly effective means of delivery in emergency conditions, they can get there faster than a C130

Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Operating and maintenance expenses dominate all aircraft expenditures - "already there" is completely false. Putting these aircraft in the boneyard and writing off the R&D expenses is the only logical answer to "peaceful use."

An F-35 can get somewhere "quickly" when it's ferried there by a fleet of tankers and logistic support - but at that point, you just fly the C-130 directly to where it is needed.

No single day makes the difference in any of the situations you've proposed, and no operation to get a payload-laden F-35 anywhere it needs to be is organized in a day.

> Spend a billion dollars to make these devices, de-commission the F35's from the task of bomb dropping, paint it pink and turn off its stealth, and have them drop the cluster medical kits immediately.

There's no expense that justifies keeping these aircraft in operation for any peaceful purpose. Basically every modern cargo or passenger aircraft is better at the tasks you're describing and can do it cheaper.

Taxation is inherently backed by violence, so it's amazing how you can casually just suggest "spend a billion dollars" and not see the cognitive dissonance you're spewing.

Accomplishing all of this random humanitarian shit costs money (a proxy for human labor output), money comes from somewhere, and it isn't going to be given to your causes voluntarily.

I mean, with limited resources sure, but in your example if we use F35s to drop these supplies we can only drop half or a quarter as much as the supplies. Then we will also need spend a time, money, and resources into maintaining the F35 instead of using those to create and distribute more helpful resources. Its horribly ineffecient and you want to help, you gotta use your resources wisely instead of dropping water pumps from F35 because its cool and already there, Im sure the people in the area would rather 12 hours and get 50 water pumps instead. Then you could also drop in people to help install the water pumps( or doctors if we talking medical supplies). There is a finite amount of time and resources, we shouldnt be wasting them just to make a point.

> In fact, turning the F35's into medical-supply dropping devices immediately

In your scenario, how many people are dying as a result of the carbon impact of this foolish waste of fuel and other resources as opposed to using the right tool for the job?

So you, when given the choice.

1. Save/heal/supply as many people as possible. 2. "Make Amends" by painting aircraft pink.

You choose 2.

This is where you and I disagree.

All of this random F-35 shit is completely missing the point. The F-35 isn't "there" - no aircraft is "there" because the costs to operate them far eclipse their acquisition costs, always.

If you said "scrap the F-35s, spend money on humanitarian purposes" - you'd have a cogent (albeit naive) point. "Use one of the most expensive per-flight-hour aircraft in the world to do a mission it can't do and wasn't built for" is not intelligent.

Roughly, just considering fuel: the F-35 burns ~10,000 lbs/hr of JP-8 and can haul just 18,000 lbs of relatively small/multiple payloads. A 747 burns ~20,000 lbs/hr and can haul over 300,000 lbs of palletized loads. See the issue?