(source)
this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2024
302 points (95.2% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6629 readers
956 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It was a comment of whataboutism
That's the general feeling from people in allied countries that have been put on the F-35 program.
Other fighters could have been a better match, instead they got the expensive Letherman.
Which fighter is a better match than an F-35 if you want stealth? (If you don't want stealth, you aren't looking at a F-35) The A model is damn nice for most, and the B model wipes the floor with the VTOL competition. There is damn good reason over 1,000 of these have been produced already and orders keep coming in.
I don't doubt that F-35 has some good stats, I am looking at this from a more general perspective, what I have seen is that because F-35 costs substantially more than other fighters this limits countries that does not have a US level defense budget on how many planes they can afford, for example instead of 50 F-16 they end up with 10-20 F-35.
And by looking at those numbers it seems like they get less defense for the same amount even if F-35 is better than the alternatives.
From what I've seen, the F-35 defeats enemy F-16s because of its advanced sensors. Mostly it's firing missiles at things beyond visual range. Plus it has stealth capabilities that avoid detection and retaliation.
It's worth the cost because you lose fewer experienced pilots, which are the real bottleneck for an air force.
I was talking about countries replacing their old F-16s and the F-35 was not the only candidate.
Look at what Belgium were considering in 2018 https://www.brusselstimes.com/48129/eurofighter-there-are-only-two-real-candidates-for-f-16-replacement
Edit: it's so funny, to me it seems you have to be a F-35 fanboy in this thread, Reddit vibes...
Belgium ultimately picked the F-35 over the Eurofigher, and found that it would come in cheaper than projected. But I guess Belgium are F-35 fanboys.
Sometimes it's hard to communicate, I write A and people read Purple.
If you feel that my ultimate point was to talk about fanboys that's fine by me.
Sometimes you just need to accept things and move on.
Thanks for the non credible discussion 😁
Yeah, if a country doesn't need stealth, they really shouldn't be purchasing stealth. Most countries will probably want a mix of both. Stealth for air dominance and heavily-contested, high-value strikes, and fourth generation air frames to provide bulk ordnance delivery.
With the exception of VTOL, in which the F-35B is the only reasonable option, even if you don't need stealth.
Honestly, if you already have air superiority and you just need a bomb truck, you can't go better than strapping a ton of hard points onto a crop duster and raining hell
I hear you have also heard of the US' newest aircraft, the armed crop duster! (Not a joke, this is a real thing, and it works for exactly the reasons you said)
https://www.twz.com/modified-crop-duster-chosen-for-special-ops-armed-overwatch-mission