They hit one, out of how many that have been openly flying over Iran, day in and day out.

Probably, it managed to fly low over the one tiny patch of land that had a shoulder launched missile operator on it, and did so in broad daylight. That day, remove any of those variables, and the survivability goes from 99.9% to 100%, without even being careful.

It has a radar section like a large ball bearing, which is tiny, but not nothing, and not as small as a more "devoted" stealth aircraft. And, it's not fucking invisible, you can still see it with your naked eyes! Literally impossible to shoot down was never the bar anyone set. Close to impossible, it achieves.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

"youre dead before you even detect it"

Literally impossible to shoot down was never the bar anyone set.

Agreed. Dunno why you're arguing that.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What, aren't those two mutually exclusive? It sees you first, or you see it first.

If it always kills you before you see it, regardless of any measure of luck on your part, you can't shoot it down. So, another way to put this, is it only kills you before you see it most of the time. And, almost all of the time vs. Iran specifically.

[–] Canconda@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Something could be impossible to shoot down because its too fast/maneuverable. Or impervious to damage. That same thing could also be completely incapable of killing you. Maybe don't lazily copy and paste replies when you don't understand the point you're replying to.

If your stance is that an F35 getting shot down doesn't matter; you can go ahead and have that opinion. I'm not gonna waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I thought about including an aside about deep bunkers (impervious to damage (that's a single F-35 can dish out, since you're pretending you don't understand context)), but that's not really relevant if you're planning to shoot back.

Too fast to hit straight up doesn't exist; even hypersonics can be intercepted, and they're already at the materials limit of what can push through air without breaking up. Higher up, satellite vs. satellite is of course a thing, as well. The advantage of speed is just getting where you're going faster.

This speed vs. detection vs. firepower logic determines military tactics in every era, BTW. Right now, most things can be easily detected, and basically everything can be destroyed. It's the things that are still hard to detect that are winning the day, like the F-35 or drones. Or maybe the Gripen, if it's in and out of the air fast and unpredictably enough.

Yes, I guess the F-35 could be completely empty and unloaded. That was even in the comment at first, but I edited it out, because anyone would get that's not typically how you go into battle. And no, getting the same question responding to the same comment, and then giving the same answer, is not lazy. What, does your highness require it hand-typed? (FWIW, not checking if the question has been asked and answered isn't high effort)