55

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/44810743

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 1 points 12 hours ago

New contender for costliest paper weight in history…

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 8 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes, they more or less are are, to radar. The thumbnail is of an infrared image. If you're close up enough to do this and prepared they can still be shot down.

The trick is just getting that to happen. Consider how many F-35s right above them the Iranians haven't shot down.

[-] Hathaway@lemmy.zip 3 points 12 hours ago

Aircraft aren’t uniformly hot like that in a FLIR image either. So, take that how you want.

Not to say there haven’t been hits, the US confirmed it, it just certainly didn’t look like this.

I’m wondering if the F-35 isn’t like the AI bubble, a con by companies to swindle public money

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 33 points 1 day ago

Just the F-35s? The entire defense industry is about swindling public money. That's why they spend hundreds of millions per year on lobbying and political influence in the US.

[-] Goodlucksil@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago

The defense budget is very overblown, but some is actually needed for not getting ragged around.

[-] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 26 points 1 day ago

The USS Gerald R. Ford was officially taken out by a “laundry fire”, and to make matters worse, Iran is claiming to have struck the USS Abraham Lincoln, forcing that carrier to also withdraw.

In a country of misinformation like the USA who knows what to believe.

[-] VitoRobles@lemmy.today 3 points 15 hours ago

There's a LOT of angry US troops who were minding their business keeping the peace when suddenly, Trump illegally told them to go to War - no Congress, no balance of powers.

Maybe Iranians did it. Maybe US soldiers elected to accidentally cause a accident forcing their battleships to leave.

[-] clay_pidgin@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago

I have to keep correcting this. There's nothing illegal (in US law) about the executive branch unilaterally attacking another country. Congress has been shifting authority over to the Executive for decades, and presidents have been doing it for the last few decades at least. (See Obama's drone strikes)

The president is required by law to notify Congress within 90 days and request additional funding.

It's Immoral and a tremendously bad idea to let any one person decide to kill hundreds of people, but in this case it's not illegal.

[-] TastyWheat@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Well at least we know Wonder Woman wasn't flying that fucking thing

[-] nyan@lemmy.cafe 16 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I mean, no stealth aircraft is truly invisible, or the pilots and maintenance men wouldn't be able to see them either. These days, machine vision has improved to the point that if a human can see them, a properly-trained computer likely can too. Set up a network of drones with cameras, and anything less than perfect optical camouflage is going to be of limited value. Radar isn't the only thing you have to worry about anymore.

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

This is known as "optronics" in military applications, FWIW. I don't know if anyone is using it for target discovery yet, but optronic guidance to a known target is a thing.

Radar is nice in that it and works under all kinds of conditions (like through clouds) and can have very long range, but there definitely are other sensors that are making their way onto the battlefield. Passive audio sensors have been a huge success in Ukraine, for example. Sending out a radar pulse also draws all the wrong kind of attention.

6th gen fighters probably won't bother with anything except hiding at this rate, and the battlefield might be so transparent by then nobody will make a 7th. The "blue skies" will just be where various unmanned projectiles pass through.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

I think most people know Stealth to mean invisible to Radar, not to the human eye. The F35 is obviously going to be seeable once you have human eyes on it. The idea is targeting systems and long range equipment would not pick it up. But Iran has proved that to be false it seems.

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No, the engineers knew it would be visible like anything else, because they're not completely stupid. A lot of stuff still relies on radar, though, and other frequencies and tools can have limitations, like in range or "does-it-work-in-rain". Consider how many F-35s made it over Iran safe and sound.

Presumably they're as sneaky as possible in other ways as well, although at some point it's still a jet plane.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

I think you missed the comment I replied to

[-] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 1 points 15 hours ago

Yeah, sorry, that's wasn't very clear. I think I was in too many parallel discussions about this at once.

What I mean is just that the designers absolutely did know other sensors could and would be used for targeting. It's jut a question of how much that lowers survivability, exactly. The amount of traffic over Iran indicates it's still good, because radar is still the main game in town.

[-] BCsven@lemmy.ca 2 points 14 hours ago

Yeah, stealth is relative until we get StarTrek cloaking devices :)

[-] kbal@fedia.io 9 points 1 day ago

an anti-establishment, working class perspective

It's interesting to see the proliferation of these "anti-imperialist" propaganda mills seemingly imitating the successful model of grift made famous by the alt right. They've nothing to say about socialism, but spend all their energy on emotional appeals to get people focusing on how bad the bad guys are based on the most attention-grabbing news headlines they can find or invent. It's so carefully designed to provoke dissent, distrust, and polarization with only the barest pretense of being about anything more substantial or constructive.

This one doesn't have much to do with Canada. Even those of us who aren't professional military analysts should probably find better sources to inform our opinions on the martial capabilities of different kinds of ridiculously expensive airplanes.

[-] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

What better reason to buy Gripen instead.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

They're not even the same role. I know nations are making that trade. I think replacing a multirole jet with an interceptor says more about your priorities changing than the weapon platforms themselves. With the threat of a Russian invasion it makes sense to switch priorities to affordable interceptors.

[-] SeductiveTortoise@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yeah, so about that stealth...

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a29307410/radar-tracking-f-35/

And that's not new news, that was in 2018.

this post was submitted on 21 Mar 2026
55 points (91.0% liked)

Canada

11774 readers
653 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS