[m0llusk]

Strictly speaking it is true that the F-35 is an air superiority fighter. At a more general level it is only a component of a larger war machine. Air superiority is typically asserted as part of a planned force projection. Civilian mobility and assets are commonly lost during military operations. None of this has much application to urban land use policy either way.

[hotpotamus]

> Strictly speaking it is true that the F-35 is an air superiority fighter.

I wonder, does it have more kills in the air or on the ground?

[dmbche]

Probably more ground - but that's not the point. The f-35 is built to be good in all conditions, have long range and carry quite a lot of ordonance, all the while being quite stealthy. It's a do-it-all plane.(80-120M usd)

The f16 is made to stay close to airbases and defend against intrusions. Kinda cheap - relatively.(60 M usd)

The f22 is the peak stealth air superiority fighter. It's made to go anywhere and murder anything. Much, much more expensive. Does not carry that much ordonance.(150M usd)

F18A are made to be do it alls on carriers.(66 M usd)

(I'd love to be corrected if i'm wrong)

[hotpotamus]

> but that's not the point

There's a saying in systems engineering that comes to mind: "the purpose of a system is what it does".

It's why I've only become more and more convinced that we should leave the rest of the world alone.

[joenot443]

Kraut has a video which explains why the position "US should leave the rest of the world alone" is a pretty elementary one which doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhXFgKEkwbU

I'd be curious for your thoughts.