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 13 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours 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)