Why do F-35 fags hate this site so much, /k/?
>>28077829
Because its terrible? agenda driven?
>>28078000
But WHY?
>>28078127
Over weight, over budget, under performing, and behind schedule.
It's got useful capabilities and will probably turn out ok, but for what it's cost and how long it's taken its clear that Lockheed made bank on us and under delivered big time.
>>28078127
mirepresenting
strawmans
Going "well this isnt perfect therfore the plane is shit" kinda stuff
>>28078283
anon provides an excellent example of their under researched articles
>>28078283
Of all the complaints I've heard about the F-35, weight is a new one. It's a lot lighter than the F-22 and lighter than the Super Hornet as well.
>>28078621
pretty much
>>28077829
Because they refuse to go through even the most mediocre of fact checking. They also have a huge bias, as proven with the above and the fact that they always twist everything that comes out about the f-35 good or bad.
I guarantee you they will do the same for the LRSB
Every time.
>>28078718
Thank you; you're the first one who actually provided a constructive response.
>>28078679
Dismissing literally every argument made against you isn't a sign of victory, it's a sign of weakness
>>28078822
>RT articles support arguments
>F4 shit without guns
>shit payloads
ect...
you didn't really look at the pic did you
>>28077829
It's a blog that relies heavily on Carlo Kopp, Pierre Sprey, and unsourced claims.
>>28078726
wat
>>28078822
>stop pointing out that my favorite anti F-35 saying are long debunked and meme tier
Is that the blog that is always like according to this unreleased report that totally exists but is like super secret that only we have access to that plane is bad and we know because of this triple secret classified report that we definitely have.
>>28079353
Yep, and since they blast a major military project the mass media bites hook line and sinker. Even if the report they used for the article doesn't come close to saying what they claim.
