so it would have tripled the cost and made it look worse.

people's obsession with 60+ FPS needs to stop. it looks bad and it's a shit-ton of work. its purpose is to sell more TVs. same with 8K+. even 4K is pretty overkill for most people's viewing habits.

Sure plaid is overkill. But will also change the minds of all who see what EV can do and will push the decade of EV forward/


Like the horse and buggy, the I.C.E age is ending.

I apologize @BSR that was overkill and probably not as funny as I thought. we need to get those handcuffs off people somehow

Points for overkill, but now all that melted snow is just going to freeze up again and turn your driveway into a skating rink.

That's crazy. Anyone selling one that's used for it's designed purpose would be guilty of assisting suicide both criminally and civilly. Besides, who needs a kit to get a plastic bag, rubber band, and short hose?

That said, two tanks does seem like overkill in that situation....but then again, why be frugal at that point? If I was going to gas myself, I would rather use acetylene....go out with a bang!

Little overkill I think.

That seems like overkill. Surely the simplest solution is the most obvious... everyone just deal with the fact that we were all annoying little scumbags once and get over ...

Nah, just kidding. The answer is drugs. Lots of drugs. For the parents, the kids, the other passengers... it doesn't really matter.

Thanks I thought it might've been overkill, but clearly I'm in the minority here.

I don't mind if the first one is at full speed and then in slo-mo, but yeah, this was total overkill.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

10 years ago this would seem a lot more like overkill than it does today. ... Can't think why ...

Interesting yes, our Soyuz no. The Saturn V is way overkill for LEO deliveries of astronauts. But yes they should have kept it around and we should have had a base on the moon by now...

Seems like overkill when they could just send in Putin, riding a bear, to take down the entire enemy army.

The F-35 can do everything better than any other plane. It's weapons are better, it's senors are better, and it's communication and situational awareness is much better. Thanks to the stealth, it has better survivability.

The only area it has some disadvantages in performance are the acceleration and maneuverability. Which is a small disadvantage, it still accelerates incredibly fast, just slower than a lighter plane, which is just physics. But it's not a slouch by any means. Plus the maneuverability is still being worked on, it's all fly by wire and they can do some really magic things with those systems once it's all tuned. They haven't started pushing it to the limits yet from what I've heard. (and honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if this whole "our plane sucks" thing was another tactic of spreading misinformation).

Here's the other thing. The F-16 can out maneuver and out accelerate the F-35. But every Russian fighter can out accelerate and out maneuver the F-16, anyway. Yet the F-16 always comes out on top. Why is that? Superior sensors, weapons, comms and tactics.

The F-35 is the best plane to achieve air superiority, because not many pilots have a death wish. Air combat is about survival, not about kills. Even in the Gulf war, the Iraqi's didn't want to fly against the F-15s because they knew they'd get just get shot down. They never even took off. So imagine how they would feel against a plane that can't be detected, let alone locked onto. A plane that can lock onto you and fire without you knowing. Not a good feeling knowing that at any moment you could explode without warning.

The A-10 is bullet proof, but not missile proof. It's a sitting duck against shoulder mounted IGLA's. Only the cockpit is bullet proof BTW which is great for the pilot, but not so great for the rest of the plane

I agree that the F-35 for the current war is overkill, but electronics and technology keeps getting cheaper day by day, and in 10 years time, even the current enemies will start buying more sophisticated systems. It's better to be prepared. As being reactionary like in WW2 and Vietnam was quite costly to the lives of allied forces. The F-35 will probably be in service for another 30 years, so it needs to try to meet as many requirements as it can for that time period, until the next plane comes out shooting lasers instead of missiles.

Also close air support these days is already done mostly by soft skin planes like the F-16. So not much difference there. Apart from the expense I guess. It's not low and slow either. You have a plane fly at such speed and high altitude the people on the ground never even know about it.


If you feel like it I'll give you a game of DCS World some time. It's a free flight sim (also used to train US national guard and other nations too). It really demonstrates the value of good sensors and weapons over flight performance

Now when it comes to being a waste of money, only time will tell. I guess either way it's win win though, because if there is no conflict that needs this plane it's only a good thing. And if there is a conflict we have the plane ready. But for the time being it really does seem like it's a waste of money. A lot of money, especially in a time of debt.

Versatility is great, but I think they tried to do everything and failed to do anything well. Having multiple skills is different from trying to be a Jack of ALL trades.

Personally, I much prefer bulletproof to 'invisible', since there's no such thing as invisible, just hard to see.

Again, that's the plan, but it can't do that today. When acting as 'close air support', it is visible and in danger from ground and directed air fire, going slow, and is slow to get going fast again. Also, close air support is not just dropping bombs, that's more medium-long range.

No, the F-35 is the worst plane for 'full air superiority' because it's far too expensive, and we won't have enough of them to control the smallest skies for years/decades, and even then they'll be to valuable to use that way.

Yes, it seems like insane overkill to be electronically invisible to fight against people who barely have electricity. Even against the most advanced ground to air systems, our current planes were doing fine. I don't see the need for this in the foreseeable future, just the desire for better, more expensive toys.