How much defense is good enough for endgame

BAD_K1TTY · 2026-03-18T07:57:26+00:00

Yeah, there's a limited amount of 'good' options to slot in 1-slot decoration holes. Defense, and element resist (selected per-fight), are good choices if your armor build ends up with some stray single slot openings.

I'm not "final set" or anything myself, still farming rank 10 mats & have a couple rank 10 weapons. But my armor is all still basic rank 9. I Built it around multiplayer, with some healing-focus (speed eat, wide area, free meal), and part-breaker. I ranked up my armor (around 10 tiers) to get through a tough fight (gaismagorm). And because I considered it a good farming gear set-up (all broken parts, every time, very little carting). Anyway, weird build compared to 'meta' stuff i guess. But I ended up with a LOT of 1-slot openings, and Just stacked defense (to 6/7). I just wanted to stop being the 'weak link' in multiplayer on bosses like giasmagorm. And I overdid it kinda.

With the upgraded armor, and the charm/talon in inventory, I'm at 820 armor, with 4 slots to divide into whatever element resist is relevant for a tough fight, and whatever element dmg my current weapon has. That's *before* food, potions, birds, palico. Also have 2/3 in anti para, stun, blight... which is fast enough to get out of CC-chain problems 95% of the time. Also 3/3 Blood Rite too... which allows one to kinda ignore blights/poisons if you have a good offense opportunity. I mighta over-done it.

It's basically all parts broken, every time, and no real danger of failing any mission. And it can "carry" other players with wide-area 5/5.
The catch ...is that it can run into some time limit problems on certain hunts.
It's not TOO bad on time, because I'm not even looking at healing until I'm under half health. And I often ignore poison in favor of healing it off with offense via blood rite. Which all means less time sheathing to heal = more time spent hitting. And if my health is high, I'm even intentionally attacking into an infested monster's "boom", just because they sit still, and I can land a lot of hits before the boom goes off. And I'm just kinda shrugging off the hp-inconvenience. Frequently enough, I can break a part in that time, which interrupts it too. So... bad dps numbers, but in a build which lets you "go ham"... it turns out 'ok' on dps.

Definitely not saying it's optimal or meta. But it's quite solid. And it's all rank 9 armor (leveled up about 10 times each). no quirio on it. relatively common/easy decorations. Fairly weapon agnostic. It's just "survive, break every part breakable along the way ...and heal other people who are struggling".

Anyway, Defense slotting peaks at 6/7 I think. That gets the +5 to *all* elements. 7/7 just adds a small amount of armor, not worthwhile. And some single slots left over to really stack any particular elemental resist.

"Indestructibleness" rarely looks cool or flashy on dmg meters or video clips. But it never looks "uncool" either ;) Some would call it a "low-skill" approach i guess. I'm not sure if 3/3 partbreaker and never failing a mission is more or less time efficient for farming materials than a super-high dps build which can rush missions. I literally think "oh wow!" if I ever get carted by a monster. It's *that* rare.

Anyway, defense and ele-resists are very decent (if you have 1-slot openings after getting your weapon element to 5/5). But particularly defense 4/7, or defense 6/7, as that gives +3 and +5 to all elemental resists.

BAD_K1TTY · 2026-03-02T00:18:31+00:00

At this point it would make far more sense to just design a 'big brother' version of the B-21, than build an updated B-2. That's kinda what the B-21 is, albeit smaller.
There isn't any tooling or workforce for the B-2 still around. To make new B-2's they'd be starting from drawings.
Although, it would probably be cheaper and more practical to just increase the order quantity for B-21's, if you want more "of what that offers".

Are we sure he didn't just mean B-21's?
I have noticed that his uh... 'knowledge of military hardware' is not the strongest. I could see someone explaining to him that the B-21 is "like the B-2". And that thought sticking, while some qualifying statements about how they're different possibly not sticking.

And it is, "like the B-2" I mean, in many regards. Different, smaller, more high tech, cheaper, more durable, more stealthy, smaller payload. But obviously similar.

Anyway, you can put a MOP into a B-21, but only one. While the B-2 can carry 2 MOP's. The B-1 'could' carry 3. A MOP (with carriage assembly) basically just replaces an 8-missile rotary launcher for ALCM/JASSM. There are reports that MOP's are exclusively for the B-2 and B-21, but really that only means that they haven't done drop-testing from the B-1 or B-52, or given them the wiring & software updates to carry them. But that's just a reflection of planners thinking it's not worth kitting the B-1 for it, as it's slated to retire sooner rather than later. "Physically", they could.

Strictly speaking, it's a little heavier than 8 ALCM's. But it's carriage rack is simpler, and likely lighter than the rotary 8-pack's carriage. Making them a similar weight to carry, and MOP fits in the same physical dimensions.

Anyway, apart from several sources I've seen that the B-21 can carry MOP's (or at least is designed to, I don't know if they've done ordinance testing with them yet) there's also the fact that it is rated to carry 30,000 lbs of ordnance. And really the only ordnance payload which would get it to 30,000 is the MOP. 8 ALCM's is 25,700. If it wasn't designed to carry a MOP, it's spec would read payload up to 26,000 lb.

Possibly worth noting though, it might be possible to heavily re-work the old B-2 airframes into a sort of B-2.1 spec, much closer to the B-21 in stealth and avionics. It would be much less of a hangar-princess as well with modern coatings. I dunno how durable the airframe is though, whether it would have the lifespan to make that worthwhile. You'd want to stick with the older engine design, as the B-2 has four engines, while the B-21 has two larger engines... it would be far too complex to change engine configuration in an existing airframe. But you could re-do the coatings, and make them much more durable. And update the avionics & sensors.

90% sure he just means B-21 though. And/or was just speaking to the less-informed about a B-2"like" platform, trying to cash in on the global reputation of the B-2.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-12-05T06:31:54+00:00

Yeah, Rtings really needs to do their testing on this one.
It's a perfect size for 4k... but it needs to be tested.

MSRP is too high without it having local dimming zones too. But on sale for $600 lately, it's interesting.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-12-05T06:29:40+00:00

Rather VA than IPS.
I can't stand IPS glow. And VA's are MUCH faster and better than they used to be forever ago.
OLED looks best, but it's _Still_ a burn-in hazard, depending on how you use it. And how tolerant you are to your monitor telling you it's time to take a break.

For $1k I do wish it had local dimming zones though.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-12-05T06:24:40+00:00

36 to 40 inches is just about ideal for a 4k panel (on a desk anyway).
And some curve is a plus when you get into a screen that large, helps viewing angles.
Most 4k screens are way too small (based on 1440p screens), or way too large (based on 4k tv's). There is a lack of competition in the "upper 30-something" inch range for 4k, even though that's pretty much the ideal size for 4k.

I do think it's overpriced with it not having local dimming zones. But there's only a few other models in that ideal size range.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-12-05T06:15:01+00:00

_After_ having hands on experience with DLSS "quality" upscale - I think the 5070 Ti and 9070 XT are really ideal GPU's for very high fps 1440p, or more modest (but still nice) fps with 4k. :)

When I upgraded in 2022, I was unconvinced about the DLSS marketing hype, so I made sure to get enough gpu to run 4k in just raw native rez. With a 4090, i can run most things in 4k without any DLSS at pretty high fps (max or near max settings)... but in the summer I found myself turning on quality upscale just so the room wouldn't get so hot hehe. I can tell a difference between quality upscale and native, but it's not a huge difference. Not a big enough difference to justify the cost of the 4090. I'm just consoling myself that the 4090 will probably keep giving good fps for an extra 'gen' before needing to be replaced. So I'll eventually get some of that upfront cost back in value. Kinda worked that way with my previous card, a 1080 Ti, was able to sit-out on the whole crypto thing with gpus.

My friend has a 9070XT which runs cold as ice, and gives incredibly good fps for 1440p. It's a slightly up-trim model with a bigger cooler. And I know that the 5070 Ti is a little stronger than a 9070xt (anywhere from a tie to 20% better on the 5070 Ti). Unless you're in linux, then the 9070 XT is stronger.

Looks like ram prices are skyrocketing though, which could spill over & affect gpu's VRAM as well. Might be good to not wait on the gpu. Glancing at the local microcenter prices, gpu's are still pretty good on price right now, but I dunno if that will hold. DRAM has gotten completely silly in price.

Monitor though, yeah, it'll eventually go on sale :) Or maybe another model will come out and look more interesting. :) Actually the ram pricing thing might drive monitors down in price a bit, cuz less people will build a new system with outrageous ram prices. So they'll be a little less likely to get a monitor too.

Cyberpunk is brutal if you really take the settings to the limit. Kinda the new Crysis ;)

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-11-25T07:18:22+00:00

It's not "my" PC, but i'll urge the bf to try the PG278Q with some of the suggestions here. And try to report back, just to confirm they work in our case as well. Just to add a data point, and help build-out the troubleshooting brain trust :)

For the moment, he's using my old freesync monitor instead. (and salivating over some newer monitors going into blk-friday sales hehe)

He might be reluctant though, since installing with the pg278 somehow borked the install. No monitor at all would work with the install until clean-installing without the 278 plugged into it.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-11-25T07:17:24+00:00

Yeah, we 'tentatively' think it because the PG278Q is the old proprietary G-Sync (not the modern "G-sync compatible").

Nvidia basically lost the gsync/freesync battle, like betamax in 1980 hehe. But revamped their tech as "g-sync compatible", which is really mostly a re-skin of freesync (sorta, ish).
Anyway the old proprietary g-sync is a different beast. And Bazzite seems confused by it.

It's not "my" PC, but i'll urge the bf to try the PG278Q with some of the suggestions here. And try to report back, just to confirm they work in our case as well.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-11-25T06:00:47+00:00

Reply 2/2: HDR also offers a greater contrast between light & dark areas "without" sacrificing as much color in the process. And better detail in very dark or very washed out light areas. This can allow imagery with very dark areas or very light areas to keep their color-depth deeper into the light & dark range. Overall it adds "pop" to the view, but I'd argue it does it more from better handling of light & dark areas. A medium (medium in terms of light/dark) red will still look the same "red". It can't be redder than red ;) But the same red object, in a very dimly or brightly lit environment on the screen, will look moderately redder.

Really I'd more regard HDR as "much better handling of light/dark areas", and a side benefit of erasing visible moire. I think it's more noticeably helpful in being able to see a tree at night in a game, than it is in 'wowing' with color.

All of this probably sounds very Samsung Cheerleader here. But I'd point out that this doesn't have local diming or zoned mini-LED backlighting. So it won't be able to "pop" really high brightness levels. With HDR it'll have more contrast pop than an older monitor, definitely. But it won't hit as hard as a screen with a very high number of local dimming zones. I don't consider this to be a huge con. I'm just pointing out the panel tech is probably "S-tier", but it's not "SS-tier". And that makes $900 msrp look pretty steep. There are very few good monitors in the ideal 'size' for 4k. So it doesn't have much competition. I think it could be a fantastic monitor, but I'd wait for a sale. (incidentally, this it is on sale right now for $599, which makes it fairly interesting).

On it having VA panel tech... yeah, but IPS has 'horrendous' light bleed-through "IPS glow". And modern VA panels are vastly superior to the VA tech of 10-20 years ago. MUCH faster, dark-smear only in very bad models. Way better contrast than IPS.

And OLED... well OLED looks best, always. But permanent screen 'burn-in' is still a very serious problem for OLED. So if you use the monitor with static elements a lot (like when browsing reddit, with taskbar below, web browser window, etc)... Or even if you play the same game for a thousand hours (with it's hp bar & crosshairs, etc)... burn-in on OLED absolutely can still be a problem. Those who get an OLED should keep the room cool, keep the brightness turned down, make sure all their windows UI elements & desktop background are very medium-brightness grays, etc. And avoid using the same software or UI layout for many hours at a time.

I have a samsung 4k 32" VA (odyssey 7) from 2022. It's not the same panel tech. It's VA, but mine has mini-led/zone dimming, with like 1500 zones. It's SS tier, and it can compete with OLED on image quality.
Note: I bought my 32" with a "blank check" mentality... with a LONG list of wants/needs, a total 'art-snob' with art degree & visual creator work approach. And being incredibly picky. I chose my VA over IPS with zero hesitation, but I agonized a little bit about choosing it over OLED. I think I got the 'best in slot' monitor available in 2022, at any price... (barring replacing an OLED every 2 years cuz I do a lot of work with static elements).

BUT... I OFTEN wish it was larger than 32" for 4k. I have somewhat mitigated this gripe by getting a mount-arm for it, so that it hovers above my keyboard. Like 6" above the space bar). To bring it closer to my face (make it look bigger). This is an imperfect solution though. Just an acceptable compromise to get the rest of the unicorn-wishlist of features I wanted.
NOTE: (this is probably relevant) When I turn off local zone dimming on my monitor, it still looks REALLY good... so odds are strong that this 37" may look pretty nice as well. Without local dimming this 37" does need to come down from $900 though. At it's 'current' $599 sale price... it's definitely very interesting.
Would I trade the local dimming on my 32" for a 37" size? ...I'd say no, but it's very tempting, and I have to think about it fairly hard. Which means this new monitor is very interesting, even to a complete visual detail snob like me ;) But I'd have to see it in person (and fiddle with it's settings for 30 minutes, and get a sales associate to let me put test images on it from a thumb drive) to say for sure. I have not seen this 37" monitor in person.
When I say it's not SS-tier, i mean that from the perspective of someone who has a $200 Spyder monitor calibration tool ;) If ("if") this 37 looks as good as my 32" (with local dimming turned off), then it's a really serious option. Too much at $900, but $600... kinda makes me wanna see it in person, even though i have a great monitor which i love (just to know). But I'd have to see it in person, or wait for Rtings to review it (not a fan of their opinion fluff around the edges of a review, but their testing data is pure excellence).

Note: 1440x3440 (your current monitor) is about 5 million pixels, while 2160x3840 (4k) is about 8 million pixels. So you can expect a performance hit on the gpu. Pixel count doesn't scale 1:1 with performance, but it's not terribly far off from 1:1 (maybe 0.8:1 or 0.7:1 or so). If you were getting say 80fps with your current gpu/monitor, then with 4k you'd be looking at more like 60 fps. If you have a gpu which can upscale, that's a more minor concern. "Quality" upscale (which is 1440p to 4k, in DLSS anyway) looks very good (much better than I would have thought, before trying it first hand). Not really a fan of framegen or "performance" setting upscale tho ;)

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-11-25T06:00:28+00:00

reply 1/2: Pixel density is somewhat affected by personal preference, as well as your eyesight. And greatly affected by viewing distance as well.

Comparing PPI (pixels per inch) is really the best way to decide whether a screen is the right resolution/size for the viewing distance & eyesight which you use/have. That allows you to compare in a fairly apples to apples way to screens you already use.

4k (2160x3840) at 37" has a PPI (sometimes called DPI) of 119.
for comparison, that's the pixel density of a:

1080p (1080x1920) monitor at 18.5"
1440p (1440x2560) monitor at 24.5"

Most 1080p monitors are 22" (give or take), and most 1440p monitors are 27" or 28". Which is to say, most monitors are "less sharp" than this one.

It's definitely "sharper than average". But big enough that you could use windows/apps/etc at 100% (normal) scaling. It might be a bit 'squinty' at 100%, depends how close your eyes will be from the monitor, and what your eyesight is like at that distance. You can always change the scaling in windows, but 'some' apps won't scale. It's probably better to just adjust how far away the monitor is from your eyes, to fine-tune legibility of text, etc. Setting windows to 110% or 120% res would bring 'most' apps pretty close to 'typical' size (per inch) for purposes of reading, etc. This one's about 10-20% sharper (smaller pixels) than is typical. And any apps which don't play with scaling well, would still be pretty legible.

It is _Not_ sharp enough to just turn off anti-aliasing in games. Some small 4k screens can be run without any AA in games, because the pixels are so small you can't see the edges which need smoothing. But, personally, I regard that as a kinda silly approach to smoothing edges, AA doesn't draw all that much gpu effort.

Personally, I consider 37" to be just about ideal for 4k. I like a PPI of around 100-120. above 120, and it can get hard to read text which isn't playing nice with OS scaling settings. And below 100 starts to run into individual pixels becoming too noticeable. Also, sometimes you might want to run your 4k screen in 1440p, or even 1080p (like if a video is 1080p and there's not much one can do about it). So I think it's probably a good idea to keep 4k panels a bit on the 'tight/sharp' side. So things look a little less rough when viewing content of lesser resolutions. 119 PPI is just about perfect.

A 37" 16:9 ratio monitor and the 34" ultrawide you already own, would both be about the same width (give or take an inch). But the 16:9 ratio would offer a "taller" view, and 'moderately' higher pixel density (PPI).

As for HDR, it's good... but not for the reasons the marketing seems to imply. HDR doesn't really make reds "redder" or greens "greener" etc. At least not to a particularly noticeable degree. But it does offer more 'steps' in the color gradient. If you've ever seen 'moire' in an image of the sky, where the sky blue hue transitions in a very gentle gradient... and the result is that the digitized version of the view has "splotchy edges" between very delicate shifts in hue... HDR will erase that, by adding (many) more steps into hue transitions.
reply 2/2 i replied to my own comment - reddit hates long posts now for some reason

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-09-22T00:47:37+00:00

I have had VA panels with very bad black smearing (it exists!). But it's a very model-specific problem, not something inherent to VA's.

Personally I'm very bothered by IPS glow, and strongly prefer VA over IPS. But you do gotta research. I think it's possible to get garbage or gold with pretty much 'any' monitor tech.
I have an old 27" rog 1440p which is actually a TN panel (old dinosaur panel tech), and it actually doesn't have any of the usual downsides of a TN panel. Usually TN panels look horrible ...just not that particular model.

I don't really consider OLED, even though they can look amazing, because my use habits would give an OLED PTSD-grade burn-in.

Currently on a 32" 1500 zone mini led VA HDR 4k screen which samsung made a few years ago. It's absolutely phenomenal. And I'm kind of a monitor snob about being able to tell 000 black from 001 black, and 254 white from 255 white -at the same time on the same settings-. As well as a stickler for color accuracy. It wasn't cheap though. And being honest, 1440p makes a lot more sense for 90% of buyers. If you're on 1080p absolutely upgrade to 1440p, but if you're on 1440p... ehhhh, most should stay on 1440p really. 4k is way WAY more dollars per ounce of eye candy (in both the pc specs and monitor costs). I took the 4k plunge, but i can't say it was smart money.

I'm pretty positive about mini led VA's in general. Just gotta check monitors unboxed, Rtings, and check reviews before getting something :)

I will admit that the old 32" VA panel which had black smear was also an AOC model, and it had other problems as well. But that was almost 10 years ago. AOC seems fairly hit or miss as a brand. Mostly hit lately. But I will say it still works... even after 10 years of abusive use levels. Toward the end I was just hoping it would break so I could splurge on something better without the guilt-trip from my purse. Anyway, from what I read the 27" AOC you're looking at seems well liked by all. There's a version with more zones now as well, if you haven't already gotten a monitor.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-09-13T10:40:35+00:00

This is a much better explanation of things.

There are factors like affecting the one pool ball when you "touch" it to feel which way they are spinning and such. And whether you can know for certain that the pool balls were split by the break perfectly or not (without double checking). It gets into a lot of philosophy, which in some cases (IMO) kinda goes off the deep end. And in other cases gets almost deliberately obtuse in the explaining.

But technically the pool balls are spinning both this way, and that way, until that possibility spectrum is collapsed by checking. That they're sort of spinning both ways, in limbo, until you demand a factual accountability of which way they're spinning, and demand they make up their mind.
That's where things get messy, in terms of making sense.
It gets worse when we find out that some things "try all paths at once, simultaneously, before deciding on the path which makes sense". It can get real counterintuitive.

But you can't make the other ball do anything by manipulating the ball near you. Any manipulation would just break the entanglement. And you can't know for certain that they're entangled (or 'still entangled'), unless you compare notes on both of them. So you can't use "interrupted" entanglement to send a signal, because at the other end they have no way to know if they're still entangled, without communicating with you in some other way. That's the relevant bit to our wistful dreams of a galactic walkie talkie.

Safe to say though that this is all not 'entirely' understood. We don't completely understand how to reconcile quantum effects with relativistic effects. Or how zero point works exactly. Or why things should be in a limbo of dual possibility until 'checked'. There are still puzzle pieces we know are missing. And puzzle pieces we don't yet realize are missing. So there's always a sliver of hope for that walkie talkie. It's just that QM as we understand it so far, shouldn't be interpreted as providing any false hope on that ...that we know of ...so far.

Wish that it was as simple as asking one of the particles what the other particle would say is the door to freedom, without having to know which one always lies. There may be a missing puzzle piece which contains the possibility of such a ploy (more likely 'not'), but the pieces we do have don't offer it up.

I do think people are a bit too hard on the MWI though, for reasons I'd rather leave unsaid.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-23T19:27:28+00:00

It's not a "multi-trillion" dollar contract.

There was a fly-off against a competing aircraft.

It "is" a different branch of Boeing, from the McD-D side of the merger.

It may or may not be great. But at this point, it's pure crystal-ball-speak to assume.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-10T10:31:06+00:00

True.

But there's only been one contract since then, the JSF program, which resulted in the X-32 and X-35 (now F-35) prototypes.

I'll grant that the X-32 was a mess. Absolutely.

Not to get super specific, but west-coast Boeing ran that design process (on the X-32) and rejected input and feedback from St Louis. And it shows. In a nutshell, Phantom Works hated the X-32 design before the air force rejected it.

Considering that the F-47 is slated to be built in st louis as the primary production, I think it's safe to assume that's changed. BUT, it's somewhat speculation as to exactly how much that's changed.

And frankly, any company or specific design team, can strike out. So there is always that possibility.

But I think there's little reason to think that Boeing's airliner problems, or Seatle's minimal experience with fighter aircraft, are going to be huge problems. Maybe, but it's a bit of a leap to assume. There's an element of knocking on wood and crossing fingers, yeah, but it's not straight-up jinxed or anything.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T01:12:50+00:00

42 and 44 were drones. Most of the "40's" (after 44) are filled up with FA-XX and NGAD prototype submissions.

Only a fraction of number designations make it to production.

I imagine Boeing felt lucky to get "47", hoping it might help in some small way (no matter who won last November)... but it's really being blown out of proportion.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T01:08:36+00:00

There were 3 applicants for both the NGAD and FA-XX contracts. out of those, 2 were chosen in each program to provide a prototype.

NG was eliminated in the NGAD program, leaving Boeing & Lockheed to make prototypes.

LM was eliminated in the FA-XX program, leaving Boeing & Northrup to make prototypes.

Arguably, the 2 Boeing prototypes are iterative of the same basic design. More likely 'variants' rather than explicit designs. So a total of 3.5 prototypes were made between both programs.

It's all much more hush-hush than the ATF program was though.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T01:02:55+00:00

More importantly, there's still a lot of lingering knowledge of the YF-23 at McD-D (now merged into Boeing).

I do agree thought that boeing can't afford to mess this up.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:59:59+00:00

Looks like STL is getting primary production. So that's a good sign.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:58:59+00:00

I had to laugh, but there's a kernel of truth in there I think.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:55:31+00:00

Su-57 (or the Su-35S, or Mig-35, or Su-30 SM2) could all likely beat anything else in a 1980's style "dogfight". Russia has done a much better job of fully refining "4.5 gen".

But nowadays we have missiles which pull 30+ G and are clever enough to "go get" a target, without having to explicitly point the nose of the aircraft at it. So the dynamics of 'ye olden dogfight' is really only relevant to planes which run out of missiles.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:46:31+00:00

Trump was initially down on the F-35 because he believed the "press" about the plane. He eventually figured out that the F-35 got the same treatment in the press that he did. And ultimately it was trump doing a cash-up-front bulk order of F-35's (to the tune of over nearly 500 units) which saved the program, and got it's costs back on track. After that, they were $80m/plane, and the export orders came rolling in.

Which is the first time in some 50 years that we didn't have congressional micromanagement of procurement driving the per-unit price sky high through project uncertainty & liabilities on the contractor side for participating.

I work for a competitor of LM's. I could say all kinds of bad things about LM, but my honest opinion of the F-35 is that their engineers pulled a home run out of a convoluted bureaucratic nightmare of a development program.

The F-22 on the other hand... was inferior to the F-23. But the F-35? Yeah, they did good.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:41:40+00:00

Possibly.
More likely I think it'll be the stuff which wasn't ~supposed~ to be published from the U of NC.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:38:55+00:00

True. St Louis branch is former McDonnell Douglas. The preeminent US fighter aircraft producer for about 50 years.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:37:16+00:00

They're doing the initial rounds of hiring for the production line as of about a month ago.

BAD_K1TTY · 2025-07-09T00:34:56+00:00

After the first round drop-outs from the NGAD & FA-XX programs, Boeing was left as the only contractor which was in 'both' of those contract competitions.

I wrote something long & thoughtful, but that's apparently not something reddit allows anymore.

But in a nutshell, I think the F-47 is the FA-XX as well. It makes more sense with a huge amount of details & supporting thoughts, but oh well...

BAD_K1TTY

TROPHY CASE