The F-35's capabilities are insufficient for US needs.

Yes. I merely cited APA's criteria for a 5th generation fighter which I consider to be accurate to a degree. *You* consider to be accurate?? Since when did you become an aerospace engineering expert? How can you really call me out for bias if everything you've cited against me rests on some fictional appeal to authority? Nowhere in the source he cited shows that the two words are in fact synonyms. Read it again: https://www.google.com...Your arguments have always been about dissing the F-35 because you rather have more air-to-air fighters like the F-22. my opponent cannot say that I hold the F-35 to the unreachable standard of the F-22.Yes I can. For one you had the nerve to call the F-22 standards "unreachable." and two; 99% of your criticisms of the F-35 have hovered around air-dominance skills and the claim it was substituting for more F-22s - even though I've tried telling you repeatedly the F-35 was never meant to compete in that role against the F-22. The F-35 is a multi-role fighter with a ground support mission. It is not a primary air to air fighter. The things that I mentioned are critical to BVR engagements, strike missions, and close range engagements, not only for dogfights. Yes, Yes, for the 100th time, we all get it. Your limited interpretation of US security needs = more air to air fighters. Well guess what, the USAF doesn't need any more air superiority fighters because it already has the F-22 and the F-15. Furthermore, air combat is in steep decline and has been an almost non-existent mission since Vietnam. Coming soon, possibly as early as next year for the PAK FA [3] Read your stupid source again: http://thediplomat.com... Your source clearly states that "serial deliveries" could begin in 2017, which is not the same as mass production. Furthermore, your source said pretty clearly only 55 PAK FA fighters -at a maximum- are expected to be in ready by in 2020 (by which time there will be 1,000s of F-35s in 10 different countries). In addition, your source states that the PAK FA program has been plagued by "delays, cost overruns, and unsteady technology." Exactly what I had predicted earlier. Iit means we should ensure that the F-35 actually can fight in air to air combat before making it our mainstay fighter. The F-35 is not our mainstay fighter. The F-22 is. And we already have enough F-22s for America's air-superiority needs. The standard for what a fighter ace has changed. 3 kills makes an ace. I don't need a source to tell you that 5 kills have always made an ace since day one. And I also don't need a source to tell you too that aces have disappeared since Vietnam because air combat has become nearly non-existent. Because our superior air to air combat capabilities shut them down. So if we're already so good in that field already.. why does air force need to add another air-superiority fighter? My opponent has not fulfilled his objective to prove that the F-35s capabilities are sufficient for US needs. I've made a valid argument in R1 that the F-35's multi-role capabilities provide serviceability across the full spectrum of U.S. military operations (Land, Sea, and Air, along with joint-operations with allied countries). Overall the F-35 will be called upon and used more in action than the F-22 ever will. In addition, I've mentioned that the F-35 is slated to replace the aging fighter fleets across three branches of the military. Its worth noting again that these older planes had previously performed a variety of different missions for the marines, navy, and airforce, whereas a one-mission planes (like the F-22) is ill-suited for naval, carrier, and STOVL requirements. Exporting the F-35 also fulfills important strategic interests when it comes to strengthening US military alliances and sticking it to Russia & China. -The F-35 is not maneuverable enough to survive in close range engagements using the cannon Not needed with the formidable maneuverability of the Aim-9x. BVR and long-range missiles have made cannons obsolete anyways. -F-35 cannot carry the fix-all AIM-9x internally, so it can only be employed while sacrificing stealth Because of the F-35's stealth capabilities, it won't be engaging enemies up close. Lockheed-martin themselves have even said; "The F-35's technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual "dogfighting" situations." (https://www.f35.com...) There's really no need to outfit the F-35 with the Aim 9x then unless its doing a CAP patrol (in which case the mission will inevitably call for breaking stealth to engage with enemy planes anyways). -The AIM-120 is outdated with insufficient range, and susceptibility to memory jammers Is false. The AIM-120D just began deliveries in 2010, and features improved navigation, 50% improvement in range and HOBS capability compared to other AMRAAMs (https://en.wikipedia.org...). -F-35 cannot dodge incoming missiles due to low maneuverability/lack of thrust vectoring There are lots of better ways to defeat a missile. Stealth and electronic attack in particular, along with preemptive ground attacks against SAM sites. Maneuverability and thrust vectoring are more or less a last resort option. -F-35's non-stealthy AESA adds additional risk of detection. The F-35 uses a passive array radar. Passive array is a lot more difficult to detect than active. -F-35 is grossly delayed and over budget Name a 5th gen program that wasn't? In either case, the F-35 enjoys unprecedented fiscal support from 10 different countries, and will be as affordable as a legacy fighter beginning in 2018. -F-35's mainstay EW system won't be delivered for years Is false. The first suite was delivered in 2007 (http://www.aviationtoday.com...)Conclusion Pro needs to stop focusing on air to air capibilities and realize that US security needs are a lot more significant and strategic in scope than his fanboy fascination with the F-22 Raptor and Top Gun.