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

One quick note: while I have been dissatisfied with nearly every aspect of the F-35 program, I won't be one of those who say it is completely useless and is a flying death trap. I respect it as a general airframe, but have serious issues with it. Now onto the debate. The F-35 Lightning II, born of the Joint Strike Fighter project, is a "Fifth generation" multirole stealth fighter made by Lockheed Martin, with parts from Northrop Grumman, Boeing, and Pratt and Whitney. The F-35 was and is promoted as being a more diverse, advanced, and inexpensive aircraft than others, such as the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor. As of late, the F-35 program has come under fire (as most military programs do) for apparent shortcomings in the Lightning II and for overreaching expenses. The F-35 program has cost the American taxpayer approximately $400 Billion. [1] For such a large price tag, the F-35 ought to bring the US unquestionable air dominance in combat and a successful deterrent from attack. The F-35 has failed to reach necessary levels of capability to meet US needs and to make the high price worth it. The specific causes of these are as follows. 1. The F-35 lacks capabilities necessary to accurately call it a "5th generation" fighter. Of the many issues surrounding the F-35, this isn't the most obvious, but it is true never the less. Air Power Australia has compiled a 'criteria' for what makes a 5th generation fighter, and the F-35 lacks many of the criteria, regardless of future upgrade [2]. These are: The F-35 lacks supercruise, high agility/supermanueverability, high speed excess power, thrust vectoring, side looking electronically scanning array, supersonic weapons delivery capability, large thrust : weight ratios, good non-frontal stealth, and large internal usable fuel. (Many of these will be discussed more carefully later on). If the F-35 is not truly 5th generation, how can it be considered worth of greater expense than a reliable 5th generation such as the F-22? And how can it be expected to compete with upcoming 5th generation threats like the PAK FA or the J-20? 2. The F-35 lacks necessary air dominance fighting skills. Before anyone dares to make the "F-35 is a multirole/strike fighter, it isn't meant for / doesn't need robust air to air combat skills" argument, I will make it clear. This is a FALLACY for two reasons. 1) Multirole aircraft have been required to have a standard robust air to air combat skill set (i. e. F/A-18, F-16, F-4, P-51). This doesn't change with the F-35. 2) The F-35 is currently slated to replace the F-15A and possibly C [3]. These are AIR SUPERIORITY aircraft. If the F-35 will be replacing these aircraft instead of the F-22, they must have a robust air to air capability. This is a capability that the F-35 lacks. The F-35's air to air capabilities are incomplete at best. The lack of supersonic cruise and weapons delivery means that the F-35 can't sling AMRAAMs as effectively as supercruise jets like the Raptor, making the already insufficient range of the AIM-120C further reduced. The only missile that can make up the deficit is the MBDA Meteor, which is not for US use and is therefore invalid for this debate. Even with the AIM-120D, the range and speed of delivery is too poor for a reliable kill, especially given recent improvement in enemy memory jammers. In the event that missiles are fired at the F-35, without thrust vectoring, the F-35 will struggle to dodge or spoof missiles. [4] At close range, the F-35 is almost worse off, as it must give up an AIM-120 place for an AIM-9X (not a smart move), and even with the advanced AIM-9X and HMCS, the F-35 lacks maneuverability to support it. And if the Lightning runs out of it's highly limited supply of missiles, it is almost surely a dead bird as a result of poor close in fighting skills using a cannon (or lack thereof for the B and C models), and lacks adequate rear stealth for a quick escape [5]. 3. The F-35's stand-alone strike capability is lacking. I won't talk too long on this one, as the F-35 may well have solid strike capabilities at full potential, but I feel it's prominent to mention that necessary EW packages to suppress IADS won't be equipped until much later software upgrades, plus, bumps added to the underside of the aircraft drastically reduce side stealth, making penetrating strikes more dangerous. [6] 4. The F-35 has inherent design flaws that are either pushed to later upgrades to address, or will never be fixed. These flaws include the above mentioned bumps on the airframe, engine issues, cooling systems, software holes, uplink-required start up, HMCS false alarms, radar deficiencies, and much more. [7] When the F-22 achieved IOC in 2005, it wasn't perfect, but it was a fighting maching. The F-35B "achieved" IOC last year, yet it is still a very long way from being combat capable. All of the issues must be fully fixed before any F-35 can be considered an asset to the US military, despite high demand for fighter aircraft. To conclude, the F-35 is far from being at its full potential, and even at its best, it lacks critical skills that the US military needs. Regardless of its state as a multirole fighter, it lacks necessary air to air skills, and even as a strike fighter, it is currently inadequate at striking IADS protected targets. As a result of inherent design issues, the F-35 will likely never be the top fighter the US military needs. Sources: [1] . http://www.globalsecurity.org... [2] . http://www.ausairpower.net... [3] . http://nationalinterest.org... [4] . http://www.businessinsider.com... [5] . https://medium.com... [6] . http://www.ausairpower.net... [7] . http://www.ausairpower.net...