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

Before I begin any official rebuttals to my opponents argument, I would like to draw attention to a number of issues I have with my opponent's argument structure and style. Note my opponent's unprofessional tone, disrespectful remarks, and especially his sources. All of his sources are either from 'f35.com', 'lockheedmartin.com', Wikipedia, and one broken link. None of these sources can be considered credibly by themselves as they are promotion web sites for the F-35. An unbiased source is required to ensure reliability. Now on my opponent's arguments. "I almost completely fell out of my chair and started laughing a little when you started saying that the F-35 was being "promoted" as a more diverse, advanced, and inexpensive replacement to the F-22". This is the first of many times that my opponent misquotes me. I have never suggested that the F-35 will phase out the F-22, only that funding was directed to the F-35 program rather than to the F-22 program [1], making the F-35 an alternative, not a replacement. "you went on to largely dismiss the F-35's overall air-to-air capabilities over the next four paragraphs arguing obsessively that it couldn't turn, can't climb, couldn't shoot, can't roll, couldn't bank and couldn't run at all before finally concluding like an aerospace military genius that the multi-role F-35 would "never be" the smooth sleek top of the line air-to-air fighter that the US military needs and demands." Much more misquoting. I never suggested that the F-35 couldn't turn, climb, shoot, roll, bank, or run. I merely stated that the F-35 lacks sufficient BVR engagement skills as a result of low cruise speed compared to other fighters and lack of thrust vectoring to dodge incoming missiles.[2] I furthermore stated that the F-35 is not extremely well suited for close range combat, as it is not nearly as maneuverable as other jets, American or otherwise, and that it's high-alpha and use of AIM-9X missiles cannot change this fact. "The F-35 was never ever intended to be a replacement for the F-22". My opponent is right. I NEVER suggested that the F-35 will be phasing out the F-22. "the F-35 is still a 5th generation fighter and the best air to air fighter platform in the world short of an F-22." Prove it. Many people think that the F-35 can be matched by the Su-35s, and annihilated by the T-50 or J-20. [3] "The relative strength of allied air forces by themselves are also significantly improved by adding fifth generation fighter jets." No more than they would by adding any other 5th gen. This piece of evidence does not support the clause that the F-35 has high capabilities, only that it's a good idea to export 5th gen fighters. Furthermore, this clause is debatable. Skeptics would say that giving or selling high-tech equipment to nations closer to our enemies (i.e. Turkey) greatly increases risk of said technology falling into the wrong hands. See RQ-170 incident. "Increases military spending pressure on Russia & China". This again does not prove the F-35's capabilities, only that export is a good idea. "So if Russia & China really want to try competing with the US in the advance fighter market, I say let them!" They are, fairly successfully and cheaply. Su-35s is highly capable without stealth, T-50 and J-20 appear to be highly skilled in the near future, and the Chinese have also built extremely high numbers of J-11s just to overwhelm our 5th gens. "Adds to the US economy". Any fighter aircraft development and sale would boost US economy, this says nothing to the F-35's capabilities. "The F-35 is a 5th generation fighter. You should stop focusing on just maneuverability". Prove it. My opponent's source is biased, and I didn't just focus on maneuverability. "Its worth noting that these older planes average over 30 years old and a one-mission plane like the F-22 is not going to cut it." I never suggested that our 4th generation fighters don't need to be replaced. As for the F-22, my opponent is wrong. The F-22 is FAR from one-mission. The F-22 can double the range of JDAMs with added precision, can use AN/APG-77 to overwhelm enemy electronics stealthily, can use advanced sensors for armed reconnaissance. Not to mention, if F-22s gain true air dominance, a 5th generation strike fighter is barely necessary, as there won't be air threats to counter. At any rate, this debate is about the F-35's capabilities, not the F-22's. "The F-35 carries the next-gen Aim-9x Sidewinder and the lastest AMRAAM air missiles; the former when combined with HMDS cuing is capable of firing on aircraft trailing BEHIND the plane. Meanwhile, its electronic warfare suite and stealth coating gives it the technological edge -that 99% of enemy planes don't have- when it comes to defeating detection and jamming enemy radar". The AIM-120 is becoming rapidly outdated and ineffective. Range is becoming insufficient, terminal maneuverability is poor, and it is susceptible to memory jammers. As for the AIM-9X, at this time the missile must be carried externally, compromising the F-35's supposed best feature, stealth. In the future, the AIM-9X might be carried internally, but it must replace 2 of the 4 AMRAAMs, a poor choice. The F-35 also cannot jam enemy radar without risking detection since its AN/APG-81 is not stealthy like the AN/APG-77. Also my opponents claim that the F-35 can engage an enemy trailing behind it using an AIM-9X is rather exaggerated. The AIM-9X is good, but not that good. "Did you know that the F-35 is most likely stealthier than an F-22 when it comes to radar cross section?" My opponent's source is again invalid, and the evidence is questionable. The F-35 MAY be stealthier at front angles for a SPECIFIC radar band. The Raptor has much better all-aspect stealth.[4][1] The F-35 is in fact going to carry out air dominance missions, and will in fact replace the F-15 around 2030. [5] My opponent ignores my evidence proving that the F-35's stand-alone strike capability is lacking, and simply says 'you're wrong'. My opponent ignores my point that the F-35 is far from it's full potential, and instead red herrings the F-22, yet again. (P.S. the only reason the F-22 is not at full potential is as a result of nearly all funding going to the F-35.) "The F-22 also lacks a clear mission seeing as how the last time we needed a fighter ace was in Vietnam". FALSE. Air to air combat took place over Serbia, the gulf war, and only a few months ago over Turkey. Air-to-air combat is alive and well. Also Wikipedia is not a viable source. Conclusion: My opponent has opted to completely ignore my solid evidence and explain only why a 5th generation global fighter is a good idea, an argument unnecessary to debate. Until he can prove that the F-35 has sufficient capabilities to suit US need, his point is moot. Sources: [1] https://www.fas.org... [2] http://www.businessinsider.com... [3] http://dailycaller.com... [4] http://aviationweek.com... [5] https://www.flightglobal.com...