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

I would like to draw attention to a number of issues I have with my opponent's argument structure and style. Drawing voters' attention to my sarcasm and tone only makes you appear petty. You're also going to have a difficult time managing a military career someday if you honestly take major offense to being called an "aerospace military genius." An unbiased source is required to ensure reliability. Really dude. You're going to link me to Australia Air Power's own subjective criteria of a 5th generation fighter when it was actually Lockheed-Martin who built the first 5th generation fighter planes in the first place? 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.Alternative is a well known synonym for replacement (http://tinyurl.com...). I've known that since my third grade English class. Furthermore, you've argued obsessively that your primary concern with the F-35 is its perceived lack of air-to-air combat skills and that it was proving to be a failed 5th generation substitute for funding more F-22s. So here is my conclusion again; "The F-35 was never ever intended to be a replacement for the F-22. Period. The F-22 is an optimized Air Dominance Fighter while the F-35's is a multi-role stealth fighter with a ground support mission. The F-35 was thus never going to be as good or as flashy in air-to-air combat sorties as an F-22." I never suggested that the F-35 couldn't turn, climb, shoot, roll, bank, or run. Why suggest this then: "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," "I merely stated that the F-35 lacks sufficient BVR engagement skills.. and that the F-35 is not extremely well suited for close range combat, as it is not nearly as maneuverable as other jets"Meaning exactly what I had said about you earlier. You think US needs = air to air fighters. 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. I can prove it. The T-50 and J-20 are 5th generation prototypes that aren't yet in service. Your own source from Round 1 (#2) also indicated that an F-35 with proper weaponry is capable of defeating the Su-35. I stand by my assertion, "the F-35 is the best air dominance fighter in the world short of an F-22." 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. Actually it does. The F-22 is a one-mission plane (Air-Dominance). The F-35, meanwhile, has multi-role capabilities (CAP, CAS, SEAD, and Strike) can land on a carrier and do STOVL; making it more usable to countries that want air assets that can cover a broader range of military operations. Exporting the F-22 or another 5th gen fighter, as a result, is not a viable substitute for the multi-role functions of an F-35. 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. Incorrect. Controlling the worldwide 5th generation fighter market through the US military-industrial complex is one of the best ways to control the proliferation of next-gen weaponry. By exporting the F-35 overseas, we put pressure on other countries not to develop their own 5th generation programs -which they are and were going to try and do anyway- and stop them from designing or buying other next-gen planes that would be better or different than what we had. These countries are also now forced to return to the US for parts and upgrades if they wish to maintain and grow their own air fleets. See RQ-170 incident.The RQ-170 was never exported. T-50 and J-20 appear to be highly skilled in the near future The T-50 is well behind schedule and over budget where Russia is finding out just how crazy 5th gen fighers are to even make (http://tinyurl.com...). The J-20 also fatally lags in engine development (http://tinyurl.com...). By the time either of these airframes are combat ready and affordable enough to mass produce (by year 2030 give or take) there will be 1,000s of F-35s flying in 10 different countries. and the Chinese have also built extremely high numbers of J-11s just to overwhelm our 5th gens. Which makes sense then that we should continue to buy F-35s which can be fielded in greater numbers, perform more missions, and be produced at lower costs then the F-22. Any fighter aircraft development and sale would boost US economy, this says nothing to the F-35's capabilities. Again incorrect. The F-35's next-gen multi-role and stealth capabilities make it attractive to foreign sales, which brings in more capital to the US economy than an F-22 that was just produced domestically. The F-22 is FAR from one-mission. The F-22 is a one mission plane. It was designed back in the 90s to be a dedicated Air Dominance Fighter, most specifically for large-scale Cold War engagements with the Soviet Union (http://tinyurl.com...). The aircraft it replaced (the F-15 Eagle) was also a dedicated air-superiority fighter. As a result of its limited capabilities, the F-22 never participated in either the wars in Libya, Iraq, or Afghanistan. And while it can drop a JDAM through modifications, the F-22 was never optimized for a ground attack role or SEAD missions. if F-22s gain true air dominance, a 5th generation strike fighter is barely necessary, as there won't be air threats to counter Right. Because after the F-22 has shot down everything there wouldn't be any next-gen surface-to-air missile threats to take care of. The AIM-120 is becoming rapidly outdated and ineffective. Looks like the F-22 is needing some new missiles then. The F-35 also cannot jam enemy radar without risking detection How does jamming enemy radar make you detected by enemy radar? The AIM-9X is good, but not that good. AIM-9x performing a 180: The F-35 doesn't need much manuveribility with missiles like these. The F-35 MAY be stealthier at front angles for a SPECIFIC radar band. The Raptor has much better all-aspect stealth. Gen. Hostage (ACC Comdr) has mentioned that the F-35 has a lower RCS then the F-22: http://tinyurl.com... Whether or not Hostage is to be believed, we do know that the F-35's electronic warfare suite and jamming gives it a survival edge that the F-22 doesn't have. The F-35 is in fact going to carry out air dominance missions, and will in fact replace the F-15 around 2030. THe F-35 is not replacing the F-15. Stop making stuff up. In event that it did (according to your sources) the F-35 would be heavily modifed and would be a different plane by 2030. The only reason the F-22 is not at full potential is as a result of nearly all funding going to the F-35.Thankyou for proving my "replacement" point. FALSE. Air-to-air combat is alive and well. Please explain why then the last USAF fighter ace was from Vietnam? Please explain why the Iraq Air Force ran away in 1991 and never left the ground in 2003. Please explain why the F-22 was never used in the Iraq War or Afghanistan and why Robert Gates ultimately killed the F-22 Raptor program in favor of buying more multi-role aircraft like the F-35? Conclusion My opponent has completely ignored my evidence that the F-35 fulfills America's strategic interests and has next-gen capabilites that make it invaluable across the range of military operations. He has opted instead to focus our attention on my sarcasms and his air-to-air obsessions of the F-22. Until he can prove that the US doesn't need the F-35, his points are moot.