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

"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?" Yes. I merely cited APA's criteria for a 5th generation fighter which I consider to be accurate to a degree. So far nearly all of my opponent's sources come from the people selling the F-35, or from Wikipedia. "Alternative is a well known synonym for replacement" My opponent is still wrong here. Nowhere in the source he cited shows that the two words are in fact synonyms. An alternative is one of two or more possibilities [1], a replacement is a thing that takes the place of another [2]. Seeing as I never suggested that the F-22 will be phased out by the F-35, my opponent cannot say that I hold the F-35 to the unreachable standard of the F-22. I only state (and have been stating) that the F-35 must maintain an air dominance skill set proportional to the F-22 just as the F-16 was proportional to the F-15, however perhaps slightly more so as the F-35 will have to fly air dominance missions due to availability rates in the future. "Why suggest this then:" The things that I mentioned are critical to BVR engagements, strike missions, and close range engagements, not only for dogfights. "Meaning exactly what I had said about you earlier. You think US needs = air to air fighters." My opponent is correct here to a certain degree. The US does need more air to air capacity than is currently supplied, as well as a solid strike/EW platform. The F-35 can only partially supply for these needs, and is thus insufficient. "The T-50 and J-20 are 5th generation prototypes that aren't yet in service" Coming soon, possibly as early as next year for the PAK FA [3] "Your own source from Round 1 (#2) also indicated that an F-35 with proper weaponry is capable of defeating the Su-35." My opponent defeats himself here. With proper weaponry (not available to the US) the F-35 (costing over $100 Million) can defeat (presumably at a 1:1 kill ratio) the Su-35 (costing $35 Million). So my opponent is bragging that the ultra-expensive stealth fighter MIGHT be able to defeat the inexpensive non-stealthy Su-35 with weapons that the US doesn't have. Weak argument. "The F-22 is a one-mission plane (Air-Dominance)" Irrelevant, as this debate is about the F-35, and I've already proven that it is not. "The RQ-170 was never exported." My apologies for lack of clarity. I only meant the RQ-170 was an example of what can happen when an advanced aircraft is captured by enemy forces. I didn't mean that it was an example of an export aircraft being lost. "The T-50 is well behind schedule and over budget" So is the F-35. The difference is that the PAK FA is doing it without stealth coatings and will be far better at air to air combat. The T-50 is a real threat. "Which makes sense then that we should continue to buy F-35s which can be fielded in greater numbers" To the contrary, it 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's next-gen multi-role and stealth capabilities make it attractive to foreign sales" Now just imagine how much money could be generated by a 5th generation fighter with real capabilities. "Looks like the F-22 is needing some new missiles then." I'm not sure what my opponent is getting at here. The AIM-120 is becoming outdated and ineffective regardless of what platform uses it. The F-35 is only lowering the capabilities of the AIM-120 with it's low cruise speed and agility. [4] "How does jamming enemy radar make you detected by enemy radar?" Failed jams happen. Also, while the F-35's EW suite might effectively suppress one SAM system, there may be another unknown SAM system nearby that detects the F-35's AN/APG-81 and be able to target it. This is why a stealthy AESA like the AN/APG-77 would have been better. "The F-35 doesn't need much manuveribility with missiles like these." FALSE. If the F-35 cannot dodge/spoof long range missiles, it cannot get close enough to use the AIM-9x. Furthermore, the F-35 cannot carry the AIM-9x externally at this time, making use of the missile on the stealthy aircraft suicide. Even in the distant future with the internal carriage of the missile, the F-35 must sacrifice AMRAAM spaces for it. The AIM-9x is a great missile, but the F-35 cannot support it. "Gen. Hostage (ACC Comdr) has mentioned that the F-35 has a lower RCS then the F-22" General Hostage has been proven wrong. My source is a Congressional Research Service publication that EXPLICITLY states that the F-22 is stealthier. "Thankyou for proving my "replacement" point." I proved my own 'alternative' point actually. "Please explain why then the last USAF fighter ace was from Vietnam?" The standard for what a fighter ace has changed. There aren't pilots with 25-plus kills, and we don't lose nearly as many pilots either. In today's warfare, 3 kills makes an ace.[5] At any rate, this is a red herring. The presence of an ace does not mean there is no need for air combat assets. "Please explain why the Iraq Air Force ran away in 1991 and never left the ground in 2003." Because our superior air to air combat capabilities shut them down. There was hardly a fight because we pursued proper precautions. "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?" The F-22 was not ready for Iraq, not needed in Afghanistan, and was having temporary oxygen issues during Libya. As for Robert Gates, the man was controlled by a Liberal congress under a Liberal President. It's fitting that he would choose the "affordable" 5th generation fighter. Since then, General Carlisle and many others have lamented Gates' decision. "He has opted instead to focus our attention on my sarcasms and his air-to-air obsessions of the F-22." I spent 2 sentences referencing my opponent's tone, I did not focus my argument on it. My opponent has been the one to keep bringing the F-22 into this, not me. "Until he can prove that the US doesn't need the F-35, his points are moot." This is my favorite part of my opponent's argument. He completely changes the resolution for debate. My objective has been to prove that the F-35's capabilities are insufficient to US needs, NOT that the US doesn't need the F-35. That would be far, far different. Sources in comments (space issue) My Conclusion: My opponent has not fulfilled his objective to prove that the F-35s capabilities are sufficient for US needs. He has not even with any degree of accuracy disproved my contentions against the F-35. Specifically speaking, my opponent has failed to answer to the following: -The F-35 is not maneuverable enough to survive in close range engagements using the cannon -F-35 cannot carry the fix-all AIM-9x internally, so it can only be employed while sacrificing stealth -In the distant future, when the AIM-9x can be carried internally, the F-35 must sacrifice AMRAAM stations for the missile, a poor choice -The AIM-120 is outdated with insufficient range, and susceptibility to memory jammers. -The poor performance of AIM-120 is made worse by low F-35 cruise speed -F-35 cannot dodge incoming missiles due to low maneuverability/lack of thrust vectoring -F-35's non-stealthy AESA adds additional risk of detection. -F-35 is grossly delayed and over budget -F-35's mainstay EW system won't be delivered for years Since my opponent has failed to answer the above and instead focuses on proving why an export fighter is a good idea, his point cannot be considered made. All in all, the F-35's capabilities are insufficient to US needs, and have not justified the massive expenditure.