Debate: Is the F-35 worth its salt?

I plan on doing a number of these in the future, however I would like to address the current debate in military aviation. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II…is it worth the money? Can it properly assume the roles of the aircraft is plans to replace or supplement? I’d like to hear everyone’s thoughts before I voice my own-and YES I do have a well crafted and formulated opinion on the matter.


(maybe we can see this thing in IF by 2018?)

Don’t forget that this is a debate!! So don’t go out and personally attack people who share a different opinion than yours or get upset and start being irrational for the same reason!


Nope. It’s getting outclassed by Russian MiGs already. I’d much rather be in an F-22 for air to air or am A-10 for air to ground.


Does it look absolutely awesome? Yes
Do we really need it? No…


Do you want brains of brawn? The F-35 doesn’t have the brawn, but it does have brains to avoid dogfighting. It’s like comparing a defensive lineman and a free safety, can a free safety take down a defensive lineman? Probably not, the free safety is there to make interceptions.

1 Like

For what it’s worth the only need for an advance stealth aircraft is for air to air, which the F-22 outdoes the F-35 in and is cheaper. YOu dont really need the F-35 for bombing runs when you have the A-10 available for attacking runs

1 Like

Where can I find the whole outclassed by MiGs thing at? If you’re referring to what I think you’re referring to, then this was before they removed some of the flight restrictions on the F-35.

The problem is when involved in a dogfight, you need that brawn. Remember when they took the guns off the F-4s, and then the missiles started malfunctioning and everyone lost there minds cus they needed guns? Same exact thing. As soon as they find someway to break the stealth factor, or see it with their own two eyes, it’s game over

When it is finished it will be an awesome aircraft
Right now no
And is actually built to be not as maneuveral as it could be because of stalling the plane and over stress while meet its target of being maneuverable as an f/a-18 super hornet and hornet
Probably most technologicallys for the f-35 program are being invented because they didn’t exist
It’s gonna be one of the best JSF of all time


If it had 4 engines on all sides so it would look like a spaceship then yes but its got only one engine so no l don’t think its worth it
Also its not hulk proof so that’s a double no from me

But the Avenger on the Warthog has ballistics subpar for properly damaging and penetrating modern hostile armor such as the T-14 Armata and T-90AM. Combined with it only REALLY being able to shine in non-contested zones (such as the ranges of Afghanistan, Iraq wasn’t really the BEST trial by fire because they got swamped), the Hawg isn’t exactly this super machine of death and destruction people make it out to be.

So then the F-20, F-16, Mirage, Mitsubishi F-2, A-4, F-8, A-7, and many more also weren’t worth it.

Well I doubt anything is hulk proof, lol.

Same with the Raptor then, it’s cool…but we don’t really NEED it for the next decade.

It’s also tough tho. It may not have the hitting power with its gun, but it can carry missiles. I guess my point is the Hawg can take a bit of retaliation

The f-35 only has one engine because that’s all it needs
The f-35 has bigger payload than the f-16 and it can go its full speed well as the f-16s speed and other stuff is lost

I get that the Hawg is tough, it was built from the ground up as a ground attack aircraft. You can’t expect a multimission combat aircraft to do everything a dedicated aircraft can do without some drawbacks.

By that logic, the Hornet, Super Hornet, Strike Eagle, and Fighting Falcon aren’t great platforms.

1 Like

So then the F-35A is fine. The B and C models have the option for a gunpod (I know I know, just adds to the weight and increases parasitic drag along with RCS) which was been tested and refined to form fit the Lightning II to ensure maximum survivability when things start getting close-in.

They not going entirely to F-35s for the fleet. If the F-35 sucks at everything, the US won’t be buying it. There has to be reasoning behind why they’re taking these compromises. Without major conflicts, we really can’t simulate how different aircraft will fare under modern combat conditions, I’ll give the poor thing a fair chance.


I guess my question then is why. If it’s supposed to fill all roles, but we already have the F-22 for air to air and the A-10 for air to ground, then why are we wasting money on it

The Comparison would not be with it’s cannon as the F-35 lacks that armament. But when carry the Air to ground armament that it would (GBUs) it can carry more, larger, and more powerful that would be able to disable or destroy the newer Russian Tanks. Because of stealth the F-35 lacks the capacity to carry that armament in a stealth mode thus rendering it’s usefulness for that mission obsolete.

1 Like

Same could be said for the B-21 Raider then. We have tried and true platforms, why spend the money to better ourselves?

But I understand what you mean, and my actual answer is because the United States Military is competing with other nation’s militaries that do not aim to sit idle, but rather will try to develop their own machines to combat us. Take the Flanker and Fulcrum for example. Born from the same program, but classified into heavy and light. They both were designed to combat the Tomcat and Eagle’s incredible range, power, and agility. As time wore on they further developed these fighters into what we know as the Flanker-E and Fulcrum-F. As such we respond in kind by developing a new fighter that can combat those fighters (F-22) and the ball keeps rolling.

1 Like