This seems to go against the flow of what is being suggested here.

According to what’s been said so far, if it’s military targets it’s all fair for no ICBM action.

If you go nuclear, then you can expect a nuclear response, whether the target is military or not. There’s a reason why Saddam was hesitant to use chemical weapons in Desert Storm- when President Bush Sr. said something along the lines- “we can neither confirm or deny that there are nuclear weapons on board the aircraft carriers.” This sent the message- if you use WMD, the response will be catastrophic.

Or what about shaping up the U.S. infantry, so they can successfully face some rabble bandits?

Huh? Which battle has the US Infantry not resoundingly defeated an opponent at anytime in recent history? The problem is the amount of area that these rabble bandits operate in vs. the number of US Infantry that is available to be at any given spot at one time.

Or get artillery in place, so CAS is not the only venue?

How many artillery batteries do you think it’d take to have overlapping coverage in every potential area that US ground troops are operating in?

Yes it DID boy, the prime architects of the programme and its requierementsd WERE USMCs highrankers.

S.T.F.U. my dear sir, don’t mystake me for yourself will you?

And HERE the ol’ replacement story again… GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS….

I’ll pass; it’s a plague visibly.

Well if nothing else, you can certainly win in the congeniality category.:rolleyes:

Requierements for JSF are those designed around the Harrier II+ Role and even its Operational ceilling; PLUS (USAF) Internal weapon bay and Supersonic DASH (To improve on Harrier’s Dash and L.O signature).

F-16 requierements were for a LWF or to put it bluntly, PURE Air Superiority.

If requierements weren’t leading to different designs and performances then a B1 sould be doing Air Supremacy.

What were the USN’s requirements though? They were a bigger partner than the USMC, and needed to replace F-18s.:cool:
The biggest partner is the USAF, and I have my suspicions that they weren’t looking to replace the F-16 with an AV-8B++.:D

I desagree, XFV-14A had nothing to do with strike as far as i can remember weither A7 WAS the main US Carrier-born STRIKE programme, more to the point, its specs were a lot closer to F-35 than that of F-14.

We know that, this is WHY they shares the original specs basic design for a STRIKE aircraft in replacement of the Harrier II+ including Operational ceiling.

There was NO requierements even from USAF for increased performances in order to make of it the “aerodynamic” equivalent of LWF this was foreseen as internal weapon baies mainly for A2G performances.

You do understand that requirements can change, right?

The A-7 was replaced by the F-18 in the USN, and the F-18 is being replaced by the F-35C(the high/low mix is F-35C/F-18E/F). The USMC needs a replacement for their F-18C/Ds as well as their AV-8Bs. The USAF is replacing F-16s. Each of the services had requirements based upon these things. Do you honestly believe that they want to spend a lot of money on a platform that is inferior at the missions to be performed than one that’s currently flying?

Also, its not like the F-35 is going it alone…………It would be part of a large package. (AWACS, UCAV’s, Joint Stars, B-2’s, F-22’s, etc. etc. etc.) Which, will complement its many capabilities…………:D

Pretty much, and that fact always seem to get lost on critics. The US military conducts combined arms missions, with many levels of concurrent support measures. Any fixed site is history(radar, cell, etc…), and you can bet that some pretty detail ESM intel has been conducted to get the electronic order of battle for any IADS. Granted, there’ll be residual threats that pose challenges, but wide areas will be opened for aerial operations, after an attack is initiated.
Then you have to deal with ADS instead of IADS.:D

You are aware that the F-35 is not a VLO ‘broadband’ stealth aircraft, right? (unlike future UCAVs)…as for ‘deep into enemy territory’- not unless it’s carrying EFTs. S-300PMU should suffice, I mean why waste the S-400?

The F-35 can still stay out of its engagement envelope, which is what’s important.