| Israel has the F35 because it can strike Iran, not because of insurgents. And it was successful in this. Anti-aircraft missiles are not that good. If anything, this conflict is showing that. But the platforms both sides are using aren't up to par either, which is why aircraft like the F35 were made. Vaunted systems like the S-400 didn't prevent Israel from reaching deep into Iran, which is giving some of it's buyers second thoughts. Su-57 had serious problems because the Russian aerospace industry lacks the technical ability to build a reliable 5th-gen fighter. (Engine problems galore). They made some excuse around "its so good, we don't need it". The rest of your argument is built around the premise that the F-35 is not for use in big power conflicts, which frankly is incorrect and the opposite: That's exactly what it's for. Much of the hate it gathered early on was centered around why it existed when insurgencies were the majority of what we were fighting. (You don't need a stealth strike aircraft to drop a 1,000 LGB on a Toyota with a DShK attached) but you certainly need one if you want to penetrate defended airspace. If you can't penetrate said airspace, you throw glideb bombs from long range instead. =P China's stealth fighter projects are not for "other enemies", but precisely in line with missions like the F-35: To penetrate defended airspace to attack high-value targets. Like Taiwanese and U.S. defense sites and naval assets. But it is amusing how many accounts there are out there saying F-35 is useless and the U.S. should stop building them, while China, South Korea, Japan, India, and others are all working on building or are building its equivalent. Good try. |
The comment you reply to literally says that the Sukhoi 57 is useless and that the F53 is useful in certain situations.
It must feel very powerful to argue in bad faith and maintain upvotes just because the opinions align with the U.S. state department views. And you can do it from you own account because you know there is no penalty.