For those like me who was kinda confused about what this was about:

(from YouTube)
In this video, two boys simplify the debate to a true value statement. They both received $10.00 from their grandfather. One bought an F-35, the other got 3 F-18's with everything needed to maintain it, and keep them flying.

This contentious debate in geopolitical circles is focused around joint strike fighter choices. Does a country procure the F-35 or the F-18 Super Hornet? The F-35 is an impressive new fighter, designed to meet the needs of all branches of the military. The challenge is in order to meet everyone's needs, you have to make compromises. For example, once loaded with weapons, the F-35 begins to lose it's stealth abilities. Is it really invisible to radar and how much foil area did they have to give up to maneuverability?

In the end we realize... it's really not that complicated.

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Ha ha,
this relates to Canada so much. I still think we should have gone with the Euro fighter, damn F-35's can't handle well in arctic weather, Eurofighters can. =\

If the F-18 still kicks all the asses then keep it. I loves me my military porn, but you can't whine about the budget and still argue that we need these super expensive warplanes that aren't strictly needed

But.... Toys!!!!!

If you only buy it when you need it, you won't have it when you need it.

German Eurofighters did take out U.S. F-22's during red flag.
http://theaviationist.com/2012/07/13/fia12-typhoon-raptor/

-scheherazade

Glad you were here to clear this up. Because this ad was sssooooo confusing.

either way, a drone don't feel no g force.

The guy was just trying to be helpful and while you and I may already have been familiar enough with the aircraft in question to follow this does not necessarily apply to everyone else.

I dislike ads like this. I class this in the emotional billy club style of argument and not the informative and persuasive kind.

One side is presenting it's own argument and version of the truth and stating that if they are right, then isn't it obvious that of course they must be right? Boo.

I'm not entirely sold on the pro F-35 counter argument, but the basic statement is that newly developed fighters always show a much higher cost per unit because research costs are so high it takes a long time for production runs to bring cost per unit down.

Truthfully I think both are missing the point, and the future is clearly and unavoidably drones. Whether we like the idea of skies dominated by unmanned aircraft or not is going to become as relevant as whether we like nuclear weapons or not. They both exist and are superior weapons so you either field them or step back and out of the way of the people that DO field them.