It's not believable that the Israelis would risk an expensive new plane only days into testing on missions. The only "source" is a French journalists, and numerous other experts have expressed substantial doubt about his story.

> It's not believable that the Israelis would risk an expensive new plane only days into testing on missions.

Why? Is Israel paying now?

http://mondoweiss.net/2016/12/israels-free-ride/

Also worth noting that the 2nd link above says Israeli media reported it too. Are there any credible denials which suggest which aircraft was actually used? Everything I can find only says it's "unlikely" but won't go further. Who are the numerous experts? Why would they use aircraft which aren't stealthy while Russia has an ever-increasing presence in Syria?

The israelis are the reason the world knows about stuxnet because of their hubris and 'fuck-you' attitude. Of course is is believable that they would use the f-35 early to show how big their swinging dick can be with america as their funding bitch... so yeah... I totally believe the israelis could have done this.

The other option is the US did it with the plausible deniability that israel would be blamed in order to test the f-35.

I mean, if it were you, wouldnt you want to test the damn thing in an operation after all the spending and PR the plane has received. Even behind closed doors you'd want to be able to say "See! It works"

Combat with who? Did it go up against anything which would challenge an F16?

Planes don't toe-to-toe with other planes anymore.

As it says in the article... then why does it have a gun?

One of its primary purposes is air-to-air. Don't take my word for it: https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities

It has a gun because pilots don't feel comfortable without a gun. It makes no sense, but fifty years ago the USAF jumped the gun a little bit on air-to-air missiles, and whenever someone points out the gun is a stupid thing to include on a modern strike fighter people bring up this fifty year old problem.

The A version of the F-35 has three seconds worth of gun ammo. It would only be two seconds, but there's some lag between the trigger pull and the gun being fully spun up.

The gun is also for close air support, if I understand the article.

For CAS these planes are simply not good for. For that role A-10 or Super Tucano like cheaper planes are needed, because those planes are more efficient for that role.

They do in simulations and exercises.

Then what was its role? Did it do anything existing planes struggle with?

Its role is to transfer US tax money to the military industrial complex, and its suceeding magnificently! That also pretty much seems to be the main reason behind US wars these days.

+1

This is why Dick Cheney exists!

This is why he went from sec defense, setting policy for contractors, to heading haliburton, to VP underling of GHW and starting a new war - the longest, most expensive war the US has ever known.

Now lets bolt on a new defense project to funnel even more money...

Why do you think Tom Ridge left DHS to join the board of Lockheed??? MIC revolving door.

It'll eat up the next gen fighters coming out of China and Russia. The F-16 would struggle with that.

Of course, the F-22 would eat them up as well, but it's a stealth air superiority fighter while the F-35 is a stealth multi-purpose strike fighter.

The F-35 is a great plane until it runs out of missiles.

...until it runs out of its two missiles.

The F-35 is a great plane until it gets anywhere near its adversaries, then it gets destroyed by 3rd gen fighters.

But at least it's also a terrible ground attack plane and bomber too.

I'm of the opinion that our AF should consist entirely of A-10s and F-16s

That wasn't the question, though.

Thought you were more broadly asking what its role in general was.

If you're asking what its role was in that specific strike: Israel doesn't have any other stealth capabilities. So its role would be to fly over troubled territory rather freely, given the capabilities in the region. The F-15s and F-16s they have can't do that.

The drones they have can do that far more cheaply.

It's confusing to call that combat as a rebuttal to the flaws highlighted in this report.