You seem to be assuming that everyone else's sensor technology will stand still. It won't.
you seem to be assuming everyone else's sensor technology will increase while f-35 capabilities will stand still. perhaps you should investigate the already-planned block upgrades out over the next 2 decades.
and any increase in sensor advantage that negates the f-35's advantages mean legacy aircraft like the f-16, f-18, f-15, av-8b are at an even greater disadvantage.
Maneuverability is always a prime factor in a fighter's overall effectiveness. The theory that maneuverability is obsolete has been proffered before, and always proved false.
maybe 40 years ago. now, prime factor in a fighter's overall effectiveness is stealth/signals mgmt, avionics/sensors, and weapons. real world Red Flag exercises with the f-22 (a dedicated air superiority platform) outline this. even though the f-22 has high maneuverability, it doesn't need to use this as its primary effectiveness is BVR warfare and attacking from stand-off ranges. on top of this are new data links and networking.
when was the last WVR air-to-air kill? when was the last BVR air-to-air kill?
I'm not saying the F-35 doesn't have advantages. It does. But the sensor technology doesn't require the aircraft to fly like a pig. My problem is that we're putting all our eggs into a substantially flawed basket.
what exactly gives you the impression the f-35 flies like a "pig"? have you personally flown it?
again, comparing to a clean f-16 is entirely pointless exercise as that's not how the f-16 goes into combat. this is what a combat-loaded (modern) f-16 looks like: http://i.imgur.com/aHCBQ.jpg
and as such, it's kinetic performance is greatly diminished.
the f-35 takes all of those f-16 features and wrapped them internally into a clean (less drag), stealthy airframe.
look at the photos here: http://theaviationist.com/2015/01/20/nellis-afb-ordinary-day/
the f-35 "looks" the same whether it is clean or combat configuration. now compare to the f-16.
f-16s dropping all their external stores to go "clean" and attempt to get into a knife fight and use its guns is just going to make it a sitting duck for the other blue forces in theater. it's a wildly unrealistic 1v1 vacuum-fight scenario - but you seem entirely hung up on it.
the f-117 was a flying brick and yet it was one of the most successful ground-attack aircraft in history. the f-35 is more stealthy, has a greater sensor/SA advantage, and can also perform air-to-air combat in self-defense role.
http://i.imgur.com/t9eZ00n.gif
I'm not ignoring the advantages, but my central problem is really the operational doctrine, which is flawed, and the data which indicate that this aircraft won't live up to expectations.
so you're saying you know more than the DoD and subsequent CONOPS? that's a bold statement to make; what are your credentials in this space?
Remember, just a few years ago we had people claiming the F-35 would be nearly as good in air-to-air as the F-22, but the wording in this press release strongly indicate it got its ass handed to it by F-16s.
where in the article did it state the f-35 got its "ass handed to it b F-16s"? and again, you ignore the context of this exercise and ignore the host of failures that would take place such that a knife fight would even develop. the f-16s aren't going to be survivable to the point of getting into a merge.
here is a real-world example where a stealthy f-22 literally snuck up on a legacy iranian f-4 without being detected. it doesn't matter the absolute kinetic performance of the aircraft in a knife fight if the stealth aircraft can literally sneak up on the aircraft and attack it at will.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/19/us-pilot-scares-iranians-top-gun-worthy-stunt-you-/
That's not acceptable for an aircraft that's supposed to be the backbone of the fleet for the next 30+ years.
you've completely lost the context of the article and you seem stuck in 1980s air combat methodology.
