Yeah...I know plenty of people don't like the F-35 or think it won't be effective, but I'm pretty suspicious of a story that goes to such length and uses such an incredible number of adjectives to call it a 100% unmitigated disaster. Few warplanes are that bad.

And it's important to remember how much warplanes are changed and updated in production, too. When you're inventing cutting-edge shit the first model ready for full-production won't be the best one. Even the most successful airplanes in WWII had over a dozen updates and design changes after they started line production; the most built and most successful version of the original P-38 Lightning was the letter L. As in, the 11th major design change conceived since the plane went into combat. Shit takes time.

I can't remember which, but I'm positive I recall reading accounts of an older plane being completely thrashed by critics, as well, during it's development. I can't recall which plane, but I do recall it turned into an excellent and successful project. Analysts and politicking brass aren't always right, and they have plenty of reasons for undermining things which could certainly become successful. Critics are right we shouldn't have put nearly this much money and hope on this one plane, but I don't think they can credibly decide, this early, the plane wasn't worth making at any cost.

The lightning definitely has room for improvement, and it will improve. Whether it will improve enough I have no idea, but calling it a complete waste of money and utterly surrendering our air superiority when we've barely built 100 active duty models is really jumping the gun.