JSF Fan - No.
Just a realist. I think the program has been poorly handled, is overbudget, and is trying to turn a pigs ear specification wish list into a silk purse. On the other hand they seem to be largely succeeding.
- The unit cost is no-where near as bad as most of the media detractors suggest.
- The kinematic performance is probably its worst aspect (compromised by the design requirements making it short and fat).
- The avionics and SA provided by EOTS and DAS is a strong positive.
- The LO (VLO) nature of the airframe will bring advantages.
- The airframe in the US inventory will be replacing a handful of airframes that are rapidly running out of air hours and approaching obsolescence. As such I don't believe it will suffer the same magnitude of cuts from orders to numbers accepted as the F-22 did.
- It's a new developmental airframe - as such it will encounter problems - and usually the problems will be overcome (eg: Dave C's tailhook) some won't be - transonic acceleration target 9at least until they uprate the donk). I cannot think of any other complex manufactured product of any sort that does not have issues (car recalls, 787 Li-Ion batteries, F-111's well documented issues etc).
The problem is there is an aspect of the 'Emperor's New Clothes' here. The airframe's (very) average kinematic performance seems to be being compared with other 4th and 4.5th gen contemporaries and it comes up short in most yardsticks (I think APA used the term 'clubbed like a baby seal'). Yet, advances of the sensors, sensor fusion and LO characteristics are supposed to well and truly turn the tables on the contemporary opponents. As the generic you and I don't have access to the classified performance data of this airframe and sensors, we need to accept the Lockmart's line on this. Or, trust that the senior people in the defence forces of 8 of the best airforces in the world have made the correct choice. Call me an optimist, but I believe you don't get to senior ranks in the ADF for example, without knowing a thing or two about air combat and how these jets will be employed. These are the same people who do have access to the classified stuff and have decided that this aircraft, despite the cost and kinematic issues is well worth buying over existing 4th and 4.5th gen options.
I suppose my yardstick for comparison is when we grunts had our trusty L1A1 SLR's replaced by the F88 Steyr in 1988. My initial skepticism was replaced by admiration that the little space age looking plastic gun was a better weapon for most infantry purposes than the old trusty SLR. I still have a soft spot for the L1A1, but realize that there are better weapons available today.
So, not a blind fan of the 'Dave', but accept that as I am not privy to all of the info of the beast I have to trust that the people that have the access and are selecting the airframe know what they are doing. They certainly know more than most of the uninformed commentary I have seen (APA, certain haters on other websites etc).