It's somewhat puzzling to hear and read proponents of the F35 stating that critique about all the cost/time overruns, failing to meet pre-set performances and doubt about the general concept of the platform (stealth, the onorthodox purchase -maintenance and upgrade contracts, all sensors and systems integrated from the get-go on all fighters for all customers,...) are all to be expected on a complicated program like the F35, a statement that is certainly valid in itself but they somehow at the same time seem to be blind for the latest trend and certainly new trend that is worrying to say the least.
More specific the need to prematurely retire entire programs that are still very needed and relevant today (the A10, and now maybe also the F16, let alone what will happen with the Harrier) just to assure funding for the F35.
All this resulting in no real lead in time, the F35 will have to perform all its missions at full strength basically from day 1 , not really a confidence builder I would think.
I'm certain that it will perform after a while, I have more than enough confidence in the abilities of (western) engineering, I don't think it's going to be a dog but I also think that for us (the smaller nations) there are simply better alternatives.
Last but not least , the idea that active military personnel is going to be publicly critical about new weapon systems ,like the F35, is simply laughable, it is not within the military culture, short of imminent treath (example the OBOGS issue with the F22) soldiers usually shut up and try to deal as best as possible with the program, loyalty is still a big thing within military circles.
As an example there is the debacle with the Canadian submarines, very little complaining by the boys and girls of the Canadian NAVY apart from the occasional incident or the critique of already retired personnel, and lord knows there was/is enough to complain about.