Original quote by Courtney Mil: No, it was NEVER intended to be a fighter, but I think its air-to-air capabilities were both over-stated in the early days and over-expected. I can't demonstrate that in public, but I was involved in the trials designed to evaluate that.
When you pay for a sports car and family sedan is delivered by the dealer, that is a problem, isn't it? Years ago, the United States Department of Defense awarded a contract to Lockheed-Martin and Pratt & Whitney (engine manufacturer) over competition from Boeing and GE/Roll Royce. The announcement was followed by backslapping and champagne toasting by all winning partners involved. At that time it was touted that the following attributes were assured:
the F-35 would be “four times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-air combat, “eight times more effective” than current fighters in air-to-ground combat and “three times more effective” than current fighters in recognizance and suppression of an enemy’s air defenses. Further, they claimed that F-35 would have better range and require less logistics support than existing fighters and be the “premier strike aircraft through 2040 and to be second only to the F-22 in air superiority.” In turn, the Pentagon states that the F-35 will be "the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft ever to be used."
The facts are to date that none of the assurances are true and most will never be true. The only one that
might be true is the reference of the F-35 being second to the F-22 and even that isn't assured.
A measure of success are promises made and promises kept exhibited by the product delivered. So far success is Zero! So will we ever see success or just excuses as to why what was promised didn't happen?