There is a HUGE difference between an attack aircraft that "defends itself in a dog fight", and an air superiority fighter. The F-35 is NOT nor was it ever intended to be an air superiority fighter.
No one ever said it was (though perhaps LM would like to remind those many countries that are buying it as an F-16 replacement), but as the quote very clearly states, it is meant to be able to defend itself
in a dogfight.
I'm aware of what the A-7 is, thanks, but I'm just guessing that most of the countries signing up for the F-35 are not looking for a 21st century A-7.
Your argument that the F-35 is more of an A-35 is interesting, as that seems to be the argument that most of its detractors are making. The problem for most Western nations though (and the US to a certain extent) is that in the coming decades it will become the sole or predominant platform in their inventories. A certain bias towards attack is ok, but if it has to perform
all missions (just look at the aircraft types that the JPO say it will replace) then it needs to be able to demonstrate that it is up to muster to do so (and that includes close-in dogfighting).
Unfortunately for the F-35, as the old adage goes; 'You can make a bomber out of a fighter, but you can't make a fighter out of a bomber'.
Given that it is meant to be multirole, it's interesting that even its proponents concede that it can't do CAS or ground attack as well as the A-10, and it can't do air superiority as well as the F-15/16. Beyond Day 1 of a total war, what
can it do well?
He was used to flying an air superiority fighter
The F-15E is not an air superiority fighter.