Maus92, I could not agree more. But then they're mostly blind to any shortcomings of the platform there. And here's an illustration of the sort of thinking you'll find there, this example strangely found here:
Originally Posted by KenV
Now, let's compare how the F-35 "stacks up" against any other airplane in the air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed. Both the Tornado and the F-35 were primarily designed for the tactical air-to-ground role. It would appear that NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment. I would assume the folks that are buying the F-35 are smart enough to know they've got a stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance. It's certainly MUCH better than a Tornado or even a Phantom in close in dog fighting. And oddly enough, plenty of air arms did quite well flying the Tornado and the Phantom.
My bold there, obviously. Bold points in order:
"
air-to-ground role for which it was primarily designed" - agreed, it's a bomber.
"
Tornado" - different generation, different threat, very different conops, different load, different range, not supposedly air-to-air (refer you to John Farley's recent support of claims that F-35 is a magnificent air-to-air fighter). You'd have to be ill-informed or clutching at straws to make that comparison.
"
NOTHING (not even A-10) beats the F-35 in the air-to-ground role in a contested air environment" - as yet, it has proved nothing. The Project Office and LM have claimed what you claim. So far, the test pilots have released some weapons. It will be a long time before that bold claim can be proved.
"
stellar air-to-ground platform with "good enough" air-to-air performance" - Stellar? And good enough? No proof of "stellar" yet. "Good enough" was not the claim until a few years ago. It was supposed to be indestructible and invisible. Look at the claims and links in the first 150 pages of this thread alone. Why have all those claims suddenly gone away? In who's service will it be only just "good enough"?
As for better than the Phantom and the Tornado (not sure which model you mean), it should be better than the one that first flew in 1958 (Phantom) and it is in a different class (not saying better nor worse, just different) to any Tornado (E, F or GR).