It was sold as a successor to the F16 or F18, it was sold under false premisses and if you agree with the NAVY doctrine regarding the F35 you basically agree with me on that.
It is my opinion that F-35 was sold "as a successor to the F16 or F18" in the strike (air-to-ground) role, and in the case of the F/A-18 specifically, as equally able to defend itself against opposing fighters in that role. I don't believe it was ever sold as equal in capability to F-16 in the air superiority role.
Almost nobody here has a problem with it (F35) not being a true Air Dominance, super agile fighter like the F16 initially was,
With respect, I must disagree. I believe this latest round of criticism is levied against the F-35 based on a blog about its (alleged) poor close-in dog fight performance against an F-16. (I say alleged because the test was not designed or intended to test close-in dog fight performance. That was yet another false assumption, leading to a bad conclusion) My argument from the beginning has been that the F-35 was never intended or designed to do that, and they argue (rather fiercely) otherwise.
good enough is all we need and the other (A-type) abilities are certainly at least as , if not more ,important, but it's not really doing that either.
Fascinating. "Good enough" were my EXACT words and they took fierce exception with that. As for the F-35 "not really doing that" (living up to its air-to-ground performance requirements), I have no data to support that. If you have such data would you mind sharing? Thanks in advance.
but not the standalone product it was intended to be.
With respect, has ANY fighter ever been sold as a "stand alone product"? Yes, some nations buy only one fighter type and make it do everything, but that is a cost decision, not a technical or tactical decision. The F-16 is likely the greatest example of that. The Harrier was another for the Royal Navy. But for those nations/air arms that buy just one fighter and make it do everything, the F-35 is the best standalone product one is going to find, even though NOTHING can ever be truly "standalone". And I don't think LM ever sold it as "standalone." They DID sell it as the most survivable strike platform in heavily defended airspace when
operated as designed (i.e. operated in groups (
not standalone), all datalinked together for mutual support.)