Kenny, I know that this isn't as simple as discovering the meaning of life if there only wasn't for that pesky bus, but let's try.
I'm not going to "stoop to the level of my detractors" and will ignore this and keep my reply "professional".
LM is trumpeting about how the F35 is equal or better than pretty much any 4th gen fighter in about all possible metrics (which by definition includes the F16), for as long as I can remember and it was surely one of the cornerstones around which partnership was formed and MoU signed....
May I ask if you have a single LM quote that supports what you "can remember"? Can you provide a single quote that established a single "cornerstone" of the program? Please consider that the traditional cornerstones of a program are called KPPs and there is not a single KPP for the F-35 that requires it provide kinematic performance equal to an F-16.
On the other hand, Maj Gen George Meullner way back in 1994 (more than two DECADES ago!) when he was the head of the JSF program said this:
The JSF complements the F-22 in the high-low mix. The F-22, as the high-end of the force mix, is designed to dominate the air superiority arena through the combination of stealth, supercusise, integrated avionics, and large internal weapons bays. The JSF, as the low-end, will be designed as a stealthy multi-role air-to-ground fighter reliant on the enabling force of the air dominant F-22.
Two
decades ago when the partnership was forming the head of the program firmly established that the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground, NOT air-to-air, as you (falsely) claim. AND he said that it would be "reliant" on an air-dominant fighter and would not BE an air-dominant fighter, as you (falsely) claim. Have you got a single quote from LM that contradicts MajGen Meullner? Just one? May I gently suggest that what you "remember" is subject to all sorts of (false) assumptions.
Are we on the same page now?
Sadly, not even close.