Flynn's claims are far-reaching and the results of tests against the F-16 certainly cast doubt on them
"Far-reaching?" How so? Is that an assumption?
And "certainly?" Why?
And "cast doubt?" How so? What assumptions are required for the test to "cast doubt"?
1. Flynn never said nor suggested F-35 was equal to an F-16 in close-in dog fight performance, nor has LM ever claimed the F-35 would be equal to an F-16 in close-in dog fight performance. And nothing has been provided that "casts doubt" in the least on any of Flynn's claims regarding the F-35's maneuverability. In point of fact, over two DECADES ago the head of the program said the JSF would be optimized for air-to-ground (NOT air-to-air) AND that it would "be reliant" on an air-dominant fighter.
2. The test you refer to was not designed nor intended to test close-in dog fight performance and provided nothing that casts any sort of doubt on Flynn's claims.
As for the eyeball-tracking Gen IV helmet, I owned up to that error and apologized for it.
As for the cost of the Gripen E vs the Gripen C/D, there's been zero evidence provided that my statement was wrong, and I've provided reasoning (and evidence, which you rejected out of hand) why it was correct. If it does turn out I was wrong I will be happy to concede my error.
May I ask if you are claiming you have made zero errors in your arguments regarding the F-35? Not one? I don't recall you ever admitting to any. Sorry if I missed that.