As to your comments on the old Lightning, try telling the NATO nations who flew against it at low level in the late 60s and early 70s that it was badly designed for the job.
I've clearly touched a nerve. That's good because maybe it will help to get people to think thinks through regarding the strident anti-F-35 orthodoxy.
You have misunderstood. I said the Lightning was a
brilliant design. A brilliant point design, but brilliant nevertheless.
IF it later failed to meet real world operational needs, that was not the fault of the designers and builders, but of the government folks who set down the requirements. The same is true of F-35.
IF it fails to meet real world operational needs, that's not the fault of the designers and builders. It is the fault of the several governments who set down the requirements.
Look at the T-X program. Several contractors had existing off the shelf trainers available that would just need to have their systems tweaked to do the job. But USAF added a sustained G turn requirement that could not be met by those trainers. Is the requirement realistic? Is it necessary? Is it achievable? Who knows? But the bottom line is that it is a government imposed requirement and now the contractors have to start over with clean sheet designs. Is that smart? Is it cost effective? Who knows, but the bottom line is that if a contractor wants to be a player in this competition, they MUST comply.