Sharpened, some interesting claims there:
Carrier limitations - laid down requirements that include launching at Max AUW but yet to be tested, so how does 'he' know? Ship hasn't sailed out of port so no actual SHOL done by test pilots. Modelling is very encouraging. Ship doesn't roll or pitch very much at all, even in Sea State 5/6.
Range - done to death. It's broadly equivalent to fighter jets with external tanks.
Too sophisticated - I bloody hope so for the wait/price/capability demanded. Some older generations fear smart phones too ya know 😉
As far as In-Flight Refuel, presume author refers to ability to buddy-buddy and give gas to other platforms. Was NEVER a requirement. Sea Harrier didn't, F-35C won't need it either (see latest successful boarding rate thanks to Delta FP/Magic Carpet a Ride), and neither will F-35B. I want my limited numbers of jets down range destroying stuff, not hanging out overhead in case someone bolters (off a VL??!!!!!)
Expensive....ok, yup, it is. In "this year" $$$ it's a large bill but not excessively so. There's a lot of better cost data coming out now than previous years. But she is expensive.
All in all, a factually incorrect letter to Pilot mag....