That's what this writer says:
But the chorus of praise is wrong. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — a do-it-all strike jet being designed by Lockheed Martin to evade enemy radars, bomb ground targets and shoot down rival fighters — is as troubled as ever. Any recent tidbits of apparent good news can’t alter a fundamental flaw in the plane’s design with roots going back decades.
Owing to heavy design compromises foisted on the plane mostly by the Marine Corps, the F-35 is an inferior combatant, seriously outclassed by even older Russian and Chinese jets that can fly faster and farther and maneuver better. In a fast-moving aerial battle, the JSF “is a dog … overweight and underpowered,” according to Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Project on Government Oversight in Washington, D.C.
I'll admit that I've been worried about the F-35's maneuverability. Defenders of the plane say that the F-35 won't need to dogfight because the missiles--supported by detection equipment that looks in all directions--can be fired at targets in any direction unlike the past where you had to maneuver into a firing position.
Nor is it the kiss of death that the plane is multi-purpose. The F-4 Phantom has had a long career as multi-service fighter-bomber and recon aircraft.
The F-15 and F-16 do decent jobs at air combat and ground support.
I also don't disregard the Marine version of the plane. While it is true that the ability to land and take off from a parking lot hasn't really been used (the plane still need logistics support wherever it goes, after all), but that plane can take off from our amphibious warfare ships. And in an age when our carrier fleet will shrink to as few as 8 big decks, I like having a stealth small carrier fleet. And in this role, the British experience in the Falklands War shows that the small carriers can fight in limited naval air roles. If we had a proper carrier debate, this secondary capability might be more appreciated.
I'm no expert on fighter tactics and plane design. I worry that in the past we disregarded dogfights to our regret--learning that lesson is why we have F-15s and F-16s. But I don't know if we are beyond that worry. And I don't know why the weight of the gear required to make the Marine version of the plane interferes with the Air Force version. There's a Navy version, too, to strengthen the plane for carrier take off/landing stresses. Clearly, that gear isn't on the Air Force version, regardless of the impacts on Navy or Marine Corps version maneuverability, right?
So I worry. But even the superb M-1 Abrams main battle tank was second guessed when it debuted. Heck, the V-22 seems to be working better than I thought it would. Although my cost-benefit worries are more on target considering the Marines are buying more helicopters instead of all the V-22s they originally wanted. So perhaps F-35 worries are just easy to exaggerate for an article.
But I don't know.
