> Ten years ago, everyone interested in military aircraft who was not trying to sell the F-35 told me that it was terrible
IIRC, the most serious criticism of the F-35 was mostly not that the fighter was terrible, but that the decision to pursue the project in the way it was was terrible, that the misguided attempt to try to save money by commonality among the radically different missions of the main versions instead made each variant more expensive to develop than it would be independently, compromised capability, and didn’t solve logistical problems better than separate projects would have.
(There was also criticism based on the cost arc of manned fighter development vs. alternative technologies and countermeasures against them that in terms of funding mix, the US should have been spending more on alternatives/countermeasures and less on manned fighters including the F-35, which was an even higher-level meta-criticism.)
IIRC, the most serious criticism of the F-35 was mostly not that the fighter was terrible, but that the decision to pursue the project in the way it was was terrible, that the misguided attempt to try to save money by commonality among the radically different missions of the main versions instead made each variant more expensive to develop than it would be independently, compromised capability, and didn’t solve logistical problems better than separate projects would have.
(There was also criticism based on the cost arc of manned fighter development vs. alternative technologies and countermeasures against them that in terms of funding mix, the US should have been spending more on alternatives/countermeasures and less on manned fighters including the F-35, which was an even higher-level meta-criticism.)