My problem is, it’s a slow, unmaneuverable one trick pony. If it’s stealth is negated, it’s just a slow moving target.
There are radars and technologies now that can defeat the stealth aspect.
It’s far better to focus on fast with lots of firepower. I think it’s a massive waste of public funds going after this aircraft which will be obsolete by time it goes mainstream.
Criticisms of stealth are overdone. Military establishments around the globe, including both USAF and customers for the F-35, have tried to get around stealth and failed. This is why all major weapons manufacturers, including Russia and China are trying to get in on the game. Customers for these big and expensive weapons systems have a lot at stake, and not just in dollar terms.
The average journalist operates from the following premises: (1) war is bad, (2) if the US military had no new weapon systems, war would end, (3) new US weapon systems are bad. From there, they go on to quote only the people who support their premises. Now, you might say that this is biased journalism. I think it's defensible. How could a journalist, a non-specialist by definition, even begin to figure out the merits of something as complicated as a new weapon system? It's a complete crapshoot, in terms of getting it right. Given the time constraints on his ability to find out enough to evaluate the subject at hand, why not simply adopt a contrarian/his default leftist position?
Australian hearings on the F-35 project. They touch on a great many issues, including exchange ratios: