I was told an interesting analogy regarding the F35 by a USAF fighter pilot I was introduced to by my RCAF friend I mentioned above.
I asked him specifically about the F35 and the Air Power Australia stuff, about how it would be dead meat when forced into the air defense role vs Sukoi SU30 MKI and other variants. I figured he was a perfect person to explain this, as he has a Bandit number (F117 pilot) and flew tours with an F22 squadron, one of which as XO of 27th at Langley AFB.
He said imagine the battle space as a small indoor gymnasium, say the size of a basketball court or so. Inside are two opposing forces. One is very fit, can round around the gym 100 times or so, can sprint 40 yards in 4.4 seconds or so, and is a wizzy acrobatic martial artist type. The other is pretty fit, can round around the gym 80 times or so, and can sprint the 40 in around 5.5 seconds, and can throw a decent punch/kick, reasonably tough fighter. The first group of very fit guys has a blindfold on that only allows them to see about 10 yards, and has earplugs in so they can't hear anything. Both groups are armed with decent medium range 6 shot slug shotguns, capable of accurately hitting and destroying targets within that gym/battle space with a very high pK.
You can see where this is going, and who is who. Sounds like the 2nd group will likely mow the first, right? Hence, the "F35" group has a huge advantage. This is the common line I've heard from F35 supporters, including pilots who are pretty familiar with it, as well as all the info available online from pilots who have flown it and spoken about this capability.
My concern is this: What happens when either a: The shotguns run out of ammo and there is still targets out there (ie the F35 having to close to a visual range fight), or b: somehow the first group with the blindfold, figures out a way to either take it off, or see through it (ie negating the stealth/low observable tech the F35 has which gives it the only real advantage over possible airborne threats right now). Then what? See, the argument that the USAF isn't going to "use" the F35 in an a2a role, and that it's an attack bomb truck is all fine and well, but virtually EVERY other air force purchasing it is using it to replace fighters they currently are using as interceptors and a2a combat fighters. So, based on this, the F35 a2a performance is absolutely critical IMO, not just some back seat capability that the USAF shouldn't be concerned too much about since it won't be the F35's job. With only a dozen squads of F22s, the USAF will find itself running very short on escorts in a major shooting war with say, oh I don't know, China for example. Then even with the US forces, the F35 will be pressed into fighting other fighters.
Right now, it's been made out by Lockheed and pilots like the one I spoke to about it, that the F35 due to it's low observability and ability to see and get the first shots in due to its sensors, has any potential threat out gunned at the moment. Even if that is 100% true, what happens if say in 5 or 10 years some threat nation figures out how to eliminate or seriously degrade that low observability. Then the actual airframe performance of the F35 will be a very, very relevant, and frankly scary issue.
I would say the following would really put a lot of the question people have about the F35 capability to rest - put it up against the F16, which it is slated to replace in many air forces, in a series of exercises and fight scenarios, and see how it does, both BVR and in close range visual fights. If it wins a huge percentage of both, what more needs to be said really, as I don't think anyone, even detractors, have a huge issue with the apparent a2g capabilities of the F35 over the current gen 4.5 fleets.
