With the exception of your first sentence, everything you said was true. Dogfighting is still very much a thing and every operational fighter needs to be competent in close air combat. You just simply cannot avoid close air combat because missiles fail, radars get jammed, and air combat is like a ballet choreographed at speeds approaching that of sound. Point being, everything gets fucked up, so fighters need to be capable so as not to be a flying coffin. Modern planes are absolutely evaluated based on their ability to survive in close combat situations.
Over the rest of your answer, you did a good job of summarizing what the F-35 was supposed to do. It was supposed to use stealth, technology and a ton of data to avoid having to get too close. Unfortunately, the actual plane is far from achieving any of these.
The F-35s much lauded sensors don't work particularly well. Things et even worse when you have a number of F-35s operating together and sharing data. Targets outright disappear and others appear twice. In testing, F-35 pilots have taken to shutting down sensors as they're simply better pilots with less information. The helmet is a particular clusterfuck and may be incurable. It presents so much information that it has been known to actually block targets from the pilots' view. One story of the F-35 in combat is that the cameras aren't good enough to ID targets so pilots have to close in on the target to get visual ID, then fly far enough away so that their air to air missiles would work. Even if they maintain stealth (which they have trouble doing because the F-35s use so many radar signals for targeting), having to close in, then fly away to shoot gives the enemy a great window to attack. And, with the F-35s handling at lower speeds, many 40 year old planes would fucking devastate it if given the chance.
> Dogfighting is still very much a thing and every operational fighter needs to be competent in close air combat.
I did go a bit too far with my first sentence, but what you say about the F-35's effectiveness is much different than what I read from experts, who generally seem to see it as a very complex system, maturing, but with excellent potential.
In fairness, I stated my credentials (none) and cited someone with credentials. Do you have any, or is the above based on knowledge from anyone who does have them?
First, I did not say that the F-35 was a lost cause. It might be maturing, though it doesn't seem to be maturing very quickly.
There is a position within the Pentagon called the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation. This position requires a senate confirmation and serves as the Secretary of Defense's senior adviser on weapon's testing. I hope to hell that he (every DOT&E has been male, so that's not gendered language) is qualified.
The current DOT&E (Robert F. Behler) is a former Air Force test pilot who reached the rank of Major General over the course of a 30+ year military career. He has a couple of masters degrees and amongst other interesting jobs, was COO and Deputy Director of Carnegie Mellon's Software Engineering Institute. He has held the title since December 2017.
In 2016, the DOT&E annual report contained all the problems that I related in my answer to you and many, many others. You should give it a read - it's online and written in remarkably clear language. The 2017 annual report wasn't much better. It essentially said that they were finding deficiencies faster than they were being fixed and in its current state, the F-35 would not be suitable for combat.
Over the rest of your answer, you did a good job of summarizing what the F-35 was supposed to do. It was supposed to use stealth, technology and a ton of data to avoid having to get too close. Unfortunately, the actual plane is far from achieving any of these.
The F-35s much lauded sensors don't work particularly well. Things et even worse when you have a number of F-35s operating together and sharing data. Targets outright disappear and others appear twice. In testing, F-35 pilots have taken to shutting down sensors as they're simply better pilots with less information. The helmet is a particular clusterfuck and may be incurable. It presents so much information that it has been known to actually block targets from the pilots' view. One story of the F-35 in combat is that the cameras aren't good enough to ID targets so pilots have to close in on the target to get visual ID, then fly far enough away so that their air to air missiles would work. Even if they maintain stealth (which they have trouble doing because the F-35s use so many radar signals for targeting), having to close in, then fly away to shoot gives the enemy a great window to attack. And, with the F-35s handling at lower speeds, many 40 year old planes would fucking devastate it if given the chance.