Get Some

I don't know shit about it more than I can Google, but this did seem to blatantly miss the mark:

The remaining Boyd Fighter Mafia jumps in on the F-35 fight with some scathing words in Time: Moreover, if the F-35 lived up to 100% of its depressingly modest design specifications, it would still be a complete failure in combat utility: a bomber of shorter range, lower payload and far higher vulnerability than the Vietnam War’s appallingly flammable, underperforming F-105 Lead Sled; an air-to-air fighter so unmaneuverable and sluggish in acceleration that any ancient MiG-21 will tear it to shreds; and a close support fighter that is a menace to our troops on any battlefield, unable to hit camouflaged tactical targets and incapable of distinguishing friendly soldiers from enemies. Individually and collectively, we often fretted with Boyd on the irresponsibility of equipping our people with such foolishly complex weapons designs, so bereft of practical combat effectiveness—and on the deep corruption of acquisition programs, such as the F-35’s, that deliberately plan to buy a thousand or more units long before user testing has fully probed combat utility. http://battleland.blogs.time.com/2012/01/10/the-heritage-foundation-then-and-now/#more-63546 I just wonder if Lockheed will gladly look forward to a future battlefield to vindicate their designs or will cross their fingers and wish for the best--when and if the day comes that both the 22 and 35 are the only available weapon systems still flying.