As I recall, when the last HN story came out about the F-35 not doing well in short-range combat, there was a rebuttal that basically said that the test run was not designed to accurately simulate short-range combat, and that in particular the F-35 was missing the expected software suite that significantly augments its navigation and dogfighting capabilities.
I didn't follow the story after that, so I don't know if there were any counter-arguments made. But if that was true, might there also be some similar mitigating factors that apply to this story?
The only counter-argument I am aware of is that "It will get better as software and training improve." I don't doubt the veracity of this statement, however with the whole JSF fighter project falling this far behind schedule there is just too much uncertainly in how long it is going to take it to "get better" and how far you can push the airframe which is, as everybody can agree with, somewhat mutilated from the beginning.
I didn't follow the story after that, so I don't know if there were any counter-arguments made. But if that was true, might there also be some similar mitigating factors that apply to this story?