Here is what the F-35 really meant to be and to do...
Was the F-15 designed to be a 'multi-role' fighter ? No, it was not.
Was the F-16 designed to be a 'multi-role' fighter ? No, it was also -- not.
Have there ever been a 'multi-role' fighter that was designed from paper to be a 'multi-role' fighter ? We are not talking about experimental models but actually deployed weapons systems. Answer: No.
Every single fighter that is designated as 'multi-role' was an adaptation -- via tactical necessities -- from a dedicated platform to be 'multi-role', and every time an 'add-on' was added on, the platform's original capabilities degraded a little bit. The result: The F-15 and F-16 became famous 'multi-role' platforms but no one bemoaned their degraded capabilities.
The reason why the F-111 was a failed multi-role multi-service project was because the project's leadership, which composed of technical and non-technical people, both failed to understand and refused to acknowledge the necessary compromises dictated by the laws of physics upon the design. The result: The F-111 became the best tactical and strategic deep penetration small bomber in military aviation history.
In other words, the F-111 became a niche weapons platform, just like how the F-15 and F-16 originally were.
The critics said the F-35 failed to learn the lessons from the F-111. They are wrong. The F-35 absolutely learned from the F-111 project. The F-35 was designed from paper to be the equivalent of the Swiss knife -- a lot of tools in a mobile package. The F-35 was not designed to be a sniper, that is the F-22's job. The F-35 was not designed to be a bomber, that is the B-1's job. The F-35 was not designed to be a CAS fighter, that is the A-10's job. What the F-35 does is to take elements of highly specialized platforms and incorporate them into a mobile package with considerations for compromises that competing capabilities inevitably demands. It is the user's responsibility to be creative with the F-35's capabilities, not the other way around.
My signature said: 'Aera Vincere In Terram Suam' <=> 'Own The Air To Win The Ground'.
The F-35 is a component of the necessary air capabilities to achieve that goal -- own the air. The B-52 cannot do that. The B-52's job is to win the ground -- from the third dimension. The F-22's job is to clear the air so that the F-35 can maintain that clearance as well as help the ground forces win the ground. If at any point enemy air forces become too great for the F-35, then we will call in the snipers. If at any point enemy ground forces become too great for the limited bomb carrying capability of the F-35, then we will call in the heavies.
That is the point for the F-35.
