Admittedly the JSF program should have spent more time in development testing however, the problems with the aircraft are far from "irrecoverable".
I disagree. The problem is in the concept of the fighter, IMO, not just in its execution.
The attributes of the fighter go far beyond being stealthy, but this fighter exceeds the maneuverability and war-fighting capability of the Harrier and many other international fighters as demonstrated in flight testing.
Of course. But the Harrier is about the least-capable frontline fighter out there. It's probably not as maneuverable or as fast or able to carry the same warload as the Typhoon or the Rafale or even the F-15 or the Su-37 (which are previous gen fighters) because those systems don't compromise those functionalities in the name of stealth.
being stealthy in the high-tech war arenas of today is a practical necessity by the way,
Oddly, the US is the ONLY nation that believes this. Even the next-gen fighters coming out of Russia are not full-on stealth systems. I believe that the penetration bombers, cruise missiles, attack aircraft, and air dominance fighters need to be stealthy, but not EVERY fighter needs to be. That's precisely why we have 50 B-2's and 500 B-52's.
The capability of the F-22, a super-maneuverable, very high-speed fighter is by design incompatible with the design concept of the JSF, we cannot equate the two.
Correct. Which is why I told James that the F-22 is not suitable to replace the JSF.
I would think any ally would be well served by the F-16, F-22 and with a bit of design resolution, the JSF.
a) F-22's cannot be manufactured anymore.
b) Even if they could, the USA won't let anyone else buy them.