As soon as I read the phrase "expert reveals," I knew Pierre Sprey would be in there. Really entertaining guy, but his qualifications are hideously overstated. Guy knows a thing or two about 3rd and 4th gen fighters, but when he comments about 5th-gen stuff, he's like a muscle car guy trying to talk about Formula 1.
Speaking of which, check out the last line of the article. Professor of Finance? Not exactly the kind of person whose opinion on cutting-edge defense projects I'm most interested to hear. The F-22 photo near the beginning isn't inspiring, either.
Unsurprisingly, the article is made almost entirely of true-but-misleading tidbits. Like, yes, if you use low-frequency radar, you can find it. But you'll also be finding every bird and large insect in the airspace, as well as clouds and rain. Do you want to be the guy who has to figure out which of those thousands of tiny blips is the F-35? I don't. Yeah, you can use low frequency radar, thermal imaging, and laser range finders to shoot down a first-generation subsonic stealth aircraft with no real defenses when its crew gets lazy with mission planning and gives clear signals about where and when it's going to be flying. Which, one might add, is the only time a stealth aircraft has ever been shot down. Good luck translating that into a useful strategy on a modern battlefield against a plane that's 30 years newer, can handle itself against a missile, and isn't necessarily exactly where and when you think it should be.
And yeah, if you bring an F-35 within visual range of a solid 4.5-gen fighter and THEN begin the engagement, the F-35's going to have a hard time. Again, do you want to be the guy searching the airspace for a plane you have to visually acquire to engage, but that has the sensors and missiles to be able to track you and shoot you long before then? I don't.
On a modern battlefield with modern radars and missiles, a 4th gen plane won't just have a hard time operating; it'll be swatted from the sky before it knows what hit it. In that context, low observability isn't some whiz-bang add-on; it's the bare minimum a plane needs just to survive. Likewise, speed and maneuverability don't mean jack if you're spotted and shot down from over the horizon.
Here's some real info from people who actually know what they're talking about: F-35 test pilots.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTgDTC8_PM0
Gonna leave it there for now. Yes, the project is years behind schedule and hideously overbudget. By all means let's have a tough conversation about whether it's worth all this money to stay on the bleeding edge of military technology. But this article, like most F-35 criticism (especially where Pierre Sprey is involved), is way off the mark.