@p2prada,
You are correct on the speed, but on wings, you are not. I would like you to address the cross section.
I am interested to know
why USAF allegedly likes it. Can you address the specific points in the videos, other than 'USAF said so' kinds of justifications?
There are a few misconceptions, both in the video and the other critics, in how the F-35 is to be used.
In the air force, the F-35 will replace the F-16 and A-10. While I may not support the idea of F-35 replacing the A-10, but the USAF knows better along with known progression of current gen munitions compared to the A-10s strafing run with its massive cannons. Maybe they believe today's precision weapons like Brimstone/Hellfire 2 will be more effective with less risk involved. But at the same time, the Russians don't want to give it up and will be working on a Su-25 replacement.
As an F-16 replacement. The F-35 is a heavy fighter which flies as good or better than a clean F-16. That's saying a lot. Both aircraft have high wing loading. In terms of simple physics that we learn in school and college, a low wing loading is better and a high wing loading is bad. But, they don't mention anything about drag, or try to correlate it to the subject. They end up treating drag as an entirely different aspect. I remember explaining the same to you about oxygenated blood and de-oxygenated blood and how simple they make things at lower levels of education. The logic is simple here, low wing loading is very good, but if you want to get into a turning fight they you better utilize all your advantages in the first turn or you are dead. High wing loading does not turn as good, but your fighter does not lose energy rapidly and you can have a second chance instead of simply dropping like a brick after the first turn. Therefore, the difference between high and low wing loading. Here, the priority is to get something in between for a requirement that you have decided after 30-40 years of flying aircraft with similar qualities.
The problem with wing loading is pilots want a low wing loading aircraft, but a sustained turn rate superior to the F-16, yeah right! They did not get that, but a high wing loading aircraft still delivered a STR superior to the F-16. If we go by what the youtube Karnal said about F-22 having a STR of 28deg/s and test pilots claiming a slightly lesser figure compared to the F-22, then the F-35 has a superior STR compared to Rafale and EF-2000 as of today.
Cross section relates to drag, well, you beat it with power. And F-35 has that power. The acceleration alone counts. The F-22 has a greater cross section compared to F-15 too, I don't see anybody complaining about it.
For the same reasons, USMC is set to replace the Harrier with the F-35, a far superior platform.
The biggest criticism for the F-35 comes from USN requirements for long legs and small payload. The F-35s combat radius with internal fuel is around 1000Km. Not enough for Navy requirements for long range strike. However when they criticized based on these points, they kept relating it to the Super Hornet. However the F-35C will be replacing the older F/A-18 Hornets and not the Super Hornets. Today we know that the actual aircraft to replace the SH will be the new 6th gen aircraft for which the USN has sent an RFI to Boeing this year. Similarly USAF will be working on the next generation bomber which is a strike aircraft capable of carrying up to 12 tons internally, 10000Km and an endurance of 50-100 hours with mid air refueling. They want nearly 200 of these.
Regardless the F-35 can carry 2-6 AMRAAMs internally and also has enough space to carry 2 1000Kg bombs. As much or superior to the F-16 depending on the role.
The RAND report about F-35 that can't turn, can't fight, can't run is pure BS. Turn rate has been taken care of above. Can't fight is also nonsense because the 800mm radar array is very big along with the fact that the BVR load is optimal for 5th gen situations. Need to combine that with difficult to beat missiles. Can't run, I don't know why they are comparing it to Flankers because even the F-16 cannot run in that respect.
Some of the criticism has to do with the fact that many countries are planning to use the F-35 as an air superiority platform against Flankers. Well, it is far, far superior to the F-16, so I don't get this point at all. Earlier most were using F-16s against Flanker nations which aren't many as a matter of fact.
So, these were really the most important points that the F-35 was criticized about. Stealth is the single greatest advantage here. Range, payload, maneuverability aren't an issue here. Take these factors out and the only valid criticism against F-35 is the delay and rising costs. Overall the F-35 is better than all legacy aircraft today.