And recall this non-duffleblog article:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3144873/U-S-air-force-s-sophisticated-stealth-jet-beaten-dogfight-plane-1970s-despite-expensive-weapon-history.htmlThe dogfight, which was staged in January near Edwards Air Force Base, California, was designed to test the F-35’s ability in close-range combat at 10,000 to 30,000 feet.
Both the F-35 pilot and the F-16 pilot were attempting to ‘shoot down’ the other.
But, according to the F-35 pilot’s report, which has only recently been made public, the jet performed so appallingly that he deemed it completely inappropriate for fighting other aircraft within visual range.
He reported that the F-35 – designed by Lockheed Martin – was at a ‘distinct energy disadvantage for every engagement’ despite the F-16 being weighed down by two drop tanks for extra fuel.
Granted, not every aircraft need be a dogfighter. The old A-6 was a fine attack aircraft, for instance. But it was not a compromised design, either. Our acquisitions folk need to understand that political considerations will overrule their concepts of operations when it comes time to put steel on target.
Wasn't the F-15 Eagle designed to perform multi roles very well? I thought that it was considered a very successful aircraft ...... 
1. F-15 was not multiservice, just Air Force, with no design compromises for Navy, USMC, or foreigners.
2. F-15 was first an air-dominance fighter and always did that very well. A later version, the F-15E, was designed to do ground attack.
Forgive me for quoting wikipedia:
The McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle had been introduced by the United States Air Force (USAF) as a replacement for its fleet of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom IIs. However, unlike the F-4, the F-15 was strictly designed for the air-superiority mission with little consideration for a ground-attack role; the F-15 Special Project Office opposed the idea of F-15s performing the interdiction mission, giving rise to the phrase "Not a pound for air to ground."[5] In service, the F-15 was a very successful fighter, with over 100 aerial combat victories and no losses in air-to-air combat
F-15E was a replacement for the F-111 and last of the F-4s used in deep strike roles that (potentially) would have little support form other fighters. Personally, I the the AF wanted to replace the lackluster F-111 with a platform that had turned out particularly well (F-15). I bet the F15E is not as nimble as the earlier air superiority variants, though. Quick & dirty specs on wiki suggest this.
Meh...
I take all the F-35 bashing with a grain of salt.
Stuff like trying to claim it can replace the A-10 in CAS is idiocy, but cherry-picking certain aspects of the the F-16's flight envelope and saying the F-35 is "flawed" when it was never designed to meet them, and can do other things massively better, like total range, combat radius with weight/missiles onboard etc. is far superior.
You can claim the F-18 is "crap" with arguments like this too. Hell, same for an F-15's turn radius as compared to an F-16.
And the touchy-feely PC ROE forced onto fighter craft, like visual identification to be 100% sure an aircraft is a fighter from Derpistan and not a jet-liner... and that might force you into a guns-dogfight seems like it's not a good rationale for aircraft specifications... ever. 
Agree with a lot here, but the military ought to take into account that political considerations will many times trump military considerations. Aircraft specs ought to be influenced heavily by the
reality of how we fight, not just the
hope of how we may fight.
The lessons learned from Viet Nam brought us some great aircraft:
F15 air superiority fighter
F15E
F16 lightweight fighter
F18 light fighter/attack aircraft
F18 Superhornet similar to F15E in capability
B1 & B2 for long range strike
A10 for CAS
F16 & F18 were/are good lighter aircraft that can do the LOS fight very well. The F15 and F18 Super Hornet are spectacular air superiority fighters almost as good as their lighter cousins up close & personal.
The F35 is a turd of an inter-service and international compromise design.
