This and similar criticisms of the F-35 are just silly. I can take any other aircraft in the U.S. inventory and put it in situations where it will lose engagements against other domestic or foreign aircraft and systems. Multi-role fighters like the F-35, Rafale, Viper, Hornet, and Gripen aren't meant to be dominant in any one specific area. They're meant to be flexible platforms that can be tailored for different operations and flight packages based on the needs of the mission at the time, and like most multi-role fighters, they each tend to be a little better at certain roles than others.
Additionally, most of these criticisms act as if the F-35 will be acting alone on these missions, and don't take into account the fact that other aircraft, radars, and offensive/defensive systems are meant to be utilized alongside the F-35. Such a micro view doesn't adequately account for the actual theater of war these aircraft will take part in.
Is the JSF program enormously expensive? Yes. Is it unnecessary? Maybe. However, expensive and unnecessary are separate issues from whether or not this is a capable aircraft, of which it empirically is. Does it have kinks to work out? Definitely, but this aircraft is still in testing phases, and like all other aircraft, it will go through iterations and variations. In time, as systems mature, bugs are fixed, and pilots become more experienced, we can be sure that the F-35 will at least be a capable tool to warfighters.
Argue the cost, argue the need, but making the argument that the folks at Lockheed all of a sudden forgot how to build capable fighter aircraft is absurd.