I see this argument being raised a lot, but there's not a ton of evidence suggesting the problems with the F-35 is that it has to have these three different var

I see this argument being raised a lot, but there's not a ton of evidence suggesting the problems with the F-35 is that it has to have these three different variants. The lion's share of the issues with the F-35 have to do with the acquisition strategy and the avionics. The acquisition strategy of procuring the planes before they were fully operational, like CI/CD but with fighter jets instead of aircraft, has made everything much more expensive and has really hurt availability because you have a dozen slightly different builds of the same plane, and across three variants. Any time an issue is fixed they have to roll it out to all of the different builds, which adds to costs. The second major issue is the advanced avionics and the software for associated systems, like the MDL and ALIS. In short, it's a software problem. Neither or these are really related to having three different variants. It's not really fair to compare this to the F-111 debacle, because there we genuinely saw incompatible intended uses for the same plane. The Air Force wanted a tactical bomber, while the Navy wanted an interceptor, these are very different designs. But for the F-35 everyone wants the same thing: a multirole fighter.