The impression I get is that it's usefulness heavily depends on the parameters of engagement, and how useful you see the plane as being hinges on what type of e

The impression I get is that it's usefulness heavily depends on the parameters of engagement, and how useful you see the plane as being hinges on what type of engagement you see as the most likely. One of the criticisms is that the plane is too expensive to use against non-peers. What I'm reading between the lines is that all of this technology is designed to counter advanced enemies. There's no reason to use an F-35 in somewhere like Iraq because they don't even really have the means to combat F-22s. There's no point in expensive, fancy stealth fighters if your enemy lacks the ability to detect and counter much simpler planes. That leaves the technologically advanced foes. The pivotal question there becomes "how well does the stealth work?", and the answer probably heavily depends on where the combat takes place. If we're fighting a proxy war in a third world country, the F-35 probably makes a lot of sense. Even if our foes have detection capabilities, they would need to get them deployed and make sure we don't destroy them. It also presumes that our advanced foe is willing to show their hand and give their detection hardware to the proxy country, giving up a future advantage. This thing just doesn't seem capable of dogfighting, so a sheer technological advantage is a must in order for it to be successful. Otherwise it will have to be deployed with planes that can dogfight, ruining the stealth advantage. The open ended question is "Do we have a technological advantage, and can we maintain it?". Everyone's perception of the plane is flavored by their answer to that question.