You have no info or realistic data on the "frontal radar stealth cone" partly because that's not a real measurement and partly because it's classified. The same goes for the "large amounts of heat" which is true of every fighter but far less so of the F-35, whose designers specifically focused on enhancing IR stealth as much as feasible. Besides which, the F-35 having frontal stealth is better than no stealth, because it massively drops detection range and therefore response time - which, y'know, is important for any fighter but especially on a penetration strike mission.

The F-15 cannot, in fact, carry even double the payload. Its max payload is 12,000 lbs greater than the full stores of the F-35, but with that load it's lit up like a chriatmas tree on radar and its performance is drastically reduced, not to mention that a huge chunk of that payload of external stores is actually just gas to try and match the F-35's range and targeting pods to try to match the F-35's inherent capacity as a weapons platform. And if you want to talk slick, the F-35 can haul 6,000 lbs of stores and 18,000 lbs of fuel while maintaining its orders-of-magnitude better stealth.

The euro fighter can't supercruise with a useful combat range and payload. It can only do so slick or with a tiny interception load that means it's up and down and can't even hang around to fight. It's also not a useful measure of a fighter's capacity in the first place.

The F-35 has had those structural problems fixed and is only limited in peacetime to reduce the maintenance load on the RAM. It's also a problem which is being actively fixed - and not representative of a problem whcih would exist in combat.

The "Saab" can't, but the Gripen E might be able to - except that doesn't matter when it gets slotted by an F-35 that it can't see. It especially doesn't matter because those meteors will make the Gripen glow and fly like a pig on fire when compared to the F-35, who can carry missiles and maintain stealth. Oh, and the meteor range is more like 200km against a non-maneuvering, subsonic target - and that assumes it can actually fucking detect the target, which again, it can't.

Radar stealth isn't "dead," much less because of IR - IR has a naturally limited range and even the best IRSTs are barely hitting 60 miles of range in rear aspect. Radars can beat that range by a huge amount, except whoops, no they can't, because the F-35 is stealthy. But the F-35 still has radar to take advantage of the fact that the other guy doesn't have stealth, because they're idiots who thought it was dead. And again, the F-35 has a massively reduced IR signature, and the other jets you named either don't or can't come even close to the F-35.

Look at the F-35's performances at red flags. It's hilarious. But also - how many kills have the Gripen or Eurofighter or F-15EX have to justify you blowing your wad over them?

I have no idea what "limited use period" is intended to mean but the F-35 has an anticipated 50 year service life. F-15s have already served that long - surely their use period is even more limited?

And it requires the same or less maintenance per flight hour versus most of the rest of the fleet. They've been at 15-30 MHPFH average and that's pretty much on par, especially considering their benefits.

But sure, it's a "POS," except that you've been wrong about every single aspect you've spoken to and clearly have no clue about the tactical or strategic implications and benefits of the F-35 in warfare.