Feels like we're missing a piece of the puzzle in this story. Maybe something else happened over that year? Politics? The story starts as you'd expect. Accidents happen. Support. Returning to duty. What went wrong?
So they fire the guy, and promote someone else that can be relied on to say that the F-35 has no more defects than any other plane had at this point in the program, and we can trust the US military industrial complex to deliver the F-47 in a similar fashion.
At the same time, you send a message: eject when your plane is misbehaving and you'll end your career. Sure, there's a risk that someone won't eject when they should, but there's also a chance that you'll be able to cover up another malfunction when the pilot nurses the plane back to base.
Did Pizzo say anything disparaging about the F-35? I doubt it. But when you've got billions of dollars of revenue/potential embarrassment on the line, you don't take chances.
The F-35 is technically capable but even that is subject to export controls despite being purpose-built for export. A lot of European companies have a large stake in the success of the F-35 in its various versions because they are building it for European customers.
Not the typical mindset of someone wanting true superiority through military power. Makes you think twice.
The F35 is expensive, keeps the defense apparatus going, and ultimately gets paid for by other countries. F22 barely reached production, so F47 will be interesting.
Rolls-Royce builds the LiftSystem for the F-35B variant.
Martin-Baker builds the ejection seats for all F-35s.
Leonardo builds the wing sets.
Rheinmetall is planning to build fuselage for a large number.
Kongsberg developed the Joint Strike Missile meant to be carried inside the fuselage to maintain stealth profile while engaging targets at long ranges.
While the European defense contractors may promise a comparable plane, they have a poor track record of delivering such a thing anywhere close to the near future.
The unfortunate reality, which the US is exploiting, is that Europe would struggle to produce an equivalent of the nerfed F-35, never mind one that hadn’t been nerfed. As a consequence, the US can sell nerfed F-35s all day. There aren’t many alternatives currently. 4.5 gen aircraft aren’t competitive in a serious conflict and everyone knows it. Even the US has to contend with that reality.
Some general's wet dream of dogfights in Maverick's style are modern day fantasies. What those planes are used for are just lobbing glide bombs or shooting missiles. Their biggest enemy is on ground. Sure, small radar signature helps massively but that's not enough. Otherwise US would send 500 F-35 into North korean airspace and wipe out most of its military... not going to happen.
I don't think you can conclude that when neither of the belligerents has the capability. As Gulf War shows, training and capabilities (including stealth) do enable SEAD/DEAD to an extent that unlocks air superiority.
USA has air superiority only against 3rd world countries, and even then, history shows that air superiority has never won any war.
Air superiority alone doesn't, but it's a massive force multiplier.
I guessed you meant that that one case proves something about air superiority or Iran having an advantage over USAF, so I responded with a historical parallel.