I think a whole thread was unnecessary, but I'm glad you at least called it your opinions instead of blatantly calling it BF3's problems. I disagree with nearly all of your cons; I don't want to make huge list, so I'll paraphrase.
- I find jets to be well-balanced. The gun does plenty to aircraft; things can be downed in one well-aimed salvo, and the reload time keeps you from spamming. Once you get Stealth combined with Flares, staying alive is a non-issue; except for the overpowered mobile AA, so you focus on 'em or stay away. Speed is fine for the current map sizes; the flight ceiling is only a problem on the Canals map. Missiles never enticed me, and the rockets are for peppering anyway.
- Sidearm damage is solid. If you're unhappy with taking 3 or 4 shots with a sidearm, there's a bigger problem there.
- Most games overdo explosive radius/damage; if you've seen real grenade or shoulder-fired rocket explosions, you'll see they are fairly localized. I'll admit they are a bit underwhelming in BF3, but that helps prevent spam-rape, and I'm okay with that.
- LMGs, AFAIK, are meant for suppression; rifles are generally the hard hitters. That being said, I have had no problem mowing people down with a Type 88.
- The only choke points I've really experienced are the ones in Metro, which are a given due to design, and I guess in Seine Crossing if your team blows. What else?
- Your point about not making it far in Rush is almost a given. From your BF2 experience, you know just as well as I do that this game is team-oriented. You either wait for the collective player skill to improve, or cut your losses.
- I'll agree with your point about the maps. They are physically huge, but very little is actually put to use. If they did the Back to Karkand pack right, Gulf of Oman and Wake Island should be our salvation.