Etudiant,
Glad you liked my post - I try to offer information that might help better understand the challenges faced in developing military aircraft.
I would offer a couple of thoughts - Boeing is a huge organisation, and within that there will be people of varying abilities. In the run up to the JSF decision, I had a chance to learn a little about the two teams (Boeing and LM), and Boeing's strong suit was their avionics system integration - 'mission systems'. I heard US Government types saying that what they really wanted to do was to award the airframe contract to LM, and the mission systems integration work to Boeing. However, the rules were 'only one winner'. One of the major causes for the later F-35 delays was the very poor job that LM did in developing and testing the mission system components and software. My guess is that this has added around two to three years at least to the programme.
The other main cause for delays was LM's more or less complete failure to pay attention to airframe weight. This is a huge issue for a powered lift aircraft, where every pound literally counts. I saw first hand a series of poor decisions, driven by a belief within LM that the new computer CAD systems would 'take care of weight control', and that 'the correct aircraft weight would fall out of the design process'. Wrong on both counts, and the subsequent redesign of the F-35 (all 3 variants, by the way, not only the B) added at least 20 months to the programme in around 2003/4. I personally saw examples of really bad airframe design decisions within LM, as well as some really excellent ones.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that any organisation will screw up at some time - the recent 737 Max episode was an absolute shocker for Boeing, but it also shows the perils of not having a competent, active and independent regulator who is able and given the time to ask the 'hard questions'. Thats an issue you will have seen aired hundreds of time on PPrune.
For my money, the biggest risk to any programme, civil or military, is the rise of the 'JFDI' school of management - that's 'Just F*****g Do It'. This is where the schedule and cost (and sometimes marketing) people get to run the programme, and if an engineer steps forward and says that they need more time to look at a problem, they get told to shut up and press on - 'JFDI'. The best way forward is always a team effort. That often means listening to your team when they are giving you bad news.
Best Regards as ever to all these good team leaders who listen and take timely decisions - even if they're hard ones.
Engines