Far from me to quote anything directly from the likes of Kopp but since this
where the transcripts of an official Australian parliamentary hearing they where
relevant nontheless.
If an official, decision making, institute like this lends its ears to Kopp and collegues than at least we should hear what they have to say, it becomes relevant.
All the speculation aside about their manner of evaluating and scoring different platforms it must be said that for the JSF program cost prediction part APA has been time and again more on the ball than LM and its partners.
They have predicted long in advance that their would be substantial cost and time overruns and have been very effective in determining fairly exact numbers.
Also apart from APA their is offcourse the so-called 'fighter maffia' in the US, they have warned time and time again about the problems the JSF would face ;too heavy, too high drag (fat fuselage) , T/W ratio too low, too high wingloading and too complex because it has to cater to all the different services.
In some , if not most, parts they have been vindicated more than once now.
About the Radar, sure they could be 70's design but because of the type and freq. band used (lower freq from above through ionospheric reflex) and even possibly used as a multistatic system (Xidian) they could still be very useful as a detection device against stealthy airplanes.
Like they said, it's not like the JORN, probably not as sofisticated and up to date but that doesn't mean its ineffective against stealth.