ICBM and Others,
I absolutely agree that the SDSR decision and the subsequent U-turn is a major cock-up. Although, perhaps, Hammond may deserve some credit for changing course when all the best evidence told him he had to. In 'Yes Minister' terms, it was certainly a 'brave' decision.
I don't know all the insider details, but trying to pin it on 'Over-zealous senior officers' in a 'Former Navy' who were pursuing a 'Nirvana' seems simplistic at best. I have heard, from reliable quarters, that by SDSR 2010 there were plenty of scientists and Service officers (including RAF and RN) who were briefing hard against the F-35B. My take, for what it's worth, is that is plenty of blame to go around.
It's fair to criticise the programme, and also right. It's had plenty of problems and will have more. There are decent books to be written about the reasons, I'm sure, at some time in the future. But there has been plenty of independent, published reporting and analysis (GAO, Congressional Research Service and the US DoD to name three) throughout the project. You could, fairly, look at the lack of visibility on some UK and European projects, and wonder what PPrune would have been saying had they been subject to this level of scrutiny. As I said, I think this scrutiny is all good. But it needs to be rational.
My take is that the F-35 is a fairly typical US programme - they aimed very high, and are pushing the bounds of what is achievable. They are fired and fuelled by optimism, a 'can-do' approach, and of course, very large budgets. For my part, I like to focus on what they are getting right as well as their problems. Especially the stuff that our UK engineers and pilots are getting right.
Best regards as ever to those doing the job,
Engines