It is also said that "Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different outcomes." (Apparently not by Einstein.)
Engines - "It's my view that the Pentagon used STOVL to keep the aircraft single engined single seat to control costs. It's worth remembering that they were coming off the back of a series of major (and really costly) project failures involving large twin engined tactical strike aircraft."
Interesting and possibly true, although I don't remember that from my association with the project in its formative years. What I heard from most people at the time was that the main weapon against cost - and against Augustine's "one tactical aircraft in 2054" theory - was commonality, and consequent high-rate production and unified support.
Of the pre-JSF projects, only A/F-X was a large twin-engine, two-seat aircraft and it was Navy-led. MRF looked bigger than an F-16 (range) but was not to be a two-seater. It was mainly the Navy who had to be talked into a single.
"At some time in the future, there's probably a good book to be written by insiders on the F-35 programme on what went right and what went wrong."
I hope it doesn't take 34 years...