Thank's CM, it's nice to read you weren't slagging hard working US/UK test pilots and I'd agree that they tend to present the positives
so there seems to be not much other that the public DOT&E main issues we all know about and agree need to be addressed for final DOT&E in 2017/18 or later if there is another slip
I do Listen to the ADF, Pentagon USAF and USMC where it relates to our LHD and f-35A, as well as LM ..I tend to be conservative on what I believe on forums.
one of the coments "Things do not always get ‘fixed’ properly – like for example drastic reductions in the sustained g or accel times" that I would like to clarify the fact. I think you are assuming it was a surprise when it has been said publicly in SAR since 2001 that some unspecified KPI's weren't being met
early model 240-3. is prior to the current 240-4 f-35 that was LRIP 1
It was reported that the early f-35a 240-3 sims had 61sec and 4.9g, and the model change 240-4 showed 63 sec and 4.6 in test flight, I don't know what the sims were for 240-4
so even before the first f-35 was built, it showed that it was never going to get those, they weren't a KPP, and they were chasing external weapon load, combat range and f-35b total weight..if the US/partners really wanted those accel/g parameters, they would have asked for it to be a KPP and shift other/s to a lower priority
I'll put up a link, but I don't recognise the mission or loads that he is associating to it and I think he may have mixed them up
F-35 Air Combat Skills Analyzed