As JSFfan has chosen to bring up the 6:1 claim again, I shall refresh the flaws in this claim once more. JSFfan, you admitted to no knowledge of the technicalities involved in these evaluations, but stated that you are happy to accept the views of (I paraphrase) those that know. You claimed that you are smart enough to know which sources are reliable and which are not. However, as soon as I challenged you (repeatedly, if you recall) to explain why the simulation used was able to produce the 6:1 figure, you eventually had to agree that that you could not even state what scenarios, modification states, weapons or adversaries had been used in the simulation. How, therefore, could you make a personal, informed judgement about the trial and it's conclusions? I suspect it's more likely that you chose to cling onto and repeatedly quote that figure because it suits your optimistic view of the project and your blinkered and entrenched stance of its successes AND FAILURES.
what are you on about?
I listen to the dozen air forces and LM who are doing these evaluations
they claim a simmed 6:1 with 4 vs 8 red and better than 6:1 when they are piloted.
I certainly give the above more credibility than a blogger
I don't consider this main group blinkered
Joint Strike Fighter Program - C-SPAN Video Library
Defense Department officials testified on the cost, schedule, and performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.