The trouble is that the debate is rather polar between the regular contributors, which is not surprising given the strength of feelings on both sides. These feelings are aided by poor reporting and poor press releases (dumbing down perhaps?) with inaccuracies in reports taken as gospel. The Reuters OT start date is just plain wrong.
Getting a balanced view is difficult without speaking directly to the personnel involved or working on the programme yourself (few opportunities for either option for most posters on this thread I would suggest).
As such Spaz posting updates is useful, if nothing else to see which way the various media outlets try to spin the progress made. The programme is a lot further forward than it was when this thread started, but there is still a way to go. What are the successful criteria for this aircraft? Measured against which other contemporary aircraft/procurement programme?
The companies and militaries involved are not going to put everything out in themedia to satisy the curiosity of internet users (and the Russians/Chinese/Iranians etc). In my opinion there is too much already out there in the public domain...
The debate will continue to rage about 'is it worth it?' but how many people raised that vocally when Typhoon had to buddy laze with a Tornado over Libya after all those years and money spent on design and test?
IMHO the discussion over blurring the line between Development Test and Operational Test is not surprising and is not a new concept in the flight test world. If it gets capabilities integrated and onto the frontline sooner then great.