USN specs
It's very interesting to see the discussion, and to some extent the debate, over how much reliance the DoD contractor for this platform should have placed on the specs for the arresting gear provided by the USN. Interesting because in the eyes of U.S. law, for one particular legal purpose, reliance by a defense contractor on specs provided by the government is the key to the contractor having a special type of legal immunity from negligence lawsuits over injuries or deaths caused by a negligent design. It's known as the "government contractor defense" and it was established as federal law by the US Supreme Court in the case of Boyle v. United Technologies in 1989. If the contractor follows government specs which are "reasonably precise" (IIRC), the contractor cannot be sued under a negligence theory if the design proves defective.
Why or how is this relevant? Well, to those advocating more diligence on the contractor's part, I would ask; 'so following specs insulates the contractor from a damage suit if the weapon system design turns out to be defective and causes the death of one or more servicemembers - but following specs isn't good enough in terms of general attainment of the system's capabilities to fulfill its roles and missions.....Congress could make that policy judgment, of course, but has it done so? It's okay to leave servicemembers and their survivors out of court, even though we turn around as a government and expect the contractor to peer into the specs provided by Uncle Sam and penetrate to find any flaws?'
I'd want to find, read, and analyze legally the rulings of lower federal courts applying Boyle before trying to catch the third wire on this question: if the DoD and/or the Congress in fact do expect LM to redo the data provided by USN, then hasn't the federal gov't canceled the government contractor defense altogether - at least for that specific weapon system; even "reasonably precise" specs no longer would justify reliance. My gut reaction is that the US federal government cannot have it both ways. Even in a multi-role, three-service, fifth generation fighter aircraft.