Original quote by KenV: Bizzare? "We?" That's your opinion and one held by no one other than the very few "we". Certainly the program was ambitious. In the extreme. But the ambitious nature of the program was dictated by the customer, the US gov't. It was not LM's idea. The gov't demanded a single airframe for all the services despite past attempts at a one size fits all approach having failed. But the US gov't was convinced that new technology would make it possible this time around and demanded it. And a lot of smart folks from a lot of different countries agreed.
We used to call this customer dumping, the customer is alway at fault or wrong. But, nobody forced the tiny little company, Lockheed-Martin, to take this big contract, did they? Today's F-35 problems date back to how Lockheed ran or really may not have run the program. Did L-M really have the knowledge and experience to run a Concurrent Engineering program? If the company didn't the out come tends to be worse than a traditional develop, manufacture and correct deficiencies older programs, program time extends and costs soar.
The implementation of Concurrent Engineering addresses three main areas: people, process, and technology. It involves major organizational changes because it requires the integration of people, business methods, and technology and is dependent on cross-functional working and teamwork rather than the traditional hierarchical organization. Concurrent engineering takes a different organization and a different structure to be successful. In the Concurrent Engineering approach to development, input is obtained from as many functional areas as possible before the specifications are finalized. This results in the product development team clearly understanding what the product requires in terms of mission performance, environmental conditions during operation, budget, and scheduling.
Did L-M do this? Concurrent Engineering brings together multidisciplinary teams, in which product developers from different functions work together and in parallel from the start of a project with the intention of getting things right as quickly as possible, and as early as possible.
Did this take place at L-M?
If L-M ran the Concurrent Engineering program correctly, we would not still be only halfway through the development program and have over 100 development aircraft instead of a population of production aircraft. The program would not be 3-4 years or more behind schedule. I am sure you don't agree, but listen to Lt. General Bogdan in an interview two years ago with the Australian press (not much has changed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFM9myJ4KQc
The elephant in the tent is yet to be known, the operations and sustainment costs for the F-35. AT this point in time, nobody knows for certain what the capabilities of the F-35s are, there are no production aircraft yet just various stages of development aircraft. There is no experience in actual combat conditions. Again you can read a more recent question and answer session with Bogden:
Q&A: Lieutenant General Christopher C. Bogdan