LO,
It's not grammar pedantry to point out what words mean. It's a little odd to correct someone because they use words like 'excuse' and 'arguably' within the generally accepted definitions of the words but outside the way you personally like to use them.
I'm envious of your contact list of former LM employees. The people who designed the U-2 weren't the same ones that designed the F-22. Just as BAE Systems (in all its former guises and merged companies) has a long history of coming out with mediocre compromised collaborative projects, arguably (just for your benefit) LM has a pretty distinguished history of making best-in-class airplanes. As a Brit, I would love it to be the other way round, but that's how I see it and judging by the success of F-16 & F-35 in the export market compared to Jaguar, Tornado & Typhoon I'm not the only one.
You have indeed provided chapter and verse for your opinions of LM. I've provided the basis of my opinions of both LM/F-35 and Eurofighter/Typhoon - first hand experience of working the programs and flying the airplanes over several years in both cases. When I was at school I was encouraged to give greater weight to first hand sources rather than second hand ones, but perhaps you were taught differently. My inherent bias is that as an ex-mil pilot, I want the best military capability for my buddies who still have to fly into harms way.
For the sake of everyone else on the forum, let's save the Concorde, TSR-2 and F1-11 vs Tornado etc debates for another thread. Maybe we could debate wotif Concorde had a bomb bay...?
Respectfully,
Single Seat, Single Engine, The Only Way To Fly