Courtney,
I thought I'd come back to you on one aspect - but with the alert warning that I'm no comms specialist.
Your last post seems to infer that the F-35's MADL system precludes use of other systems such as Link 16. Again, as far as I know, the aircraft has a fairly comprehensive range of comms links, including:
MADL
SATCOM receive
Link 16
Secure VHF/UHF (incl. Havequick)
SINGCARS
Plus others
So, unless I have missed a key point (highly possible) the F-35 can use Link 16, while using MADL. I don't think it's an either/or situation.
I do recall that at one stage on the programme, the stock answer to any question about how data was to get on and off the platform was: 'We'll use Link 16'. That view was somewhat altered once a quite excellent pair of young RAF aircrew came over to Fort Worth and told an agog LM Mission Systems team just how Link 16 operated in the real (NATO) world.
In my earlier post, I was trying (and not very well) to make the point that the whole point of MADL was to allow F-35s to move very large amounts of data around an F-35 formation. To some extent, the issue of how to reconcile physical bandwidth limitations with the ever increasing desire for more and more 'data' to be passed back to central commands is not one that F-35 could solve on its own.
I do know that data communications linkages were closely examined and modelled in the many sets of scenarios run in the US (and also the UK) during the build up to release of the JORD, which specified the required data linkages. Again, as far as I know, none of those comms/interoperability requirements were 'traded away' during development.
Sorry if my lack of knowledge here is too apparent,
Best regards as ever to those making the ones and zeroes move around,
Engines