KenV,
My I inquire as to which KPPs the F-35 "failed to meet?"
The Defense Department defines KPPs as “performance attributes of a system considered critical to the development of an effective military capability.” In plain English, a Service establishes multiple KPPs for a new weapon system, including attributes for its affordability, range/persistence, payload and weapons capacity, interoperability, sustainability, and even related training and force protection needs.
DoD should consider all of the ramifications of establishing cost as a KPP, but probably didn't as applied to the F-35. It is without question that avoiding 99 percent exquisite platforms that are so costly in favor of developing 80 percent capability solutions results in lowered costs, a higher potential for on time delivery to the customer and the possibility for actually acquiring the number of desired aircraft.
It is highly unlikely the cost goals (KPP) for new F-35 aircraft procurement will ever be met, the gap is too great to overcome. Secondly, an elephant in the living room is the affordability (cost) of maintaining the F-35 aircraft over time in various locations and conditions (KPP). There are no doubt hundreds of KPPs for the entire F-35 operating platform. For sure, some are not being met nor will they ever be met, such as weight for example. Now I will leave the flight capabilities to the pilots on the forum, but IMHO, not all will ever be met because some of the original KPPs have been changed (moving the goal posts) to make it appear all is well and being met. My suspicion is that we will get an 80% performer verses original promises, but pay as if we are getting a 99% performer, my honest opinion.