A1Bill,
We went through the whole simulation evaluation thing for JSFfan's benefit back in 2013, so I don't intend to back over the predicted kill ratios now. From my years of involvement with BVR Combat Simulation (COEIA process) I should remind you of two important points regarding the JSF "trials".
First, even with extremely high-fidelity aircraft, systems and weapons modelling, this simulation is extremely effective at predicting the effects of changes to any subject model, but not so good at running direct, baseline comparisons between aircraft types. This latter issue is especially true when when using desired or expected performance data - all that is available in early development or concept phases.
Second, the outcomes are extremely sensitive to minor changes in aircraft, systems and weapons characteristics. These outcomes are further influenced by the statistical analysis applied to the raw data - don't think for a moment that twenty blokes disappear into a fancy sim for a couple of weeks and come saying "we beat them 6:1 so we know how good it is."
With two "features" of BVR combat simulation in mind you should be able to understand that the results of comparing Aircraft A against Aircraft B need to be properly understood in the context of EXACTLY what the trial was designed to evaluate. The effect of minor inaccuracies in aircraft, systems and weapons characteristics on outcomes is often disproportionate to the scale of the inaccuracies; this means that assumptions about future aircraft performance are critical limitations. The JSF trials were conducted at a very early stage of development when certain characteristics were still reasonable, but ambitious aspirations AND certain elements of the baseline data were reset in 2012. The outcomes would certainly be affected by both those factors.
The results of the trials that were used to support the LER figures must be caveated anyway and are invalidated to an unknown degree by the changes in baseline data.