And as to your question to why I think it's flawed, there are enough reports, media stories, official and otherwise to wrap that one up (DOT&E 2015 exec summary being just one)
May I politely suggest that the above is self contradictory? The DOT&E report does
not slam LM's failure to meet the requirements, it slams the governments' failure to make their requirements meet real world operational needs. Can you provide flight test data showing LM is failing to meet the customers' requirements?
What aspects of the customer/'s contract/specs are flawed?
You'll have to ask the DOT&E director about that. He's making the claim, not me. And as I already said twice, I have my doubts about that.
And if they are flawed, why didn't or hasn't LM said so, either at the time they were set down and requested, or since?
May I politely point out that the above statement is indicative of ignorance and/or naivete. A contractor's job is NOT to question a customer's requirements, but to design and build a product that meets those requirements.
Please allow me to provide several examples. When the customer wanted a mach 3 bomber, the contractor provided one. It was called the B-70. Other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a mach 3 interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-12. Again, other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a small, simple high speed interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-104. USAF bought only a few because, surprise, the requirements were flawed. The F-105 also brilliantly met its requirements, but as it turned out, the requirements were very flawed for the air war in Vietnam. The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s. And this does not just apply to military aircraft. When the customers wanted a supersonic airliner the contractor produced one. The resulting aircraft was brilliant, but the requirement was flawed and so only very few were built. And so it goes.