You know very well I can't, neither can you or anybody else outside of the program
I'm not talking about classified test data. I'm talking about open source test data that justifies your conclusion that the F-35 is "so flawed." The tail hook debacle was one. LM solved that. The engine turbine problem was another. P&W solved that. The helmet was another. VSI solved that. These are all reasons why a test program exists. What other tests has LM failed that make the airplane "so flawed."
Really? Under no circumstances should a contractor question a customer's requirements, even if some or even large parts of it, look to be unachievable?
Almost none. At least none I can think of. And certainly "unachievable" is a miserable yard stick. Was a moon ship achievable in 1960 when JFK committed the US to building one? Was an 8 engine jet bomber achievable when USAF committed to building the B-52? Was a mach 3 bomber achievable when USAF committed to building the XB-70? Was a mach 3 ISR aircraft achievable when the CIA committed to the Oxcart project? Was a reusable space plane achievable when NASA committed to building the Shuttle? Was a single stage to orbit rocket achievable when NASA committed to building the Venture Star? Was a carrier based stealth attack aircraft achievable when USN committed to building the A-12? In the case of the 1st five they were all accomplished, but the B-70 was never put in production. In the case of the last two, neither were accomplished. The name of the game in aerospace is pushing the envelope and pushing the technology. Often it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Was it Boeing's, McDonnell Douglas's, Lockheed's job to question the wisdom of
once again trying to make a one-size-fits all tactical aircraft after the numerous previous disasters trying to accomplish that? No. Their job was to do their best to accomplish what the customers (both US
and non-US) insisted they needed. Now that it's built, is it the contractors' fault that the requirements (allegedly) don't meet the need? Nope.
It (the Lightning) met or surpassed the requirements it was required to in the 1950's, end of story.
End of story? You wish!! And you just
confirmed my point. Military aircraft fly for decades. If the requirements are very narrow and ambitious, brilliant designs like the Lightning and Starfighter are almost inevitable. But the requirements were flawed because the aircraft that resulted were point designs that could not evolve effectively with the threat. Is the contractor responsible for that? Nope.
IF as you and others claim the F-35 is operationally defective, that's not the contractor's fault. It is the fault of the various governments that set those requirements. And in no way was it LM's job to question those requirements.