I wonder if this has to do with the overall decline of manufacturing in the US. Supply chains have been moving out of the US so iteration will be slower and more costly. Fewer talents would like to go to manufacturing. Fewer university professors are researching traditional mechanics now, for example, but more on "cutting-edge" stuff like nanometer materials. We also get fewer and fewer highly trained workers on lathing, welding, milling and etc over the years. As a result, it gets more expensive and more risky to build something as complex as F35.
No, its the acquisition process and administrative overhead.
If you give smart people with a good idea a lot of resources to chase it while insulating them from people who want to measure/validate/manage/mandate, you often get good results and sometimes get complete failures.
It is a problem of middle management interfering with the development process, red tape, trying to do everything at once, and requirements that constantly change.
I read a headline and article like that and my immediate reaction is the military leader probably wants to make a name for himself spearheading a new plane – ambition on the part of customers in military acquisition is a real problem. (why are navy ships so big? because navy captains wouldn't feel as important with more, smaller ships)
The problems have little to do with the end-stage production manufacturing, and a lot to do with the engineering R&D.
