Just happened to run across this:
https://www.pogo.org/analysis/2019/06/the-f-35-and-the-captured-state/?fbclid=IwAR1iWUQKCAjdQwNDu4MhHgBnZyH4W8d9QZlIEB5-m_YMvxWC3Wa7lIkvz_0
I was involved in the program for 10 years from about 1997-2008 and won't try to defend it. I have also been involved in negotiations for data rights. Contractors usually charge a very high price for data rights, and even then, some will be withheld to protect their trade secrets. If the government decides to pay this high price, then the government has to manage the data rights and manage the procurement of spare parts. That's a lot of contracting and inventory, and they have to ensure that parts are made to spec. On the other hand, they can let the contractor keep the data rights, but then the contractor has the government over a barrel when it comes time to negotiating follow-on procurements. This latter aspect is supposed to be mitigated by fair negotiations, as the article points out.
The article mentions ALIS. That system was very much hyped, along with PHM (prognostics health management or maintenance). The F-35 was going to be so cheap to fly that DoD would be making a profit! I was always very skeptical of the claims, and sure enough, they fell short, so that's not a big surprise. It doesn't justify the current situation, but it points out that drunken hype and the momentum of from the top levels of Pentagon far outweigh sober talk from a lowly mid-level person like me. I will point out that Congress was very much onboard with this program, so they don't have much credibility with me when they now complain.
The MC rates are low. Again, no surprise. I did some growth modeling of the F-22 when I worked on that program to show that the claims of the USAF and Lockheed were wildly optimistic - wildly. MC rates will improve, but they didn't and don't meet the requirements, and that should be a big concern But the usual course of action is for Congress and DoD to summon the Lockheed Martin executives DC, beat them up, do a program review in Fort Worth to scrub costs, the LM executives promise to leave no stone unturned to shave every single penny, and then we forget about it for a couple of years. If I was at my previous position, I would have pointed that out as loud as possible, but again, I know from experience that it would be for naught. I was there when the F-22 went through its production decision, and it didn't meet many (or all) of its reliability, maintainability, and availability requirements, but nobody cared - just buy the damn thing and we'll fix those problems later. I was at some very tense meetings with USAF discussing this.
FWIW, I've seen this firsthand on Navy and Army systems too. Note that the F-35 was birthed during the Clinton years of acquisition reform, so things like giving the contractor a lot of control -- and ultimate responsibility -- came from that era.