Err... if the F-35 was designed for "ongoing upgrades right from the start," someone's not been doing their job very well.
As evidenced by the painfully slow and difficult progress with TR3, which is not a very ambitious upgrade, and which still hasn't been achieved.
Without an open systems architecture, and without sensible partitioning of flight safety-critical software from missionware, an aircraft becomes MUCH less easy to upgrade (or even to integrate new weapons, sensors and systems), and every time that you try to upgrade it, you will face a significant test and recertification burden.
If you have a rigid and inflexible vendor and NOFORN lock you won't even be able to upgrade Mission Data Files with any degree of agility. Compare and contrast the ability to upgrade the Typhoon's MD between sorties (and they're working on inflight MD load iteration and upload) with the infrequent MD iteration possible using ACURL.
If you have an LO airframe you can't add new antennas or apertures.
All of this should tell you that the F-35A's upgradeability is VERY limited.
As to how the organisation thinks, if it thinks the F-35 is going to be viable as your primary air power tool post 2035 then it's at odds with the USAF, the RAF, the AMI, the JASF, the RSAF, the Lufwaffe, the AdlA, and the Spanish Air Force.
It's wrong.
As to you, 20+ years doing what, exactly?
Have you:
Flown F-22? Flown F-35B? Led the F-35B EU? Been the senior responsible owner of F-35 tactics? Been an F-35 capability manager? Worked on a 6th Gen fighter programme? Reached Wing Commander rank or above?
Unless you have done all of these things, then your experience, and the value of your blunt, unsupported, one sentence assessments is of no value beside the opinion of Jonathan Smith.
And unless you give a detailed summary of your qualifications and expertise, then frankly, most people will assume that you have no relevant experience, and are an empty vessel.
I am genuinely sorry if that sounds harsh and mean no offence.
