U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Lightning II fighter jets conduct a training sortie with a KC-130J air tanker somewhere above the East China sea on October 23, 2018. Units – Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 (VMFA-121), 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (31st MEU) and Marine Aerial Refueler Transport Squadron 152 (VMGR-152). Film Credits: U.S. Marine Corps Video by Lance Cpl. Angelo Garavito – Released

It seems that they don’t need the two guns. Hence by “adaptation” I meant something new around the better canon.

More F-35 Fuel Tubes May Need to Be Replaced

“In addition to the previously identified failed tube, analysis has identified two additional fuel supply tubes that require inspection,” Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Defense Department’s F-35 program office, said in a statement. He declined to say how many planes will need to be inspected.

The tubes provide fuel to the combustor and operating pressure to the engine

EDIT:
Better read on MarineCorps Times.com

Because the Marine Corps’ F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing jets are subject to different stresses than the other models, only B models that have reached a certain number of flight hours will be grounded for inspections. F-35A conventional takeoff and landing aircraft and F-35C carrier takeoff and landing jets, however, will have tubes replaced as part of normal phased maintenance.

source:
Bloomberg.com

It may be no surprise that the Navy intends to extend the life of its fleet of T-45 Goshawk jet trainers. But the 30- year plan for the first time announces a program to replace it, beginning in the 2020s. This may help clear up an aviation mystery. For the Air Force’s recent T-X jet trainer competition, two contenders entered existing aircraft, but Boeing decided to design its entry from scratch. That is Defense’s 30-Year Aircraft Plan Reveals New Details http://www.crs.gov | 7-5700 usually more expensive than bidding an existing design. Further, the Boeing design included things like a shouldermounted wing, long landing gear, and leading edge slats typically found in Navy aircraft, and an engine already in Navy inventory. With the announcement of a T-45 followon program, Boeing’s decision to go into T-X with a fresh design may have a clearer rationale.

Source:
The Congressional research service, Defense’s 30-Year Aircraft Plan Reveals New Details
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/IF10999.pdf

F-35 combat missions now have operational ‘threat library’ of mission data files

“The AORs (Areas of Responsibility) for current operations where our forces are — currently have adequate Mission Data Files,” Vice Adm. Mat Winter, Program Executive Officer for the F-35 program, told a group of reporters.
[…]
Overall, there are 12 geographical regions being identified to comprise the library, service developers say.

“We have not fully verified all Mission Data Files for all of the regions where we will operate, but we are slated to be ready by 2019,” Winter said
[…]
“Our fusion engine gets advanced sensors technology to rapidly identify and track targets without the pilot having to do all the work. This fusion is enabled by Mission Data Files,” Winter explained.

source:
Fox News.com

So this is good but I hope Dassault will integrate the down fall in price in airframe design to re-scale their projected cost Vs weight. The next fighters will be bigger… at an equivalent acquisition and lower ownership cost. This is the rule that prevail today. Let’s hope that Dassault will not singular themselves again for the future.

And last but not least, the F-35 is immensely more maneuverable than the Rafale (50% more max AoA for example – that includes full rudder authority at that angle) while marginally slower on paper and undoubtedly faster on a mission . So if they can’t get their equations right today….

Beauty has nothing to do with it when led start flying around… The M2K is beautiful and functional as a weapon. The Rafale is elegant and has its fair share of in-design limitations. Let’s hope that amateurish unhelpful narratives as above stay at bay – at least the time this thing is fully conceived. Then that they paint it in blue, pink or tactical black …who cares: Stormy shadow will be… “invisible”! 😉

EDIT (cross-posting from SP):
What is the gull-winged mockup on the left?

And a suggestion to why such large wing: collapsible vertical tails.

Also notice that it seems to have asymmetrical wing design what suggest two different versions: the pointy for AdlA (left wing) and the larger one for the Marine (with collapsible verticals?)

At last it seems that this thing is in the expo to display something

[ATTACH=JSON]{“data-align”:”none”,”data-size”:”full”,”title”:”MDBA NGF7-rem.jpg”,”data-attachmentid”:3838817}[/ATTACH]

Obviously. You are absolutely correct.
But if some airbases are fitted with appropriately constructed hangars (remember that we are not talking of a routinely used compound that does have to sustain the day to day heavily regulated activity), then perhaps the impact that have this kind of incident could be statically reduced.
The plan anyway was to park everything in this hangar what led to the potentially high damages rate since it was not able to sustain the wind gust experienced. So the planning is not faulty and makes senses. But the material (hangar design) or the objectives set were probably not adequate with the task or deemed strategic enough to be fully understood . It can be also that plans were not up to date with the rise of occurrence, costs of potential losses, shortened alert time and magnitude of such events). Was there a failure? Certainly. The question is not who to blame but, since we have here a systemic failure, how it could have been prevented.

My 2cts from far far away…