Yes, it is not bureaucracy and supporting facilities that are holding back the F-35C, but the USN have done everything they can to make the Ford at least able to launch and land even the F-18. They are not waiting for the PLA to catch up, but are cleaning up a mess they started from. The problem is basically with EMAL and AAG.I can't stop thinking of F-35 not launched from Ford when J-35 becomes the first. The official line from US media was that Ford need modifications like workspace, maintainence space, weapon handling etc specifically required by F-35 which Ford was NOT abled to be built for because F-35's final form was unknown when Ford was under construction.
That excuse always pazzled me as "what kind of unknown could have been the stopper". So I read GAO's 2016 report on AAG again. Here is what I've found. AAG program decided to test F-18 before F-35 to meet the deadline of having a fighter certified to be deployed on Ford when it is introduced. And that is what we have seen. Any aircraft has to pass dead weitht test, then real aircraft land based roll in test before it can be tested on the ship. Why choose F-18 over F-35? We know that F-35C is one tonne heavier than F-18 in empty and loaded weight. F-35 has higher landing speed than F-18. The kinetic energy is the product of weight and speed, meaning F-35 will put a significantly higher stress on AAG. The report also listed three critical problems of AAG, 1. water twister crack, 2. cable shock absorber damage, 3. software not able to keep aircraft slide out of range sideways. All these problems are made worse if the kinetic energy is higher. And even after rectified it is still riskier to begin with a heavier aircraft. So the natural approach is to go for F-18 first.
So it is not "unable to deploy" as if it can be launched and landed on the ship for a short period, but instead it can not be done even for testing porpuse. The open excuses just avoided to acknoledge the true embarrassment.