i guess when your favorite plane is an EF or rafale the design, delays and cost over runs of them to the point they are almost obsolete even while they are being built, is a non issue
but any hint with the f-35 brings howls of delight

they are putting nearly an extra 3 bil into more test aircraft and testing
they are still scheduled for IOC 2013

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4463029&c=AIR&s=TOP

“The path we were on was too aggressive, so there’s an effort underway to reduce concurrency, to lengthen the period associated with testing, to increase the number of test assets and make the production rate somewhat less ambitious,” Schwartz said during a briefing with reporters in Washington.

The F-35 will be ready for initial operational capability with the Air Force in 2013, said U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz .

well thats good, the only thing holding rafale back IMHO is throwing a bucket of money for its development, which i’m glad to see is being addressed
the better rafale is for france, the better it is for nato too

Unfortunately, this seems to be true…

However, it will be interesting to see who will pay the price in the end.
LO isn’t as important as presented, so no one really needs JSF (it isn’t really a “nice to have” or handy, either) and that might leave US with a ~$600+b of bills (USNavy estimates JSF program went from $300b to >$700b!). I think the relatively small participation of partners in JSF program, shows their caution, as well as absence of contractual numbers, like in EF’s case, f.e. and I’d say partners participate with one hand on ejection lever…

We’ll see, though…For now, it seems JSF got itself another year…

this was covered on the last page, the navair is based on the jet assessment of averages for past aircraft types
LM disputes the jet assessment and quotes that the f-35 hasnt gone up
there doesnt seem to be a base to say this project went from estimated 300-700 as stated by LM

Not necessarily. The USA has not permitted the integration of every weapon customers have asked for in the past.

“Can have integrated” implies the USA doing the integration: nobody outside the USA likes this idea, for several very good reasons. For example, the USA might find out more about foreign weapons than the suppliers wish the USA to know, & would be able to charge what it wants for integration.

ok, i should have added, within reason
no one is forcing anyone to buy the plane, dont like the terms, dont buy it, simple

IMO, they just want the shell and cram it with own electronics.

if they can get their gear certified, it would open a sales market for them, at this point there is no 3rd party market on the f-35 for them

its a shame he didnt do proper research for the article

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/04/20/325334/indian-air-force-says-rafale-still-in-fighter-competition.html

Indian Air Force says Rafale still in fighter competition
The Indian Air Force has denied reports that the Dassault Rafale has been eliminated from the country’s medium multi-role combat aircraft competition

The only source of this claim is Jon Lake. Nough said.

aussies and sg are very close, as like france and usa, they also train here, its said both ef and rafale were considered underdeveloped and higher risk, on aussie forum with connected guys, it is said rafale didnt SC at sg,
aussies dont have a dog in this race, so i accept what they said, its coming from too many sources
its probably because of the higher temp than europe

so people are still using bill as quoteable
in regard to navair, i think it is appropriated and responsible of navair to compile a report based on jet’s concerns
this however does not lend weight to the jet report, its simply wise to consider all opinions

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/01/14/337134/usn-officials-raise-concern-about-f-35-affordability.html
The US Naval Air Systems Command’s top cost estimator has warned in a new internal briefing obtained by Flight International that the Lockheed Martin F-35B/C variants are getting harder to afford.

Lockheed continues to insist, however, that cost estimates within the programme have not changed since 2007, which it says is supported by its recent contractual performance.

But the NAVAIR briefing, presented to US Navy officials on 4 January, adds fuel to a series of recent reports that the Department of Defense is taking a more conservative approach to estimating the F-35’s overall costs, with potential production unit cuts likely in the fiscal year 2011 budget request scheduled for release in February.

According to NAVAIR’s cost department, the F-35’s total ownership costs, including development, production and sustainment, has doubled to $704 billion since Lockheed won the contract eight years ago.

Moreover, NAVAIR estimates the total of 680 short take-off and vertical landing F-35Bs and carrier-variant F-35Cs, ordered by the US Marine Corps and USN, respectively, will cost $30,700 to fly each hour. This compares to $18,900 for the Boeing AV-8B Harrier II and Boeing F/A-18A-D, the aircraft types the Joint Strike Fighter will replace.

Although NAVAIR projects the F-35 will fly 12% fewer flight hours than the AV-8B and F/A-18A-D fleets, the agency expects the modern aircraft to cost as much as about 25% more to operate at peak rates, the briefing says.

The unexpected cost increases mean the F-35 “will have a significant impact on naval aviation affordability”, the NAVAIR document concludes.

Dan Crowley, Lockheed executive vice-president for the F-35, says the presentation reflects an ongoing dispute between the programme and the Joint Estimating Team (JET). The NAVAIR presentation bases its cost assumptions on the latest JET study.
The programme uses a “bottom-up” approach to estimate costs, while the JET and NAVAIR estimates use a parametric model, Crowley says.

But the dispute is not a trivial matter. If the DoD decides to submit a budget request based on the JET’s higher estimate, Lockheed’s orders for production aircraft could decline. Such a reduction sets the stage for the so-called “acquisition death spiral”, as fewer orders lead to higher unit production costs, which in turn cause further cuts.

But Crowley says that a production cut next year would not necessarily trigger a death spiral. Under Lockheed’s interpretation of recent acquisition reform laws, the company could deliver more aircraft to the government than are put under contract.

The first test of this theory could arrive during negotiations for the fifth annual lot of low rate production. “The government will be monitoring our prices for LRIP-5,” Crowley says.
Meanwhile, Lockheed will continue to develop its capacity planning based on the assumption that it will deliver one jet every working day by 2015 or 2016, says Crowley.