How about holding the next Bold Alligator in the Falklands 🙂

Yup 😉

Without the STOVL requirement, the JSF competitors would have been completely different airplanes. They probably would be much, much larger, twin engined and have a 1200-1500 NM combat radius. Basically, it would replace the F-111 and Navy’s failed A-12.

The USAF (and most partners) requirement (the largest single buyer) was for a single engine replacement for the F-16. If anything the F-35 would have been trimmer while still maintaining the single engine.

The odds of it ending up a twin engined fighter are miniscule at best.

Don’t believe every chart you see. I have found several examples of budget docs (where this chart came from) where numbers were just cut & pasted from the year before.

Other docs from 2009/2010 show USAF IOC after SDD (Blk3) and USMC after Blk2 release.

My point is that you are assuming something that is opposite from every announced plan for both the USMC and USAF based on the position of a star on a chart while ignoring the written & spoken word.

You may have learned in the meanwhile that the dated powerpoint claims from LM are no longer true. They are working on Blk3 right now, but the planned final capability of that will be delayed for several years.
http://elpdefensenews.blogspot.de/2011/07/f-35-weapons-clearance.html

I think you are trying to argue just for the sake of argument. Delays in SDD are not in question. What is the issue is LO’s claim that at one time the USMC was planning IOC at Blk1 and USAF was planning IOC at Blk2 without any source to backup the claim.

You keep saying things that you have not shown any source for and that go against what the program has been saying since the very beginning.

Show me a doc that says USAF IOC with anything less than Blk3.

@LO:

Every schedule from the beginning has shown USMC IOC (Blk2) happening before USAF IOC (Blk3) and both happening before their respective IOT&E stages.

Here are just a few:

From 2001

2006

Later

2009