Weight problems with the STOVL version caused a two year delay. The F-35A/C never had a weight problem but they have benefited from the SWAT trimming done to the F-35B. The rest of the delays can be spread across the rest of the program (production management, ramp-up, software, minor mechanical issues, and projected additional flight tests).

The 2nd F-35B (BF-4, a missionized F-35B) has arrived on the USS WASP, it didn’t melt the deck either 😉

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a6d16817b-d715-41ec-862e-d8375e874ae5&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puj5lueXmJQ&feature=player_embedded

Canada and Australia are not European. Not including their contribution makes the European Then Year SDD funds total only $3.1 billion, not $5 billion.

Was that Rafale dev cost just the initial version, or everything spent to date (the article was in April 2008)? Keep in mind that the 5.7 billion is in Euro which is $7.61 USD.

One of the reasons that JSF cost so much to develop (besides the fact that it is 3 airframes) is that they saw the problems that the F-22, Rafale, and EF has with a spiral development plan and getting to where it needed to be (ie F-22 not having a FLIR, HMD, limited weapons, etc; the Rafale not having an operational AESA, no HMD, inability to self-designate, and the whole VLO issue; and lastly the EF not having an AESA, DASS problems, no A2G (or very limited depending on version) and the non-VLO issue). The JSF program decided to “bite the bullet” and develop all of the systems needed to make the JSF an effective, frontline multi-role fighter from day one of IOC so that post-SDD wavering on dev costs would not hamper the JSF in the field (as they have with the Eurocards).

It would have to tankup very quickly if it did a VT with a 5k payload (3k weapons and 2k fuel) which leaves a 4-5k thrust buffer.

JSF did not suck the money out of Europe. They never had it to being with.

Here is the development cost caps for the JSF project.

<br />
Table 5-1 (In TY U.S. Dollars)<br />
Participant Maximum Contribution<br />
Australia $0.690B<br />
Canada $0.551B<br />
Denmark $0.33B<br />
Italy $0.904B<br />
The Netherlands $0.586B<br />
Norway $0.33B<br />
Turkey $0.690B<br />
United Kingdom $0.952B<br />
United States $16.843B<br />


As you can see, the VAST majority of the development funds came from the US (as it should since they are buying the majority of the F-35s). The top two European Partners gave less than a billion each, some less than half a billion.

It performed it’s first shipboard takeoff on the 4th.

Piloted by Marine Lt. Col. Fred Shenk, BF-2 lifted from the deck of the USS Wasp at 8:45 a.m., Joint Strike Fighter Program Office officials confirmed.

The F-35B will conduct 67 takeoffs and landings at sea over the next two weeks as part of its initial sea trials. However, Wasp is available to the program for six weeks if needed.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=7867619&&s=TOP

Props to Solomon.

That is okay for the short term, but to have a coordinated training program they need to all be in one location. So the original question still is unanswered, will they consolidate, stick with only 6 training F-2Bs, or substitute something else?