Thankfully the reduction is only in the rate of procurement for the next few years. The buys are planned to be made up in later years.
Actually flight tests have been running ahead of schedule, especially for the F-35A. One of the main problems that has slowed down Blk testing has been a backlog in the Software Integration Labs. To address this, LM is adding a third Integration Lab and is converting the Eglin AFB Software Upgrade building to be a temporary Integration lab.
Here is the 2010 DOT&E report on the F-35 program which goes into great detail about it.
http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/Check6/2010%20F-35%20AR.pdf
Although I still believe that LM can beat the new schedule, I am still looking for an egg-on-face smiley 😉
I hope the fact that I posted the article helps put to rest any thoughts that I bow at the LM alter. While I am ever optimistic, I can recognize reality when I see it.
New article that shows a lot of detail in the upcoming plan.
F-35 Replan Adds Time, Resources For Testing
Feb 4, 2011 By Graham Warwick, Amy Butler
Washington, WashingtonDetails of the revamped F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program are emerging and showing that, despite more than nine years of work, almost six years of challenging development and testing still lie ahead for the Lockheed Martin-led project.
Mod Edit: Our restrictions on cutting and pasting copyright material have not been lifted. Please post a link to the article instead of quoting it verbatim.
Sorry, I am used to US regulations on fair use material.
Here is the link to the original article.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?topicName=Check6&id=news/awst/2011/02/07/AW_02_07_2011_p25-287076.xml&headline=F-35%20Replan%20Adds%20Time,%20Resources%20For%20Testing&channel=&from=topicalreports
The logistics of that are not realistic.
Even then it would have a limited lifetime. Besides, the original quote said “nano” which does not have the ability to be active.
Rii: What you are saying has merit when it comes to truly custom integration such as what Israel wants to do with the F-35 (custom ESM, tanks, weapons, etc).
What LM has done, in the case of the F-35A’s refueling options, is literally allow for the exact same refueling system that is in the B&C to be installed in the A. The space is there and the upgrade can be either done on the assembly line or after purchase. If done on the assembly line, the cost will be relatively small as the parts are the same as on the B&C. Let me be clear, the optional P&D refueling capability for the F-35A was designed in from the beginning, not as an afterthought.
Kopp has been disproved left and right, doing it yet again would be a waste of my time.
If it is “dispensed” then it most certainly is not permanent as it would eventually fall to the earth.
Nobody denies that in the 1990’s he worked for LM. You, however, claimed that the article in question was paid for by LM without showing any proof that he has received any money from LM since his retirement 24 years ago.
By all means refute the original article and show where it is “a paid marketing bulletin”.
Is this not the same paper that ran a story recently stating that that the needed changes to the F-35’s refueling capability were not included in the quoted price of the planes. All the while forgetting that they ran a similar story at least a year earlier in which they were told by LM that the “problem” was not one and were also told by reps of the Canadian Gov that the needed changes to the F-35s were already budgeted for.
1. Who’s to say that the paper was told about the General’s past employment yet decided to omit that form the original article. That would be the fault of the Paper, not the General or LM.
2. The General retired from LM Canada in 1997, well before the JSF came along.
3. Steven Staples implies that the General will somehow profit from the F-35, but fails to back this up with any facts.
By all means, show where LM paid for anything.
maus92: You are correct in that I should provide a more through background for the graphs. btw, it is really simple to see when the graph was made. It is standard for these types of graphs to include a dashed line down the chart representing when the graph was prepared. See the graph below for an example.
As to the Mission Systems Schedule posted in #230, that was from a “Military Avionics 2008” conference and the presentation with audio was given by Rick Rosa, Mission Systems Architecture Lead, F-35 JSF Program Office. The site might require signup, which is free. If you have the time, I suggest listening to the whole thing. If not, I have converted it to a PDF HERE
At the same conference was another JSF presentation by Mike Bossert, F-35 Air System Architect. The presentation with audio is HERE with the PDF HERE.
gTg, I blame that on whomever prepped the graph. They did not name it or color it correctly. Below is a better version from the FY2011 SDD Budget docs.
Notice how “First Flights & Test Completion” are separated and are clearly linked to events like “CTOL FF”, “STOVL FF”, “CV FF”, etc. Also note how the “LL” and “FF” in the production section is clearly marked “Long Lead” & “Full Funding”.
Sorry for any confusion.

The Blk 3 software is at least ~5 years behind in time …
Someone is feeding you bad info yet again.
According to the same Pre-SWAT 2001 docs, Blk 3 was to be integrated into the production schedule during LRIP4 (due in 2011). Obviously SWAT caused a shift. The latest schedule has it in LRIP5 (due in 2013).
As to how Blk3 Dev & testing is going, we have to look at where we are today. Blk1 flew in CATB in early 2010 and in an F-35 late in 2010. This is about 1 year behind the post-SWAT plan (mainly due to delays in the cycle of flight tests).
Blk2 was due for it’s first flight test in Mid-2011, but there has been some doubt about making that date due to a supplier problem in the HMD.
So if we add up all the delays since the SDD contracts were signed, the Blk3 First Flight is likely 3 years behind schedule, assuming no further delays or improvements.
The main question is ‘Can they reverse the delay trend?’. I think they can, but they really need to work on it. They will have a few things added to the program that will help. Not only are they transferring LRIP aircraft to the SDD fleet, to take some of the pressure off the testing pace. To achieve this they are adding a third software integration lab, temporarily using the Eglin AFB reprogramming laboratory for integration work, and adding more programmers for the task.
Here is the only detailed Mission Systems schedule I could find that shows in detail when each Blk is scheduled for testing, both in CATB and in the F-35s. Like I mentioned above, they are approx 15 months behind this schedule.

Geoff: Each government who gets quotes on the F-35 knows EXACTLY what is involved, including any optional equipment. It looks like refueing mods are already accounted for in the budget as Defence Minister Peter MacKay said about the refueling issue:
MacKay replied that any modifications for refuelling will be done within the current budget for the F-35s.
Here is a July 2010 article from the same “Ottawa Citizen” that “broke” the above news.
“The airplane design can accommodate both refueling systems,” said Burbage. “Canada has asked us to look at putting the navy refueling system in the airplane and the air force refueling system is already in it. So it gives you a very high degree of flexibility if that’s the way it goes. You’ll be able to use all of your tankers; your probe and drogue and your receptacle-type refueling systems.
“We’ve always had the space to put the navy system in the air force airplane,” he added. “We’ve always expected that a number of the international partners who use probe and drogue-type systems would want the navy system in an air force airplane. That’s not hard for us to do.”
So what was the point of the above article?
Sens: Nobody disputes that SWAT caused a delay in production start, production rate, and IOC. I am just wondering why you think that “FF” in the Production Schedule section ever meant “First Flight”?
LOL, missed that.. It comes from relying on spellcheck too much 🙂