Any contract signed is with the DoD, not LM.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AMONG THE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE OF AUSTRALIA
AND THE
MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE OF CANADA
AND THE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF DENMARK
AND THE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
AND THE
STATE SECRETARY OF DEFENCE OF THE KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS
AND THE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE OF THE KINGDOM OF NORWAY
AND THE
UNDERSECRETARIAT FOR DEFENSE INDUSTRIES ON BEHALF OF THE
MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE OF THE
REPUBLIC OF TURKEY
AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
AND THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CONCERNING THE PRODUCTION, SUSTAINMENT,
AND FOLLOW-ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
(Short Title – JSF PSFD MOU)

The reason is that they had to completely redo the contract as the original LRIP4 contract was a Cost+ model and the new one is a Fixed+Incentive (IIRC) model.

Both sides are going over every item in the program to make sure that there will not be any surprises that cannot be accounted for.

A funny claim to stay polite. The true cost are the ones a customer has to pay for his F-35B when he signs the order. Just examples ordered after 2016 will be delivered to true costs by your logic. 😀

Which part is funny?

Any choice, and contracts signed, will be made several years from now when the F-35B is much cheaper than it is today. To compare the F-18 to what the F-35B costs today (early LRIP) is what is truly funny.

Recovery speed is 135 knots, compared with F-35A 155 kts. Takeoff speed is 15-20 kts lower.

F-35C is rated at 7.5 G sustained with limited 9G and has slower acceleration and roll rate, but improved sustained turning ability.

The lower G of the B/C models is not a design limitation, but a artificially imposed limit to reduce maintenance costs.

Persistence to prevent enemy movement

That is what UCAVs and other ISR assets are for. A fighter will not be efficient if it always carries a huge amount of fuel around just to play whack-a-mole.

Multi/hyperspectral sensing to find camouflaged targets

The EODAS is a step in this direction. There is another system (I forget the name ATM) for UAVs that can view dozens of targets simultaneously (2-3 fps video rate).

Hypersonic “something” to kill time sensitive targets before they disappear.

Already in development. Check out things like HyFly
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/hyfly.htm

The F-35’s fuel-based cooling system keeps it away from the leading edge and skin by dumping the heat out the rear of the plane via a heat exchanger in the engine inlet.

What would be more important for the RCS confirmation

That’s easy. A lab test because YOU CANNOT TEST A REAL PLANE due to structural limitations.

The key to a lab test is the ability to control the environment and be able to replicate the results.

As per this PDF, the F-22 was tested in the same way.

When all the flight tests are done, they will likely do some aerial RCS tests, but this will be just to verify information that they have already gathered and simulated.

What kind of test is being done in the F-35? right now, at this moment.

You need to be more specific as most aspects of the F-35 are being tested in some way.

Here is a good source on RCS testing facilities.
http://www.thehowlandcompany.com/Bluefire.htm#RCS101

over G, your original post stated that RCS testing would not happen till after the flight testing was over. We were just showing you that LM has several aspects of the F-35 program that are in SDD at the SAME TIME.

These include:
1. Simulation testing of various systems
2. CATB (and other) flying testbed aircraft
3. RCS testing of the HALO (and other) models
4. Ground static test models
5. Final flight clearance testing of Flight Sciences (AA-1,AF-1,2,3,BF-1,2,3,4,CF-1,2,etc) airframes

I am sure that there a more that I missed.