It doesn’t have to acquire targets actively, it can act as a force multiplier by being the platform to drop a missile in the vicinity necessary. Maybe it acts as the block at the end of the hedgerow so to speak, cutting off an escape route. I’m not speaking of you, but I think people around here get caught up in this idea you need to super maneuver and emit large quantities of radiation to get air to air kills.

Exactly. UCAV’s will prove to be extremely useful.

From wiki:
During the Persian Gulf War in 1991, the F-117A flew approximately 1,300 sorties and scored direct hits on 1,600 high-value targets in Iraq
(…)
Only 2.5% of the American aircraft in Iraq were F-117s, yet they struck more than 40% of the strategic targets.

Not to tarnish the record of the F-117, but that stat is more of a function of the ATO’s.

More F-35A new flight info

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:d7eca066-1c70-4a8c-a7e6-03ff31185130

The article mentions that by the end of June, F-35 aircraft have completed about a third of planned flight tests for 2010. Part of reason is mechanical difficulties with the -B models, which have averaged 3 flights/aircraft per month. But by adding the new airframe, achieving the goal of 394 flights is doable.

It also notes some flight test irregularities: oscillation when refuelling behind a KC-130 and a shimmy when going supersonic, but noted that the problems were corrected by “flight control tweaks” – FCS software fixes?

Yes, but a deliberately inaccurate illustration is precisely what gets the dander up for those who are looking for even handed reporting.

I am probably one of the more even-handed posters on this board. My points may not be what you want to hear, but they are fair assessments, and are intended to encourage those interested to examine and understand all the various information sources. I suggest that you carefully re-read what I posted, and not to draw conclusions about me or my postions from the facts I choose to present.

Just one source says this: (talking about where/why JSF costs have increased)

“$8.6 billion goes to propulsion, which is not reflected in Lockheed Martin contracts. Some of this is influenced by the cost of the lift system for the F-35B: the Navy is on the hook for nearly one-third of the $8.6 billion even though only 330 STOVL aircraft are planned (out of over 2,000 planned American F-35 variants)…. And the LRIP contracts with Lockheed Martin are only part of the answer. They don’t include the engine… and none is fixed-price and none has been completed. (The LRIP-1 jets are due to be signed over in September…. all cost-plus and fixed-price incentive contracts, one way or another, split the “execution risk” between the contractor and the government, and Lockheed Martin people are not very specific on how this has been done on LRIP 1 through 3 or how it will be done on LRIP-4….”

Source: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Inflection-Point-How-Much-Is-That-F-35-Fighter-in-the-Window-06375/

In particular, note: “…. And the LRIP contracts with Lockheed Martin are only part of the answer. They don’t include the engine…”

What it all means is there are legitimate questions about what the pricing stated by LM actually means, and the need for all parties to use common metrics stating / analyzing cost (and other) data.

Another F-35A flies

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2010/100707ae_f35a_a-3_nextgentest.html

LRIP-4 contract info.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2010/06/airforce_f35_budget_figures_061810w/

Yea, read the article, but the 40% was an offer that wasn’t accepted according to the same article. It seems more like 20% off the 2009 CAPE estimate, or 60.8m is going to be the price for the LRIP-4 F-35A’s – the other models are going to be more expensive according to other reporting. And according to Sweetman, LM is pressuring its suppliers and subs to cut costs now, with the idea of recovering costs later through higher pricing in later lots. And of course the 60.8/copy doesn’t include development or support costs either. So the fact remains that the JSF / F-35 program will cost significantly more than originally envisioned – there’s no escaping reality.

If LM can produce LRIP-4 for 40% under what CAPE estimated (the basis for the above “public data”), what will this say about CAPE’s credibility with it’s own estimates?

Even with rumored price reductions (40% seems very high – source?), the cost per aircraft will still be more than estimated when the JSF program was started.

If the negative comments had some proof, then your criticism might be less disengenuous. The fact of the matter is that aside from being behind schedule, there hasn’t been one shred of evidence that the plane hasn’t performed as well or better than expected.

There are some indisputable facts surrounding the F-35 / JSF program. According to publicly available data, the program / aircraft will cost significantly more than envisioned, and the program is running behind it’s original schedule by several years.

How well the aircraft actually performs will be discovered in flight test. According to publicly available data to date, the aircraft is performing as predicted, although the testing is still in early stages and will last for several more years.