Maus92 - Good observation. The longer it drags on, the more it is likely to end up like the F-111: by the time that it's fixed, the U.S. customer will be on to the next shiny object. This process is likely to kick into higher gear once the bomber contract is issued (they're aiming for the summer). The variable-cycle engine is the key technology - and putting it in the short, stout F-35 airframe would be like putting a turboprop in a P-47.
And this applies even if nobody in the next 5 years or so comes up with a l@ser that weighs about a ton and puts out enough energy to zorch an incoming missile, 30-45 seconds out, with a dwell time and fire rate that allows you to kill one target every 5 sec or so, and that can squeeze off 10-15 shots between <5 min recharges. If that happens all bets are off because the whole problem of tracking and leading the target goes away.
Where this could be super-seriously painful for the partners is in the upgrade budget. I don't see any sign that the R&D for upgrades will be any less than the thick-end-of-$1bn annual average for very slow improvements to the F-22. Which means that even when there are 1000 F-35s in the fleet, each operator gets the Make General Repairs to All Your Houses card once a year, to the tune of $1m per jet, just for R&D.
Last edited by LowObservable; 24th Jan 2015 at 13:36.