TD, thanks for a great article. Loved it.
I'd like to discuss further the whole concept of F-35 concurrent development. It has without doubt proven to be enormously expensive and disruptive to the F-35 schedule. But the alternative appears to be even more expensive and require even more time. Take the F-16, for example. The A/B model was a great day fighter with no BVR capability and very limited air-to-ground capability. How many A/Bs were built at great expense just so they could end up in the bone yard when the C/D was developed? How long and how much money did it take for the A/B to be developed into the definitive C/D?
The F-15 had a similar development cycle with A/Bs relegated to the boneyard and the C/D being the definitive version of that aircraft. (Followed later by the E. And later still by the SA, K, and SE.) And Gripen followed a similar path with the C/D being the definitive version of that aircraft and the E now completing development.
Typhoon followed a similar development path. Tranche 1 aircraft were limited in capability and RAF seemingly can't wait to get rid of them and no one apparently wanting to buy them even at ridiculously discounted prices. Will they end up in a boneyard, or will they just be cut up and turned into beer cans? Would it have been "cheaper and faster" to skip the Tranche 1s and go directly to the Tranches 2s? That effectively appears to be what they are trying to do with the F-35. The operative word there is trying. We still don't know if they'll be successful, but the signs are positive.
The bottom line is that if we look at the TOTAL cost and time to develop the definitive version of the jet, F-35 may not be all that bad and may even prove to be a great success, concurrent engineering and all. With heavy emphasis on "may." We're clearly still learning how to do all this.