Originally Posted by Tourist
I think to make that comparison valid Maus you would have to add in the costs and time of the first Hornet development. They may be very different, but the earlier Hornet certainly helped as a prototyping stage.
If I added in Hornet development time, I think I'd have to add in JAST, DARPA (LM was involved in a research program that benefited its JSF entry) and X-35 time to the JSF to be fair. Also, numerous JSF capabilities originally scheduled for IOC are being backburnered to keep even the rebaselined program on track. But I take your point.
@KenV - All variants of F-35 are within a few hundred pounds of their NTE weights as far as contract compliance / KPP goes. The info is readily available in the DOT&E reports and news articles. It is generally understood that interior volume in the JSF is at a premium because everything from fuel to ord to electronics needs to be carried internally to retain signature.
JSF proponents throughout the blogosphere have been attacking the Super Hornet program with renewed interest. I can only surmise that since the Navy has expressed interest in more Super Hornet orders to mitigate their strike fighter shortage (in lieu of comparable numbers of F-35C,) that the JSF fan club feels they must disparage the Super Hornet in order to place the JSF program in a better light.