The article quotes $250m per aircraft. That's utter tosh. Baloney. It may be the approx cost per aircraft of early LRIP jets, but not across the total buy. That'd be insane.

I'm not surprised that Axe doesn't get that.

Any news from the A10 vs F35 games yet?

It flies! I saw it with my own eyes not two hours ago. Not the most exciting display.

Good to see the Harrier airborne as well. Also volumes to be said for having proper fast jets on dispels teams.

Any news from the A10 vs F35 games yet?
 

Possible stupid question but can the A10 v F35 games start until Block 3F software is available? Putting an F35 with two internal weapons for CAS against an A10 would not quite be a level playing field.

Block 3i software development complete...
 

The F-35 JPO has declared that the 3i software is good to go, but wasn't Gilmore up before Congress only about a week ago saying that 3i was still riddled with bugs?
Good news if they've cracked it though nontheless...

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...softwa-425098/

F-35 Program Office Signs Off On Air Force 3i Software

-RP

I thought the Marines had signed off on IOC.


Oh...wait.

A Day in the Life of An F-35 Test Pilot

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. — Here at the F-35 integrated test force, pilots spend their days simulating real missions to prepare the jets to one day operate on the battlefield.

Defense News got a glimpse into the day-to-day life of an F-35 test pilot during a May 4 visit to Edwards Air Force Base. We followed Maj. Raven LeClair, assistant director of operations for the 461st flight test squadron, as he zipped up his flight suit, climbed into the cockpit, taxied to the runway and finally took off into the clear, desert sky.

Around 10 a.m., LeClair walked out to begin checking his jet, which was loaded with a version of the Block 3F software that will eventually give the plane its full combat capability. AF-3 was set to fly a captive carry missile test using AIM 9X and AIM 120 missiles, an exercise meant to test that the loaded weapons can communicate with the jet's main computer.

The first sign of trouble was the appearance of a “nuisance ICAW,” which stands for indications, cautions and warnings — essentially a false indication that the 270-volt battery that powers up the aircraft had failed. The team had to restart the jet's main power plant twice to get the false warning light to go away. Then, the jet’s electronic warfare system failed to power up correctly. The team tried recycling the different systems to avoid fully restarting the jet, also called a “cold iron” reset, but had little success.

Just before 11:30 a.m., the team shut down and rebooted the jet, starting the entire process from scratch. But this time, the startup was clean, according to John Day, AF-3’s flight test control engineer. At 11:40 a.m., the pilot got a thumbs up, and Day took a bow. “The second startup was so clean, it was ridiculous,” he said.

LeClair finally lifted off around noon, lighting up his afterburner to cheers from the team.

But problems continued after liftoff. During the flight, one of the weapons had problems talking to the main computer, and LeClair was forced to land again so the team could reset the stores management system. AF-3 eventually completed the planned mission, but the team observed a number of “anomalies” during the flight. They plan to review the test data to determine a root cause.

The startup issues LeClair and AF-3's team experienced May 4, though just one test point, are representative of what F-35 pilots are seeing every day....."

So the RDAF is replacing their 72 F-16s with....... 27 F-35s

Symmetrical I suppose, and they'll save money on aircrew.........

Danish Government Recommends Buying 27 F-35s

Re ORAC's post: "270 volt battery....". If that's for real, Elon Musk might be interested in that.

Roly, from 2009, old tech....

Saft Li-ion batteries power F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter through LRIP programme | Saft

Many thanks ORAC, I apologise for displaying my ignorance! :ok:

Quite a bit of supposition but, certainly adds a bit more weight to the myth that appears to be USMC F-35B IOC...

Marines Declared F-35 IOC Despite Deficiencies That ?Preclude Mission Readiness?

-RP

And there's more...

McCain Looks To Kill F-35 Joint Program Office

-RP

I wonder of Senator McCain remembers how many congressional districts are involved in this program.

I think Sen McCain makes a decent point. Why not streamline and establish better accountability? The Services could easily bring the other country partners into whatever they establish as an organisation to run Block 4+.

Probably means less contractors and less overheads.

As I said, MSOCS ...

Ties into the Senate JPO closure recommendation.....

The F-35 Stealth Fighter's Dirty Little Secret Is Now Out in the Open | The National Interest Blog

The U.S. Senate just confirmed what an Air Force general hinted at in February 2016 — and which should have been obvious for years to close observers of U.S. air power.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is not developing one, common warplane for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the air arms of America’s closest allies. No, the Joint Strike Fighter is actually three different plane designs sharing a basic cockpit, engine and software and a logistical network. The Air Force’s F-35A, the Marines’ F-35B and the Navy’s F-35C should, in all fairness, be the F-35, F-36 and F-37.

“Despite aspirations for a joint aircraft, the F-35A, F-35B and F-35C are essentially three distinct aircraft, with significantly different missions and capability requirements,” the Senate stated in its version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2017.......

The Senate’s assertion comes just three months after U.S. Air Force lieutenant general Christopher Bogdan, head of the JSF program office, told a seminar audience that the three F-35 models are only 20- to 25-percent common, mainly in their cockpits. It’s “almost like three separate production lines,” Bogdan said, according toAir Force magazine. A real joint fighter, the program boss said, is “hard” because each branch is adamant about its requirements. “You want what you want,” Bogdan said........ [more]

Second time that $250 million/F-35B has been quoted Hmmm....

Still who cares eh?

:mad:

That report gets at the root of the problem to begin with (root cause analysis): but it has to be 1 size fits all, it doesn't matter if the requirements aren't identical! On the bright side, the "commonality" between the Black Hawk and the Sea Hawk (UH-60 series to SH-60 series) was a whole lot less than was advertised when the Navy made the decision to use the S-70 as the airframe for their LAMPS requirement. But that's another story. "Parts commonality" is one of those terms that I discovered over time is loaded.

And this is a surprise?!!? And how long will it be before the one area of "commonality" (the cockpit/systems) of the Navy and USAF versions diverge? Israel is already on record as significantly diverging from the USAF standard even though they bought the A model and have yet to receive a single one. The "one size fits all" mantra from the government was a fantasy in the 1960s and remains a fantasy half a century later.