No, not so much, initial Typhoon deliveries to the RAF (to 17(R) Sqn) began in 2003 under the Case White contract, this provided initial support and training while 29(R) got up to speed and before they moved to Coningsby in July 2005...
Whilst Typhoon's development has also been somewhat glacial, much of that is down to the partner nation's procrastination, Germany in particular in the early years and also a lack of financial commitment, the F-35 on the other hand has never suffered any financial constraints which have impacted it's development, in fact it's more or less had money thrown at it constantly!

-RP

Not sure about the 2007 delivery date. The RAF's understanding is that deliveries started in 2003 to 17(R) Sqn at Warton, for development and testing. The first Coningsby sqn was activated in 2005, Typhoon took over responsibility for UK QRA in 2007 and was formally declared as an air defence platform on 1 Jan 2008. [EDIT - as Rhino has just said while I was typing. Doh...]

Where have I heard that before? This paragon compared to the F-35?

Okay, Typhoon first flew with the RAF for development and testing in 2003 although not operational until 2007.

While Typhoon performs some defence tasks now, it won’t take on all roles until 2018...

And as you know perfectly well, the missions for which Typhoon is being developed today are not the mission for which it was originally designed.

Nobody's holding up the Typhoon as a paragon. That's a strawman-fallacy argument, another diversionary tactic. The point is that a direct Typhoon-to-JSF comparison is simplistic and uninformative because of the very different histories of the programs.

Actually, in some respects the F-35 has been better managed than Typhoon: it has a single project office reporting to one DoD point of contact (OSD); it has never had a purely-budget-driven cut to its annual top-line*; and no significant upward change has been made to the JORD requirements since 2000.

All those factors are very good things for program management, but they also eliminate many handy excuses for delays and overruns.

* Such as "there's a war in Iraq/a budget crisis/etc. so we need to give JSF a haircut and slip IOC by XX months."

To the beat of Frankie goes to Hollywood's "War"..
 

You're on to something there, GR. "Beast mode" sounds so much better than "subsonic, short-range and completely non-stealthy mode".

"Future weapons designs should use F-35 as Design Driver"


Even more mediocrity for tomorrows "warfighters"?

:\

That was an early slide, they are saying 6 aim-120 internal for the A and C

Cute! As incredibly short sighted as Starr's song it's based on, but cute.

Ken - be fair - you wouldn't start with the F-35 if you want a non-stealthy bomb truck would you?

It's only because there may be nothing else that it's even worth considering

No, probably not. (I say probably, because stealth is only ONE of the F-35's unique capabilities. It has others.) And why some nations have chosen the F-15, F-16, F-18, Typhoon, Rafale, and even Gripen over F-35.

But stealth worth "ABSOLUTELY NOTHING"? Not even remotely true.

"Nothing else?" I just listed SIX western "something else" currently in production and did not include what's being offered by Russia, China, and soon seemingly India. The Israel Air Force knows a thing or two about power projection from the air and they seem very pleased to include a stealth aircraft with the F-35's sensor/processor suite in their bag of tricks. I could say the same thing about USN.

Sorry, nope. I said both are "incredibly short sighted." But your statement is cute.

Subsonic, short-range, completely non stealthy beast mode is maybe why the F35 is also slated for a CAS role to eventually replace the A-10.

The Legendary A-10 Warthog vs. the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: Who Wins? | The National Interest Blog

And what is the UK lumbered with?

{Apart from the Temp and NVH issues}

Interesting thing that many on here stated if could CAS from 30,000 ft with the wayward [quote_to rip them up_unquote] gun system/PGM and it was naturally out of small/med/large AAA effect.
Which is handy as the ballistic trials/testing fell to the wayside under operation "catch up".....which is of course why the IAF is flying them with external lightning 5 pods ..what was that you were saying about attributes again Ken?

:ok:

If the F-35 is performing a role that does not require it to be stealthy, then the fact that it can perform in ‘beast’ mode is simply another plus to it’s versatility.

A fact that appears to sail right over one or two members of the ‘anti’ brigade.

Of course everyone knows that the F-35 can carry external loads. That's why it's an F-35 and not an F-117. It's not "another plus to it's [sic] versatility", it's one of the basic requirements that have cost $50bn to meet.

The question is whether the 22,000 pound load identified by the teenage-video-player name of "beast" mode is realistic, or even attainable.

Kenneth old chap...

Stealth is only ONE of the F-35's unique capabilities. It has others.

Stealth is not unique to the F-35, as you well know. There are aircraft that have been in service for years that match or exceed its stealth characteristics, so why do you even make that statement?

And what other capabilities of the aircraft are actually "unique"?

Trim Stab... The key word is "eventually".

This might be news to some...
Lockheed meets 2017 F-35 delivery goal
(Flight Global)