So it was ahead of testing schedule for three straight years, but it started testing in 2006. It seem the program was able to meet its testing schedule after Gates removed the JSF Program Manager in Feb 2010, and withheld $614 million in payments to Lockheed because of costs and delays. Then it was said in 2012, in order to avoid further redesign delays, the DoD accepted a reduced combat radius for the F-35A and a longer takeoff run for the F-35B. The F-35B's estimated radius has also decreased 15% from initial JSF goal. It seem now meeting schedule is more important than meeting design goal.Cost for correcting problems uncovered in testing according to the article is $1.3 billion, that's more than the "development fund" contributed by the six partner countries Italy, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, and Turkey combined. And this is just to fix design flaws in existing aircrafts, not building new aircrafts.
As for unit cost, frankly, who'd want JSF if it cost as much if not more than F-22? So I'll give JSF the benefit of doubt that it can, and must, come down in price, perhaps to approximately $100 million in 2016 and beyond. But still it's not a cheap price, those so called "legacy" planes debut at only a fraction of their current price. F-35B/C would cost nearly 20% more than the F-35A.
And sure, other countries are interested in JSF, maybe because it's the only stealth fighter available. S.Korea, India, even Japan are said to be developing their own stealth fighter. In order to maintain their strong interest in JSF, I'd suggest denying any technical assistance to the three countries that they'd seek. I wonder will Sweden and France develop stealth fighter/UAV so there're other alternatives from Europe?
One more thing, the flight envelope of the F-35 doesn't look very great when compared to F-22. I think PAK-FA and J-20's envelope will be somewhere between the F-15 and the F-22. Probably closer to the F-22's envelope if their engines live up to expectation.
