F-35 update

[David Loera]

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/108749/gates-tries-to-get-f35-program-back-on-course

[Rob Silliman]

YouTube video from LockMart of the 'B' model doing slow, nearly vertical landing tests on Wednesday.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a795b3327-f99e-432d-987d-76ea0bae7dc9&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

[Joe Copalman]

What a mess.

How can they complain about a "degradation of commonality" when they are trying to make a single airframe fly three very different takeoff/landing profiles as three different variants?  They knew what they were getting themselves into.

And I can't understand why the Marines are so wedded to the STOVL concept, especially as manifested in the bizarre lift-fan modification, which really seems to be what is bogging this program down.  All those additional moving parts, all that space occupied by another engine that could be devoted instead to fuel or avionics, all that additional weight - if I'm not mistaken, that will lead to lighter combat loadouts and reduced combat radius - precisely what you don't want in a CAS platform if you're a ground commander that must rely on airpower for supporting fires.  It just doesn't seem like the aircraft the Marines would voluntarily choose to replace the Harrier AND the Hornet.