Pilots at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), Calif., have started to test fly the F-35 Lightning II fighter at night, Lockheed Martin announced Jan.19.

Flown by company test pilot Mark Ward, aircraft AF-6, which is an F-35A conventional takeoff and landing variant, took off at 17:05 on the afternoon of Jan. 18 and landed a little after sunset. The jet flew for a little more than an hour.

The sortie consisted of basic straight-in approaches, Lockheed’s press release said.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country at Eglin AFB, Fla., Marine Maj. Joseph “O.D.” Bachmann flew the 33rd Fighter Wing’s third F-35B to the seaside base on Jan. 19. The addition of the short takeoff vertical landing fighter brings the total number of F-35s at the Florida base to nine. Two B-models and six F-35As were delivered earlier.

U.S. Navy Document Plans Carrier Air Wings’ Future

The U.S. Navy’s carrier air wings of tomorrow will look very different from today’s, according to a new document produced by the sea services.

By 2032, the Navy’s fleet of F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighters and new EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets will have begun to be replaced by new types, a new document called Naval Aviation Vision 2012 says.

The Navy will consider manned, unmanned and optionally manned aircraft to replace the long serving Rhino, as the F/A-18E/F is known to carrier deck crews. The Super Hornet will begin to reach the end of its service life around 2025 and must be replaced. The document says a competitive fly-off will be held at some point in the future.

The Super Hornet-derived EA-18G will also start being replaced by a new aircraft, but the document offers no further details.

Additionally, a new Unmanned Carrier Launched Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) is to be integrated onto the carrier deck around 2018 — possibly with four to six planes embarked. The aircraft could make use of technologies developed by the X-47B program. The Navy document calls for “balanced survivability” so that the unmanned strike plane will be effective in “specified tactical situations.”

The F-35C will serve alongside these prospective aircraft.

But the Navy isn’t going to stop with replacing just its fixed-wing assets, as the document calls for the wholesale replacement of its helicopter fleet.

The MH-60 helicopter fleet will be supplanted by a new rotary-wing aircraft. The Fire Scout unmanned helicopter will also be replaced as will the MH-53E Sea Dragon counter-mine and heavy lift helicopter. In the case of the MH-53E, a replacement aircraft needs to be operational by 2026, the document says.

The Marines will get a Cargo Resupply Unmanned Aerial System (CRUAS) by 2032, and the service’s entire fleet of tactical remotely operated drones will be replaced. The Navy will continue to fly the Broad Area Maritime Surveillance version of the Global Hawk unmanned plane in 2032.

The training aircraft fleet will look similar to today’s, the document says. The T-6 and T-45C will soldier on, as will the TH-57 training helicopter. But the T-44 and TC-12B multi-engine turboprop trainers will be replaced with a new aircraft. The Marines’ C-20 and Navy’s C-26D and UC-12 fleets will also be replaced. As well, a new plane will take the place of the C-2 Greyhound carrier onboard delivery plane starting in 2026.

Nor has the Navy forgotten about its fleet of F-5 and F-16 aggressor aircraft. A replacement aggressor aircraft is envisioned for 2025, according to the document.

JSF may miss acceleration Goals

The F-35 Lightning II’s transonic acceleration may not meet the requirements originally set forth for the program, a top Lockheed Martin official said.

“Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”

The sharp rise in wave drag at speeds between Mach 0.8 and Mach 1.2 is one of the most challenging areas for engineers to conquer. And the F-35’s relatively large cross-sectional area means, that as a simple matter of physics, the jet can’t quite match its predecessors.

“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”

A recent report by the Defense Department’s top tester, J. Michael Gilmore, says that the Navy’s F-35C model aircraft, which has larger wing and tail surfaces, is not meeting requirements for acceleration.

The report doesn’t say whether the F-35A and F-35B have hit similar snags.

Richard Aboulafia, an analyst with the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said that the revelation was not particularly surprising.

“It’s a strike fighter,” Aboulafia said. “It’s not an interceptor; it’s not an F-22.”

Aboulafia said it was unclear whether additional engine power could boost acceleration in the difficult transonic regime. So far, doubts about the aircraft’s aerodynamic performance haven’t diminished Lockheed’s sales prospects, he said.

The F-35 transonic acceleration specifications were written based on clean-configuration F-16 Fighting Falcon and F/A-18 Hornet fighter, Burbage said.

But unlike the Hornet or the F-16, the F-35 has the same configuration unloaded as it does loaded with weapons and fuel, Burbage said. When an F/A-18 or F-16 is encumbered with weapons, pylons and fuel tanks, those jets are robbed of much of their performance.

“What is different is that this airplane has accelerational characteristics with a combat load that no other airplane has, because we carry a combat load internally,” Burbage said, the F-22 Raptor notwithstanding.

Even fully loaded, the F-35’s performance doesn’t change from its unencumbered configuration, he said.

In the high subsonic range between Mach 0.6 to Mach 0.9 where the majority of air combat occurs, the F-35’s acceleration is better than almost anything flying.

Thus far, Lockheed has not had issues with the plane’s acceleration, Burbage said. There are top level Key Performance Parameters from which lower level detailed engineering specification are derived and Lockheed’s job is to meet as many of those specifications as possible within the laws of physics, he said. Discussions are underway about if those original specifications are relevant given the jet’s acceleration in a combat configuration, Burbage added.

Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.

“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”

But the F-35’s aerodynamic performance is not what makes the jet special, Smith said. The F-35 powerful sensors and data-links and how that information is fused into a single coherent and easy to use display are what will make the jet an effective warplane.

Burbage added that while the F-35 is designed as a supersonic fighter, it’s not optimized for the extremely high supersonic speeds that the Raptor was designed to operate at.

“This is not a supercruising airplane like the F-22,” Burbage said.

Lockheed Touts Fix for F-35 Fuel Dump

Lockheed Martin has found a way to fix the F-35 Lightning II’s fuel dump system, eliminating a potential fire hazard, a top company official said.

“We expect to have that configuration change back in the test airplane early this year,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s Joint Strike Fighter program manager. “The permanent modification that will go into all the production airplanes will be tested by the second quarter of this year.”

The current test aircraft fleet has an interim solution installed, Burbage said.

In conventional aircraft, fuel can be dumped through a mast that ejects the fluid away from the aircraft’s surfaces. But to keep the F-35 stealthy, the design pumped fuel out forcefully from a valve that is flush with the wing, Burbage said. This design allowed a portion of dumped fuel to move back toward the aircraft’s structure. On the Marine Corps’ F-35B version of the aircraft in particular, the fuel could flow too close to the roll-post ducts, part of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing system, and potentially ignite.

The problem came to light in a November report to acting Pentagon procurement czar Frank Kendall compiled by the Defense Department’s top operational tester, J. Michael Gilmore.

F-35C Tailhook Design Blamed for Landing Issues

Lockheed Martin has traced the U.S. Navy F-35C Joint Strike Fighter’s troubles with catching a carrier’s arresting gear wires to the tailhook design.
Efforts to fix the problem are well underway, a top company official said.
“The good news is that it’s fairly straight forward and isolated to the hook itself,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed program manager for the F-35 program. “It doesn’t have secondary effects going into the rest of the airplane.”


Moreover, the rest of the design of the tailhook system, which include the doors and bay that conceal the device and other ancillary hardware, is sound, Burbage said.
“What we are trying to do is make sure that we got the actual design of the hook is optimized so that it in fact repeatedly picks up the wire as long the airplane puts itself in position to do that,” he said.
A preliminary review has already been completed and was done in conjunction with the Naval Air Systems Command and F-35 Joint Program Office.
Burbage said the hook system is already being modified in accordance with the new test data.
“We’re modifying the hook to accommodate what we found so far in test,” Burbage said. “The new parts, we expect to have them back in the next couple of months.”
Tests with the newly modified tailhook should start at Lakehurst, N.J, in the second quarter of this year, Burbage said.
That will give the F-35 program another set of data to study to make sure the new design works as promised. However, until those tests are done, there is no ironclad guarantee that the redesign of the tailhook will work, but Burbage said he is confident of that the modified design will be successful.
“The big test for this airplane is not until the summer of ’13 when we take the Navy jet out to the big deck carrier and do actual traps at sea,” Burbage said.
Burbage dismisses claims that the F-35C will be unable to land on a carrier as falsehoods.
“That’s patently not true,” he said.


Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va., said the claim that the F-35C could never land on a ship was always highly dubious.
“They turned the YF-17 into a carrier plane, why couldn’t they correct carrier-hook problems here?” he said. “This does not appear to be a killer problem.”
Flight testing is designed to uncover and fix problems with a new aircraft, Aboulafia said.
“This is the kind of problem that might come out during the flight testing of a carrier-based plane,” he said.
Aboulafia added that the F-35 is an extremely ambitious program with its three variants — technical problems are par for the course.
The reason the problem with the hook arose in the first place is because of the inherent constraints of building a stealth fighter, said Burbage. The F-35 is the first naval stealth fighter and as such, Lockheed had the unique challenge of designing the jet with a tail-hook that had to be concealed when it’s not being used.
Because the tail-hook has to fit within the outer mold line of the F-35, the device had to be fitted further forward on the jet’s ventral surface than on other naval aircraft, Burbage said. The result is that the hook behaves differently than on previous fighters like the F/A-18.
In an ideal world, an arresting-hook will catch a wire 100 percent of the time, however in the real world that doesn’t happen due to various dynamic forces, the veteran former Navy test pilot said.


In the case of the F-35, one of those dynamic forces includes the way the wires react when the jet passes over them. The wire reacts in a sine wave pattern, Burbage said. “The time differential between when the main gear rolls over the cable and the time the hook picks up the cable on a more convention airplane, there is more time for that wave to damp out,” he said. “In the case of the F-35, one of our design constraints is that hook just has to be closer to the main landing gear than on a conventional aircraft because of the requirement to hide it inside the airplane.”
Another factor that effects landing on a carrier is the sheer force of the impact from a carrier landing. Unlike conventional land-based aircraft, naval aircraft don’t flare on landing. While the landing is on a more precise spot, it causes the tail-hook to oscillate vertically- which increases the chances that it won’t catch a wire, Burbage said. The dampening of that motion has to be tweaked, he said.
The shape of the hook itself also has an effect on the probability of catching a wire, he added. All of these are being tweaked to increase the chances that the F-35C will catch a wire on a carrier’s deck.
“We’re doing a redesign of the hook to increase the probability the hook will engage the wire a high percentage of the time,” Burbage said.

1st Two F-35Bs Delivered to USMC

The U.S. Marines' first two production F-35B Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) arrived at Eglin Air Force Base (AFB), Fla., plane-maker Lockheed Martin announced Jan. 12.

BF-6, THE FIRST F-35B production jet delivered to the U.S. Marine Corps, arrives at its new assignment at Eglin AFB, Fla. (Angel DelCueto / Lockheed Martin)

The two short take-off vertical landing fighters were flown in separately by Marine aviators Maj. Joseph Bachmann and Lt. Col. Matt Taylor. The pilots flew aircraft BF-6 and BF-8 respectively.

Under an unorthodox arrangement, while the jets belong to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing's VMFAT-501 squadron, the unit resides with the U.S. Air Force's 33rd Fighter Wing alongside the Navy's VFA-101 and the Air Force's 58th Fighter Squadron.

The Marines could start training new students to fly the F-35B in August, a senior Defense Department official had said earlier. However, currently the Pentagon has not yet formally set a date for training to start at the Florida base.

The DoD has opted to use an approach based on reducing risks prior to starting training operations at Eglin, the official said. As such the Pentagon has not set a specific date to issue a military flight release. Instead, the start of training will be "event driven."

"[The U.S. Air Force and Department of the Navy] are waiting for aircraft flight clearance for test pilot maturation flights," the senior DoD official said. Further, "both services are still trying to determine how many maturation hours are needed by test pilots before instructor pilots and then students can be trained."

But if everything goes as currently planned, the Marine Corps students will probably start flying their version of the Lightning II around August 2012.

An AirSea Battle on the Potomac

It is clear from last month's commemoration of the 70th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor that this disaster continues to impact the U.S. psyche and national strategy. "The next Pearl Harbor" has been a common theme in reports regarding 9/11.

One can assume the recently developed and classified AirSea Battle Concept has a similar vista. Addressing the "anti-access/area denial" environment, it purportedly discusses the growing influence of China and the importance of Asia to America's national interests. As the name states, air and sea power will be critical to the attainment of U.S. national interests.

While analogies to Pearl Harbor are understandable, they may be misleading on the challenges of tomorrow. A more appropriate lesson might be found in the Battle of Midway.

As the sun rose on June 4, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the most powerful navy ever to sail. By sunset, its eventual defeat was inevitable. Japan in 1942 possessed six world-class aircraft carriers and the finest naval aviators. Four carriers were lost on that day.

Lacking a robust industrial base, Japan would produce only seven additional fleet carriers by the end of the war (the U.S. more than 20). Rational or not, Japan started a war with a limited force structure and little ability to replenish loses.

Fast-forward to 2012. In a world of iPads, it is incredible, but the forces that will carry out the AirSea Battle construct reflect decisions made decades ago. Tomorrow's U.S. Air Force will possess a nominal force of bombers and a handful of sophisticated F-22s and F-35s. While highly capable, these fifth-generation fighters lack the range and payload necessary for conflicts in Asia. Friendly bases are few.

The airfields close enough for effective sortie generation rates with fifth-gen fighters will likewise be within range of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles. This environment requires hardened facilities and a robust missile-defense system. The former do not exist and the latter only in limited numbers.

While U.S. naval forces will benefit from their mobility, they too will face a Chinese anti-access threat projected to acquire and target surface combatants. With a deck of F/A-18s and F-35s, our carriers will be as range-challenged as our land-based fighters. Getting the carrier to the fight will require expensive escorts to defend against missile attacks. Combat operations would quickly become problematic once the defensive armaments are depleted.

Complicating this bleak outlook is the acquisition death spiral of increased cost/reduced numbers. As weapon systems progress through the acquisition cycle, they invariably fall behind schedule from unforeseen production issues. This drives up the cost, reducing the number of systems that can be purchased. The spiral continues with the war fighter receiving fewer platforms, later than needed, and costing significantly more than planned.

These two flaws could leave the U.S. in the same position that Japan found itself in 1943, weakened and unable to reconstitute a viable force. A small fighter force will generate few effective sorties (this assumes sufficient aerial tankers. Fighters in Asia are static displays without tankers). The loss of a Nimitz-class carrier would rival Pearl Harbor in loss of life and drive our surface naval forces out of harm's way. Like Imperial Japan, a Midway debacle would cripple U.S. power projection. And like Japan of 1943, America of 2012 cannot quickly reconstitute our current weapon systems.

With senior leaders stating there are no alternatives to weapon systems currently in development, it's apparent their predecessors organized a Pickett's Charge decades ago and left the charge to them. Resolving this mismatch between force structure and strategy will require a proper focus on the challenges of combat operations in the Pacific.

Specifically, in the short term:

■ Expand procurement of standoff missiles, such as the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range.

■ Regain our superiority in electronic warfare that was lost in our infatuation with stealth.

■ Purchase low-end attack aircraft and remotely piloted vehicles for noncontested environments.

■ Limit the F-35 buy to 200 to 400 aircraft.

For the long term:

■ Develop manned/unmanned long-range penetrating precision strike platforms (both land- and carrier-based).

■ Research and develop 21st century battleships capable of firing ballistic and cruise missiles from long range.

On June 3, 1942, the Imperial Navy of Japan was the uncontested master of the Pacific. On the following day, American ingenuity, guts and a degree of luck made Japan's eventual defeat inevitable. The future naval and air forces of the U.S. could face a similar tragedy, one in which the finest air and naval forces are rendered incapable of effective combat operations due to a 20-year process where we purchased what we wanted instead of what we needed.

Perhaps the most important contribution from an honest assessment of the AirSea Battle construct will be to own up to this unfortunate fact.

Chris Choate is a retired U.S. Air Force colonel now performing operational test and evaluation work with the service as a civilian employee. These views reflect those of the author and not the Air Force, Defense Department or U.S. government.

Pratt & Whitney Wins Contract for F-35 Engines

Pratt & Whitney has won a $194 million fixed-price contract for long lead parts for 37 F-35 engines, the Pentagon announced Jan. 6. The engines are for the sixth production lot of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

The U.S. Air Force, which flies the conventional F-35A version of the tri-service jet, will receive 18 of the engines. The U.S. Navy will receive seven engines for its carrier-based variant - the F-35C model - while the U.S. Marine Corps is buying six engines for its short take-off vertical landing F-35B model planes.

There are also six foreign engine orders, four for the Italians and two for Australia.

The Navy is paying $37 million for the engines; the Air Force is paying $54 million; and the Marines are paying $84.6 million. The engines for the Marine Corps are more expensive because they include the lift-fan propulsion system needed for its variant.

As for the foreign engine orders, the Italians are on the hook $11.5 million while the Australians will pay $5.6 million.

The work should be completed by this September. The contract is being administered by the Naval Air Systems Command at Patuxent River, Md.

Future Dogfights

Turkey to Order F-35 Fighters from U.S.

ANKARA - Turkey will buy a first batch of two F-35A Joint Strike Fighters as a sign of its commitment to the troubled U.S.-led program, the government's defense procurement agency said Jan. 5.

THREE F-35A TEST aircraft fly in formation over Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Turkey moved ahead with its first order of the jets, the country's defense procurement agency announced Jan. 5. (Lockheed Martin)

A statement said the government had authorized the order to meet the future needs of the Turkish air force for next-generation fighter planes.

Turkey has long planned to purchase about 100 jets to replace its F-4 and F-16 fleet, but the increasing costs have hampered the acquisitions.

The Joint Strike Fighter, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is the Pentagon's most expensive weapons program ever.

Its cost has jumped to about $385 billion, and the price of each plane is now well over $100 million. U.S. officials said last month that it has encountered a spate of technical problems expected to delay production still further.

However, Japan said it had chosen the F-35 for its next-generation mainstay fighter, ordering 45 of the aircraft in a deal worth around $4.7 billion.

The Pentagon plans three versions of the plane: the standard F-35A that would replace the F-16 fighter, the F-35C designed to land on naval carriers to replace the F-18 and the F-35B vertical take-off model that would supplant the Harrier aircraft flown by U.S. Marines.

F 35 is useless

F-35 Wins Japan Fighter Competition

TOKYO - Japan on Dec. 20 chose the U.S.-built F-35 Joint Strike Fighter stealth jet for its next-generation mainstay fighter, as North Korea provided a timely reminder of the region's potential for instability.

U.S. AIR FORCE F-35A Joint Strike Fighters are shown in the skies over Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., in July. Japan announced Dec. 20 that it would buy the F-35A variant to replace its F-4 fleet. (Staff Sgt. Joely Santiago / U.S. Air Force)

In a deal estimated to be worth more than $4 billion, Japan went for the trouble-plagued jet to replace its aging fleet of F-4 fighters.

"The government shall acquire 42 units of F-35A after fiscal 2012 in order to replenish and to modernize the current fleet of fighters held by the Air Self-Defense Force," the cabinet said in a statement.

Lockheed Martin's F-35 beat off competition from two other jets: the Boeing F/A-18 Super Hornet and the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The government said Japanese companies would take part in building the new fighters.

The formal decision, which had long been expected, came the day after news of the death of Kim Jong Il sent jitters through the region amid fears a power transition could destabilize North Korea's hard=line regime.

Tokyo was originally expected to announce its pick last week. The selection comes as China's massive military machine continues to grow and Beijing becomes increasingly assertive.

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in Pentagon history and has been plagued by cost overruns and technical delays.

Co-developed with British defense giant BAE Systems, the F-35 was the costliest of the three models under consideration, with a price tag estimated at $113 million per aircraft.

Japan initially aimed to acquire the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter to renew its fleet, but U.S. law prohibits exports of the jet and the United States has halted production of the model.

Japan, which places its security alliance with the United States at the cornerstone of its foreign policy, has long depended on U.S. manufacturers for its military hardware.

Japan F-X Announcement Due Within Hours

TOKYO - The Japanese government's sudden decision to delay the announcement of a winner in its multibillion-dollar fighter program is widely regarded as a sign that Lockheed Martin's F-35 has emerged as a late frontrunner despite concerns over cost and local workshare, according to government and industry sources.

F-35 JOINT STRIKE Fighters sit on the tarmac at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., earlier this year. Japan is scheduled to make a decision Dec. 20 on the winner of its F-X fighter competition, and some say the F-35 is the favorite. (U.S. Air Force)

Japan's National Security Council was slated to announce Dec. 16 whether the F-35, Boeing's F/A-18 Super Hornet or the Eurofighter Typhoon will replace about 40 Mitsubishi F-4EJ Kai Phantoms starting in early 2017 under a contract valued at about $8 billion. The announcement has been moved to Tuesday, Dec. 20.

When the F-X competition began, the aim was to buy 48 air superiority fighters with little development cost and a large share of work for Japanese industry. The F-35 was considered a long shot because development was slipping, unit costs growing, and workshare prospects were more limited.

But Tokyo began to look more favorably on the plane after Japan was denied Lockheed's stealthy F-22 and concerns about China's military escalated.

Early last week, Japan's defense establishment was thrown into a furor following local media reports that the F-35 was the likely winner.

Senior government officials denied that any decision had been made.

But one source said the Joint Strike Fighter had long ago moved to the front of the pack because government officials decided that they wanted stealth, as much high technology as possible and a good relationship with the United States.

"The Japanese always wanted the JSF," said one source. "So they ended up with the result they wanted, and now the question is whether they can sustain it."

Picking the F-35 would invite criticism from the opposition and media of the plane's cost, schedule delays and a recent spate of reports that focused on shortcomings highlighted during development.

Critics may also charge that the competition has been less transparent than claimed, although executives of the three main contenders have said the MoD has been painstakingly careful to make the contest as fair and open as possible.

The stakes in the F-X competition go beyond replacing the F-4s; the winner is likely also to get the bigger prize of replacing more than 100 F-15Js within the next 10 years.

INTERNAL SPLIT

Shinichi Kiyotani, a military analyst and journalist, said the sudden delay in the announcement points to divisions within the MoD and the ruling Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) cabinet.

"There are internal discussions within the MoD; some bureaus are sold on it [the F-35], others aren't," Kiyotani said. "There is division at the top of the MoD, and there are still internal discussions within the DPJ Cabinet. There are so many problems with the F-35, it's seen as a huge risk."

Among other concerns, there's the question of whether the F-35 will offer enough local workshare to support Japan's ailing aerospace sector. The country's only active fighter-jet assembly line is slated to shut down after rolling out just six more Mitsubishi F-2s, a derivative of the F-16.

That consideration was seen as giving the edge to Eurofighter, which vowed to give Japanese industry as much as 95 percent of the work, or to Boeing, which said that more than 80 percent would be available. Lockheed offered less, but argued that access to next-generation production capabilities and coveted stealth technology outweighed financial value.

PERCEIVED RISKS

Kiyotani also noted concerns about the recent news of a slowdown in production of the F-35 caused by some lingering technical problems and the potential that U.S. politics and budget cuts could shrink the Pentagon's own purchase.

"The F-35 is already seen as very expensive. If the number of units is only a few a year, then that will push up costs," he said. "Nobody believes the Lockheed Martin story of an eventual $65 million or so a plane."

Alessio Patalano, a Japan military expert at King's College in London, agreed on the risks involved.

"Of these three options, the F-35 is on paper the one with superior performance characteristics, but it is an operationally untested aircraft, widely reported to run into constant escalating costs and with serious issues in relation to delivery timetables," Patalano said. "More importantly, there is no way to know at the moment if its ... superior stealth capabilities will make a difference in real-time missions: By the time it will enter into service, technology will have provided new ways to reduce the impact of this feature. Second, there is little guarantee as to whether once it is fully armed, this configuration will not have an impact on its stealth capabilities."

A senior Japanese industry source speaking on condition of anonymity also said industry doesn't yet fully buy into the F-35's value proposition.

"We have not yet got concrete information of how we will be involved," the executive said. "It is said that Japanese industry will assemble substantial portions of the F-35, according to the media, but we aren't sure exactly what systems and components Lockheed Martin will be allowed to permit industry to produce in the future.

"I am afraid that delays will happen that will increase costs next year or a few years later. Some feel that it is better that we avoid such a situation. Others want to us to pursue the newest fighter like some kind of super car," he said. "If Japan doesn't get the final version of the F-35 until a decade later, we may really need a different fighter. If there are delays, then the government may well have to put up with purchasing lower numbers."

Jun Okumura, a counselor for Eurasia Group, said the Japanese government will likely opt for the F-35 based on political reasons.

"The administration [of Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda] places great value on the bilateral alliance, particularly at a time when a rising China is making waves in Japan's near abroad and beyond - including hints of its own Gen-5 program - and the U.S. has decided to reupholster its engagement in the Asia-Pacific," he said. "All that the government sources are willing to say now is that nothing has been decided yet. Assuming that it is indeed the F-35, though, it means that MoD could have, but did not, go for an interim, Gen-4+ solution while waiting for the questions around the F-35, including timing, to clear up."

Fighter Jet Projects Surge, But Not Where You'd Expect

The number of countries attempting to develop a new fighter aircraft has surged recently, part of a cycle that has ebbed and flowed since the dawn of the jet age.

South Korea and Turkey are the latest nations to start clean-sheet programs, while Japan is working on its ATD-X concept demonstrator, India is working on an improved version of its Light Combat Aircraft and Indonesia has signed on to the Korean effort.

Most are drawn by the prospects of developing a homegrown industrial base, boosting employment and filling military needs, analysts said.

"If you want to do all three badly, then you build a national fighter," said Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group, Fairfax, Va. "It comes in waves, and a lot of it driven by national aspirations and a lot of it is driven by perception of threat, and a lot of it is driven by the ruling party in the given country."

In the 1980s, domestic politics fostered a spate of indigenous fighter projects, which were generally killed off in the next decade or two by economic realities, Aboulafia said. With free-market capitalism's cachet diminished in many parts of the world, such national programs have made a comeback.

"Even autarchy has come back into vogue," Aboulafia said. "I think this might be a reflected dislike of market reality that has come with the economic meltdown of the past three years."

There is also a perception that an indigenous effort will be cheaper than an imported design, said Byron Callan, an analyst at Capital Alpha Partners in Washington. Many countries cannot afford new fighters such as the F-35, Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale or even the new Russian PAK-FA, Callan said.

Even the Swedish Gripen, which recently won a Swiss order largely because it was cheaper than the Rafale and Typhoon, is very expensive, he said.

Something has to fill the market void, Callan said.

But Aboulafia said these nations are grossly underestimating the cost of developing a new fighter. For example, Seoul estimates that its KF-X stealth fighter effort will cost about $8 billion - "which is enough to maybe design a decent set of wings," he said.

Dan Gouré, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., concurred.

"It's horribly expensive," he said.

The track record for national fighter programs is not a good one. Japan, which has a highly developed economy and advanced technology, tried and failed to develop good cost-effective fighter, even with U.S. help, Aboulafia said.

Japan's experience with the F-2, which was based on the F-16, was a disaster that largely soured the country on developing an indigenous fighter. Aboulafia noted Tokyo's ongoing ATD-X stealth fighter development effort but said it would likely produce only a concept demonstrator, not a full production effort.

"There is nothing about history that would make you want to do this," Aboulafia said. "And looking at history, they have a lot to answer for."

Nor do most countries attempting to build an indigenous fighter have the technical wherewithal to build such an aircraft. Neither Turkey nor South Korea has the technical ability to build such fighters without external help.

"They're going to find there is an enormous gap between the licensed production of F-16s and designing, integrating and producing an entirely new product," Aboulafia said.

Even South Korea's recent experience in co-developing the T-50 jet trainer does little to alleviate the problem, he said.

Gouré was blunt about their chances for success: "There is no way in hell."

Only a handful of nations can design and build fighters without external help, he said. France, Britain, the U.S. and Russia are the only countries ever to successfully develop their own fighters, he said.

"Even the Chinese stuff, it's really all derivative of Russian hardware," he said.

Only about 60 percent of the Saab Gripen is built in Sweden, with the rest, including the engines, mostly U.S. in origin, Gouré said.

Because indigenous programs almost invariably offer an inferior product, there is tension between those who would develop such aircraft and those who will be expected to fly them in combat.

"Are you simply expecting to do as good a job as a traditional producer, or are you simply expecting your air force to take casualties?" Aboulafia said. "The best-case scenario is the reinvention of a fourth-generation jet with higher cost, which is exactly what happened with Japan's F-2."

India's Light Combat Aircraft is a good example. Leery of adopting the homegrown fighter because of its less-than-impressive performance, the Air Force has shown a clear preference for the winner of the country's Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft - either Rafale or the Typhoon - and the Indo-Russian T-50 PAK-FA stealth fighter.

Callan said, ultimately, countries that need only interceptors for home defense don't need particularly advanced aircraft. A light fighter similar to an F-16 or F/A-18 might suffice.

"There is 'good enough' for a lot of these markets," he said.