I was already aware that that flight testing had been suspended after a power system glitch, but was under the impression that this was a temporary flaw that did not effect flying characteristics, though it did lead to an emergency landing, as any major system dropout, no matter how short, should during testing.

After a series of 7 quite successful flights, the test flight program stops in February 2007 to fix some minor problems in the JSF flight control software. This is not unusual in the early stages of a test flight program. In March 2007, the JSF returns to flight status and takes off for the first supersonic flight. At the end of April the JSF prototype AA-1 takes off several times a week. But then, destiny strikes. On May 3, 2007 with the second test pilot Jeff Knowles at the stick, a serious malfunction hits the JSF. At 38,000 feet (12 km) level flight and at a speed of some 800 km/hour, the plane executed a planned, 360-degree roll but experienced power loss in the electrical system about halfway through the manoeuvre.

In an emergency procedure, power is restored and Jeff Knowles regains control of the plane. The pilot cuts short this 19th test flight and makes an emergency landing in Fort Worth, TX. Due to control problems with right wing flaperons, the JSF has to make that landing at an exceptional high speed of 220 knots (350 km/hr). The plane’s undercarriage, brakes and tires are damaged. The plane is stopped, surrounded by emergency vehicles, and towed away, but several eyewitnesses take pictures of the emergency landing.

This is not a glitch that does not affect flying characteristics. This a dangerous landing and the risk of loss of airframe and pilot.

Additionally, the power supply for the aircraft is about only 65% of necessary power, which, given that the F-35 has a power by wire setup on its control surface actuators means much more than just the radar or displays dropping out, it means potential loss of control.

Additionally, to save money, they want to cancel two of the test aircraft, and eliminate about 15% of the test flights. The excuse is that simulation will handle it, but more reasonably, this is budget games, because if problems are discovered on a fielded system, Congress is over a barrel to protect pilots already flying the aircraft.

Saab, manufacturer of the Gripen, which should be available with a similar sensor suite shortly, though not the same stealth or apyload/range performance is saying that its operating costs will be about 2/3 of the JSF (believable, considering that it is about 1/2 the size), so it becomes a compelling alternative…A MirageIII/V of this generation, if you will.

Considering that the Typhoon, Rafale, and Gripen are all fielded, it is unlikely that they will experience significant price increases (Gripen excepted if they do a growth version), and in the long run will likely be much cheaper.