>With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots? I'm not sure how many flight hours have b

>With the updates to reduce the visual issues, has the updated helmet now been put through it's paces by test pilots? I'm not sure how many flight hours have been made with the new helmet, but so far test pilots have no complaints. It's possible there could be more issues, but so far there's no evidence of such. >So the F-35 performance envelope is comparable to those Gen 4/4.5 fighters when both aircraft are flying clean? Unfortunately not; a clean F-16 or F-15, etc will outperform an F-35 in most (but not necessarily all) areas. A combat loaded F-35 vs a combat loaded F-16 or F-15 however is a different scenario and is where the F-35 is comparable or superior, as it's then more streamline / more clean than legacy fighters. To give a recent example from a Dutch pilot flying: https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvlimgf4g151bvd/Airjan2015.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvlimgf4g151bvd/Airjan2015.pdf?dl=... "When comparing performance, I would say that the F-35 turns like an F-16 with pylon tanks; but it climbs, descends & accelerates like a clean F-16." >[Costs] As of right now, an LRIP 8 F-35A, with an engine included, is $106-108 million (the airframe alone is $94.8 million). Right now this is on par the Eurofighter Typhoon, while the Rafale is roughly $100 million, etc. Some 4th gen fighters will always be cheaper than the F-35 but, frankly, those are budget fighters that aren't comparable. As for future costs, the F-35 airframe drops in cost around 3.5% each year and the engine, 4.5%. Beginning Full Rate Production in 2018 is set to make a large drop in cost for the same reasons anything in mass-production costs less as well. >The saving grace for the F-35 is that US has many political and economic tools it can use to convince partner nations to continue with the program. But it's still looking like many partner nations will reduce the number they had planned to buy. Time will tell - it is possible that it will be short in sales, but I predict that such decreases will only be due to a gradual international disarming / enduring peace or another major recession; or a European / Eastern proliferation of advanced, competitive UCAVs. >Yeah looking back on that sentence, "strike" pretty much means interdiction/air support. Still, I think if the JSF program chosen either STOVL or stealth and not both we'd be looking at a very different story right now. And of the two stealth is WAY more valuable than STOVL. I with your last statement, but I don't think the JSF would have actually been all that much different - it'd be slightly more optimal, but it'd still be a single engine fighter, with a thick airframe to house large internal bays, fuel loads, etc. Canopy visibility would still be roughly the same due to stealth requirements, etc. Possibly the only major external change would be in nozzle design.