AIR FORCE Magazine / January 2002 31
The JSF will incorporate many cockpit advances, such as helmet cuing of
weapons, helmet visor displays, voice-activated functions, and wraparound
infrared imaging, giving the pilot 360 degrees of terrain visibility at night and
in bad weather.
rarely missed a flight-test hop because
of system glitches and missed
none due to engine failure. To achieve
such a thing with experimental aircraft
was “unprecedented,” Hough
said, and validated the new computer-
aided design systems employed
in their construction.
Lockheed used two aircraft to demonstrate
the capabilities of all three
versions. The Air Force model was
designated the X-35A and flew more
than 27 hours on 27 flights in just 30
days. The same airplane, redesignated
X-35B, was the STOVL model
with the lift fan installed; it flew
21.5 hours over 39 flights in 45 days.
The X-35C was the carrier version,
which had heavier landing gear and
Navy–specific equipment and wings.
It racked up 58 hours over 73 flights
in 85 days. The flight test schedule
was “aggressive,” Burbage noted.
There is no plan to use the demonstrators
for any further testing. Hudson
said there would be a certain
amount of risk in doing so, since
they were designed for a brief round
of use and not extended flying. Moreover,
although the X-35 strongly resembles
the proposed airplane—
which may be called the F-35 or
F-24—it was not a prototype. Hudson
has had “lots of requests” from museums
around the world for the demonstrator
aircraft.
Burbage said Lockheed will achieve
a maximum production rate on the
JSF at approximately 17 a month in
2011. The Fort Worth plant built F-
16s at a “considerably higher” rate
during the late 1980s, but the JSF
figure does not count foreign sales.
Burbage said the facility can accommodate
more than 17 per month but
declined to give a figure.
Born in Crisis
The JSF program grew out of a
defense financial crisis in the early
1990s. USAF needed a cheap, lightweight
fighter to replace the F-16,
the Navy wanted a stealthy medium
bomber, and the Marines wanted a
new jump jet to replace the AV-8B
Harrier. As a cost-saving measure,
the three programs were merged, to
the catcalls of both those in the military
and industry. It was considered
almost impossible to build an airplane
that could satisfy such divergent
requirements without being a
jack of all trades, master of none.
Burbage said he himself had doubts
it could be done.
“Back in those days, I’m not sure
we had the tools to do it,” he said.
“Even as recently as three or four
years ago, ... the industry really didn’t
have the capacity to design a family
of airplanes where no user paid any
penalty for what the other guy
needed.”
However, “today, with our 3-D,
solid engineering modeling tools, and
just the pure processing power of the
computers, you can in fact create
these collaborative engineering environments,”
in which the talents of
geographically dispersed companies
can work together on a design, create
templates, and wind up with parts
that mate perfectly, Burbage said.
He also said the services demonstrated
great discipline in holding
their requirements to those that were
absolutely needed. That made the
joint solution possible.
“Once the airplane gets off the
ground and raises the landing gear,
they all do the same thing,” said
Burbage. “They’re all multirole combatAIR FORCE Magazine / January 2002 31
The JSF will incorporate many cockpit advances, such as helmet cuing of
weapons, helmet visor displays, voice-activated functions, and wraparound
infrared imaging, giving the pilot 360 degrees of terrain visibility at night and
in bad weather.
rarely missed a flight-test hop because
of system glitches and missed
none due to engine failure. To achieve
such a thing with experimental aircraft
was “unprecedented,” Hough
said, and validated the new computer-
aided design systems employed
in their construction.
Lockheed used two aircraft to demonstrate
the capabilities of all three
versions. The Air Force model was
designated the X-35A and flew more
than 27 hours on 27 flights in just 30
days. The same airplane, redesignated
X-35B, was the STOVL model
with the lift fan installed; it flew
21.5 hours over 39 flights in 45 days.
The X-35C was the carrier version,
which had heavier landing gear and
Navy–specific equipment and wings.
It racked up 58 hours over 73 flights
in 85 days. The flight test schedule
was “aggressive,” Burbage noted.
There is no plan to use the demonstrators
for any further testing. Hudson
said there would be a certain
amount of risk in doing so, since
they were designed for a brief round
of use and not extended flying. Moreover,
although the X-35 strongly resembles
the proposed airplane—
which may be called the F-35 or
F-24—it was not a prototype. Hudson
has had “lots of requests” from museums
around the world for the demonstrator
aircraft.
Burbage said Lockheed will achieve
a maximum production rate on the
JSF at approximately 17 a month in
2011. The Fort Worth plant built F-
16s at a “considerably higher” rate
during the late 1980s, but the JSF
figure does not count foreign sales.
Burbage said the facility can accommodate
more than 17 per month but
declined to give a figure.
Born in Crisis
The JSF program grew out of a
defense financial crisis in the early
1990s. USAF needed a cheap, lightweight
fighter to replace the F-16,
the Navy wanted a stealthy medium
bomber, and the Marines wanted a
new jump jet to replace the AV-8B
Harrier. As a cost-saving measure,
the three programs were merged, to
the catcalls of both those in the military
and industry. It was considered
almost impossible to build an airplane
that could satisfy such divergent
requirements without being a
jack of all trades, master of none.
Burbage said he himself had doubts
it could be done.
“Back in those days, I’m not sure
we had the tools to do it,” he said.
“Even as recently as three or four
years ago, ... the industry really didn’t
have the capacity to design a family
of airplanes where no user paid any
penalty for what the other guy
needed.”
However, “today, with our 3-D,
solid engineering modeling tools, and
just the pure processing power of the
computers, you can in fact create
these collaborative engineering environments,”
in which the talents of
geographically dispersed companies
can work together on a design, create
templates, and wind up with parts
that mate perfectly, Burbage said.
He also said the services demonstrated
great discipline in holding
their requirements to those that were
absolutely needed. That made the
joint solution possible.
“Once the airplane gets off the
ground and raises the landing gear,
they all do the same thing,” said
Burbage. “They’re all multirole combat
aircraft. ... The challenge reallyAIR FORCE Magazine / January 2002 31
The JSF will incorporate many cockpit advances, such as helmet cuing of
weapons, helmet visor displays, voice-activated functions, and wraparound
infrared imaging, giving the pilot 360 degrees of terrain visibility at night and
in bad weather.
rarely missed a flight-test hop because
of system glitches and missed
none due to engine failure. To achieve
such a thing with experimental aircraft
was “unprecedented,” Hough
said, and validated the new computer-
aided design systems employed
in their construction.
Lockheed used two aircraft to demonstrate
the capabilities of all three
versions. The Air Force model was
designated the X-35A and flew more
than 27 hours on 27 flights in just 30
days. The same airplane, redesignated
X-35B, was the STOVL model
with the lift fan installed; it flew
21.5 hours over 39 flights in 45 days.
The X-35C was the carrier version,
which had heavier landing gear and
Navy–specific equipment and wings.
It racked up 58 hours over 73 flights
in 85 days. The flight test schedule
was “aggressive,” Burbage noted.
There is no plan to use the demonstrators
for any further testing. Hudson
said there would be a certain
amount of risk in doing so, since
they were designed for a brief round
of use and not extended flying. Moreover,
although the X-35 strongly resembles
the proposed airplane—
which may be called the F-35 or
F-24—it was not a prototype. Hudson
has had “lots of requests” from museums
around the world for the demonstrator
aircraft.
Burbage said Lockheed will achieve
a maximum production rate on the
JSF at approximately 17 a month in
2011. The Fort Worth plant built F-
16s at a “considerably higher” rate
during the late 1980s, but the JSF
figure does not count foreign sales.
Burbage said the facility can accommodate
more than 17 per month but
declined to give a figure.
Born in Crisis
The JSF program grew out of a
defense financial crisis in the early
1990s. USAF needed a cheap, lightweight
fighter to replace the F-16,
the Navy wanted a stealthy medium
bomber, and the Marines wanted a
new jump jet to replace the AV-8B
Harrier. As a cost-saving measure,
the three programs were merged, to
the catcalls of both those in the military
and industry. It was considered
almost impossible to build an airplane
that could satisfy such divergent
requirements without being a
jack of all trades, master of none.
Burbage said he himself had doubts
it could be done.
“Back in those days, I’m not sure
we had the tools to do it,” he said.
“Even as recently as three or four
years ago, ... the industry really didn’t
have the capacity to design a family
of airplanes where no user paid any
penalty for what the other guy
needed.”
However, “today, with our 3-D,
solid engineering modeling tools, and
just the pure processing power of the
computers, you can in fact create
these collaborative engineering environments,”
in which the talents of
geographically dispersed companies
can work together on a design, create
templates, and wind up with parts
that mate perfectly, Burbage said.
He also said the services demonstrated
great discipline in holding
their requirements to those that were
absolutely needed. That made the
joint solution possible.
“Once the airplane gets off the
ground and raises the landing gear,
they all do the same thing,” said
Burbage. “They’re all multirole combat
aircraft. ... The challenge really
is to ... accommodate all the different
basing requirements without penalizing
one guy for the other.”

The JSF may well be the last manned fighter. The aggressive development of
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles may even cut into JSF production, if the
robotic craft prove as efficient in battle as they do in the budget.
Lockheed Martin photo by Tom Reynolds
is to ... accommodate all the different
basing requirements without penalizing
one guy for the other.”

The JSF may well be the last manned fighter. The aggressive development of
Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles may even cut into JSF production, if the
robotic craft prove as efficient in battle as they do in the budget.
Lockheed Martin photo by Tom Reynolds
aircraft. ... The challenge reallyAIR FORCE Magazine / January 2002 31
The JSF will incorporate many cockpit advances, such as helmet cuing of
weapons, helmet visor displays, voice-activated functions, and wraparound
infrared imaging, giving the pilot 360 degrees of terrain visibility at night and
in bad weather.
rarely missed a flight-test hop because
of system glitches and missed
none due to engine failure. To achieve
such a thing with experimental aircraft
was “unprecedented,” Hough
said, and validated the new computer-
aided design systems employed
in their construction.
Lockheed used two aircraft to demonstrate
the capabilities of all three
versions. The Air Force model was
designated the X-35A and flew more
than 27 hours on 27 flights in just 30
days. The same airplane, redesignated
X-35B, was the STOVL model
with the lift fan installed; it flew
21.5 hours over 39 flights in 45 days.
The X-35C was the carrier version,
which had heavier landing gear and
Navy–specific equipment and wings.
It racked up 58 hours over 73 flights
in 85 days. The flight test schedule
was “aggressive,” Burbage noted.
There is no plan to use the demonstrators
for any further testing. Hudson
said there would be a certain
amount of risk in doing so, since
they were designed for a brief round
of use and not extended flying. Moreover,
although the X-35 strongly resembles
the proposed airplane—
which may be called the F-35 or
F-24—it was not a prototype. Hudson
has had “lots of requests” from museums
around the world for the demonstrator
aircraft.
Burbage said Lockheed will achieve
a maximum production rate on the
JSF at approximately 17 a month in
2011. The Fort Worth plant built F-
16s at a “considerably higher” rate
during the late 1980s, but the JSF
figure does not count foreign sales.
Burbage said the facility can accommodate
more than 17 per month but
declined to give a figure.
Born in Crisis
The JSF program grew out of a
defense financial crisis in the early
1990s. USAF needed a cheap, lightweight
fighter to replace the F-16,
the Navy wanted a stealthy medium
bomber, and the Marines wanted a
new jump jet to replace the AV-8B
Harrier. As a cost-saving measure,
the three programs were merged, to
the catcalls of both those in the military
and industry. It was considered
almost impossible to build an airplane
that could satisfy such divergent
requirements without being a
jack of all trades, master of none.
Burbage said he himself had doubts
it could be done.
“Back in those days, I’m not sure
we had the tools to do it,” he said.
“Even as recently as three or four
years ago, ... the industry really didn’t
have the capacity to design a family
of airplanes where no user paid any
penalty for what the other guy
needed.”
However, “today, with our 3-D,
solid engineering modeling tools, and
just the pure processing power of the
computers, you can in fact create
these collaborative engineering environments,”
in which the talents of
geographically dispersed companies
can work together on a design, create
templates, and wind up with parts
that mate perfectly, Burbage said.
He also said the services demonstrated
great discipline in holding
their requirements to those that were
absolutely needed. That made the
joint solution possible.
“Once the airplane gets off the
ground and raises the landing gear,
they all do the same thing,” saidAIR FORCE Magazine / January 2002 31
The JSF will incorporate many cockpit advances, such as helmet cuing of
weapons, helmet visor displays, voice-activated functions, and wraparound
infrared imaging, giving the pilot 360 degrees of terrain visibility at night and
in bad weather.
rarely missed a flight-test hop because
of system glitches and missed
none due to engine failure. To achieve
such a thing with experimental aircraft
was “unprecedented,” Hough
said, and validated the new computer-
aided design systems employed
in their construction.
Lockheed used two aircraft to demonstrate
the capabilities of all three
versions. The Air Force model was
designated the X-35A and flew more
than 27 hours on 27 flights in just 30
days. The same airplane, redesignated
X-35B, was the STOVL model
with the lift fan installed; it flew
21.5 hours over 39 flights in 45 days.
The X-35C was the carrier version,
which had heavier landing gear and
Navy–specific equipment and wings.
It racked up 58 hours over 73 flights
in 85 days. The flight test schedule
was “aggressive,” Burbage noted.
There is no plan to use the demonstrators
for any further testing. Hudson
said there would be a certain
amount of risk in doing so, since
they were designed for a brief round
of use and not extended flying. Moreover,
although the X-35 strongly resembles
the proposed airplane—
which may be called the F-35 or
F-24—it was not a prototype. Hudson
has had “lots of requests” from museums
around the world for the demonstrator
aircraft.
Burbage said Lockheed will achieve
a maximum production rate on the
JSF at approximately 17 a month in
2011. The Fort Worth plant built F-
16s at a “considerably higher” rate
during the late 1980s, but the JSF
figure does not count foreign sales.
Burbage said the facility can accommodate
more than 17 per month but
declined to give a figure.
Born in Crisis
The JSF program grew out of a
defense financial crisis in the early
1990s. USAF needed a cheap, lightweight
fighter to replace the F-16,
the Navy wanted a stealthy medium
bomber, and the Marines wanted a
new jump jet to replace the AV-8B
Harrier. As a cost-saving measure,
the three programs were merged, to
the catcalls of both those in the military
and industry. It was considered
almost impossible to build an airplane
that could satisfy such divergent
requirements without being a
jack of all trades, master of none.
Burbage said he himself had doubts
it could be done.
“Back in those days, I’m not sure
we had the tools to do it,” he said.
“Even as recently as three or four
years ago, ... the industry really didn’t
have the capacity to design a family
of airplanes where no user paid any
penalty for what the other guy
needed.”
However, “today, with our 3-D,
solid engineering modeling tools, and
just the pure processing power of the
computers, you can in fact create
these collaborative engineering environments,”
in which the talents of
geographically dispersed companies
can work together on a design, create
templates, and wind up with parts
that mate perfectly, Burbage said.
He also said the services demonstrated
great discipline in holding
their requirements to those that were
absolutely needed. That made the
joint solution possible.
“Once the airplane gets off the
ground and raises the landing gear,
they all do the same thing,” said
Burbage. “They’re all multirole combat
aircraft. ... The challenge reallyAIR FORCE Magazine / January 2002 31
The JSF will incorporate many cockpit advances, such as helmet cuing of
weapons, helmet visor displays, voice-activated functions, and wraparound
infrared imaging, giving the pilot 360 degrees of terrain visibility at night and
in bad weather.
rarely missed a flight-test hop because
of system glitches and missed
none due to engine failure. To achieve
such a thing with experimental aircraft
was “unprecedented,” Hough
said, and validated the new computer-
aided design systems employed
in their construction.
Lockheed used two aircraft to demonstrate
the capabilities of all three
versions. The Air Force model was
designated the X-35A and flew more
than 27 hours on 27 flights in just 30
days. The same airplane, redesignated
X-35B, was the STOVL model
with the lift fan installed; it flew
21.5 hours over 39 flights in 45 days.
The X-35C was the carrier version,
which had heavier landing gear and
Navy–specific equipment and wings.
It racked up 58 hours over 73 flights
in 85 days. The flight test schedule
was “aggressive,” Burbage noted.
There is no plan to use the demonstrators
for any further testing. Hudson
said there would be a certain
amount of risk in doing so, since
they were designed for a brief round
of use and not extended flying. Moreover,
although the X-35 strongly resembles
the proposed airplane—
which may be called the F-35 or
F-24—it was not a prototype. Hudson
has had “lots of requests” from museums
around the world for the demonstrator
aircraft.
Burbage said Lockheed will achieve
a maximum production rate on the
JSF at approximately 17 a month in
2011. The Fort Worth plant built F-
16s at a “considerably higher” rate
during the late 1980s, but the JSF
figure does not count foreign sales.
Burbage said the facility can accommodate
more than 17 per month but
declined to give a figure.
Born in Crisis
The JSF program grew out of a
defense financial crisis in the early
1990s. USAF needed a cheap, lightweight
fighter to replace the F-16,
the Navy wanted a stealthy medium
bomber, and the Marines wanted a
new jump jet to replace the AV-8B
Harrier. As a cost-saving measure,
the three programs were merged, to
the catcalls of both those in the military
and industry. It was considered
almost impossible to build an airplane
that could satisfy such divergent
requirements without being a
jack of all trades, master of none.
Burbage said he himself had doubts
it could be done.
“Back in those days, I’m not sure
we had the tools to do it,” he said.
“Even as recently as three or four
years ago, ... the industry really didn’t
have the capacity to design a family
of airplanes where no user paid any
penalty for what the other guy
needed.”
However, “today, with our 3-D,
solid engineering modeling tools, and
just the pure processing power of the
computers, you can in fact create
these collaborative engineering environments,”
in which the talents of
geographically dispersed companies
can work together on a design, create
templates, and wind up with parts
that mate perfectly, Burbage said.
He also said the services demonstrated
great discipline in holding
their requirements to those that were
absolutely needed. That made the
joint solution possible.
“Once the airplane gets off the
ground and raises the landing gear,
they all do the same thing,” said
Burbage. “They’re all multirole combat
aircraft. ... The challenge really
is to ... accommodate all the different
basing requirements without penalizing
one guy for the other.”


Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles may even cut into JSF production, if the
robotic craft prove as efficient in battle as they do in the budget.
Lockheed Martin photo by Tom Reynolds