The B version — that should have been developed independently from day one, only sharing materials tech, avionics and engine with the A and C.

After sharing materials tech, avionics and engine, what’s left? Why not go all the way and maximize the benefits of commonality? otherwise, you’re going to duplicate a lot of the expense in research, development, testing and production developing a STOVL platform separately.

Second; I suspect a lot of the developments on software could have been delayed. Start with a simpler version that do the basics, but make it scalable and add as you go along. F-35 will be a 5. gen a/c with a 5. gen software package. If done right one could have developed a 5. gen a/c with 4. gen SW, and then upgrade as the threat levels increased.

See SpudmanWP post +#73. Delaying adding a vital capability results in a crippled airplane and a more expensive one as well.

It’s not like the SH avionics package will be outdated by 2016….

EODAS; do you really need that in 2016? Could have been added later, perhaps in 2025 if there was a need. The important part would be to make sure there is space reserved for it.

EODAS is something you want as early as possible. For the first time in aviation history, a pilot will have 360-degree situational awareness. It will save a lot of pilots’ lives specially when in high-threat environments. Delaying it will only increase risks and costs.

I was thinking there were some new developments until I saw the date.

Japan leans towards buying F-35 fighter jet – Kyodo

TOKYO | Sun Nov 22, 2009 10:13pm EST
Nov 23 (Reuters) – Japan’s defence ministry is moving towards selecting Lockheed Martin Corp’s (LMT.N) F-35 jet as the mainstay of its next-generation fighter force, Kyodo news agency reported on Monday, citing ministry sources.

The ministry, which is thinking of buying about 40 F-35s, plans to submit a request for their purchase in the fiscal 2011/12 budget, Kyodo said.

It added, however, that the ministry may postpone making the request for one year, due to a view in the government that the purchase should only be made when full details of the plane’s capabilities are available.

Lockheed is developing three models of the radar-evading F-35 to replace at least 13 types of aircraft, initially for 11 nations.

Kyodo said each F-35 was estimated to cost about 9 billion yen ($100 million).

Japan is looking to replace its current fleet of aging F-4 jet fighters, whose design dates back to the 1960s, because they have become increasingly difficult to maintain.

Lockheed said last week that it was making progress on the F-35 fighter, the costliest U.S. weapons programme, despite rising costs and delays. [ID:nN17335530]

Japan has also been following moves in the U.S. Congress aimed at extending production of Lockheed’s radar-evading F-22 Raptor fighter, widely considered the most advanced fighter plane in use today.

Foreign sales of the F-22 were banned by a 1998 law aimed at protecting the “stealth” technology and other high-tech features. A Senate panel has urged the Air Force to start developing an export model of the F-22.

Apart from Japan, Israel and Australia have also shown an interest in buying the F-22. (Reporting by Miho Yoshikawa; Editing by Alex Richardson) ((miho.yoshikawa@thomsonreuters.com; +81-3 6441 1854; Reuters Messaging: [email]miho.yoshikawa.reuters.com@reuters.net[/email])) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to [email]news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com[/email])) ($1=88.86 Yen

Which I mentioned when I first raised them, remember?

Not really. I went back and all you mentioned was that the aircraft may have lost some weight.
Fact is, what you call “hard figures” are not hard at all. Maybe the F-4E figures are hard as the Phantom is a mature platform but most definitely not the F-35 figures. The real hard figures are classified and changing as the SDD program goes on. Mills conveniently neglected to mention this and tried to give the impression that these were actual F-35 performance figures when they are clearly not. This is why I wanted to see the source of your “hard figures” as there is zero chance any official figures would be disclosed.

I wonder if the USAF would ever consider integrating Raytheon’s Scorpion HMD onto the Raptor. Not as fancy as the HMDS on the F-35 but seems to be capable and affordable. It is a monocle display that simply clips onto the helmet so there’s no need to customize new helmets for each Raptor pilot. I understand Scorpion will be employed by F-16 and A-10 pilots initially.

So it will probably be the usual suspects submiting proposals for the new bomber, namely Northrop-Grumman, Boeing, Lockheed-Martin.

Do any of the 3 enjoy an advantage? Assuming all 3 companies submit competitive bids, I think LM will have its plate full building F-35s. If Boeing wins the tanker award, maybe NG gets to build the new bomber.

With all the talk about Anti-AWACS techniques and improvement in AESA technologies… I wonder if/when someone will come up with a stealthy AWACS platform?

Survivability of the traditional AWACS platform is becoming more questionnable given the increase in hostile 2A/AD capabilities.

In response, we will see the evolution of the AWACS from a monolithic platform that will be increasingly vulnerable to attack to an intermediate stage where Gen5 fighters (F-22/F-35) will act as forward controllers, able to perform certain battle management functions. utilizing stealth, they will be much closer to the action and can direct the action of other assets. We saw the beginnings of this model during Exercise Northern Edge up in Alaska more than 4 years ago. with F-22s using their superior SA to increase the lethality of F-15s. The AWACS can be moved farther back to a safer distance and consolidate data from the forward controllers and manage the big picture.

Eventually, we should see a fleet of UAVs configured with conformal AESA arrays and most likely employing swarm technology to provide effective sensor coverage over the battlespace. To a certain extent they could act autonomously, determining their own flight profiles within the battlespace or knowing when to link up with an aerial tanker, for example. Multiple AESA UAVs would be less vulnerable than a big AWACS platform and would provide redundancy against losses. No crew means the UAV can stay on station for days at a time, minus rendezvous time for aerial refuelling. The autonomous/semi-autonomous functions may enable F-22/F-35 pilots, if their presence is required, to focus on battle managements without having to micromanage the UAV fleet. Again, the AWACS is safe hundreds or even a thousand miles behind the frontline, virtually impervious from attack, consolidating incoming data streams to provide the overall battle management. Or you could do away with the AWACS completely and have a land-based facility.

This is true- I wonder if the ALR-94 can also be used as a passive radar, rather than just an emitter locator? This could certainly provide some anti-stealth capability.

No one will say officially that it can. I read claims that it had the capability to passively locate, track and target in A2A mode but these are unofficial and at best informed opinions.

Notice that the original linked article does not specifically mention that the F-22s were detected and targeted b y AESA radar. The f-35 avionics package includes a suite of active and passive sensors, why is everyone assuming that its radar stealth which is compromised.. just saying we don’t know for sure what the actual facts are.