Block 3F gets ported over to the fleet in about 2 years. The program expects another year at a minimum to get it certified, debugged and functioning at a reasonable standard. Lets add another year on top of that even though certification would have happened already and it would have been cleared for operational use thereby concluding the SDD phase of program. Even if you add 2 years on top of the full SDD build delivery you are still looking at 2019. This gives most customers a decent amount of ‘breathing room’ for when they IOC (international customers that is).

Nothing is planned or scheduled but you could end up with a patch or two that makes everything perform smoother etc if something is discovered during testing. The strict schedule calls for block 3F delivery and certification followed by block 4 capability that will be firmed up (defined in totality) later this year. Block 4 is now expected to be released on 4 sub-blocks. Do keep in mind however that the initial trouble in getting the software to perform as required does not extend through the software build, as they have moved to 2a, then to 2b and 3F the challenges get a bit easier. Once you do develop a mature 3F version, debugging and expanding the capability is a little bit easier. You do have a hump that you have to get over and that takes the most amount of time, money and manpower but once you do you usually find it a bit easier to meet delivery deadlines and attempt to make up time lost earlier.

The first part of your post essentially answers my question, so updates post Block 3F delivery are envisaged in case they are needed to address deficiencies, before full release to service. This makes sense as the Block 3F standard will introduce a range of new functions/capabilities on top of the preceeding 3i standard, which always entails the risk to introduce new problems as well.

We’ll see how it works out in the end.

@Vnomad

Wrt the subject above that’s what I expected, the complexity of the F-35, as for other modern aircraft, dictates the need for testing by the customer. Normal flight test resources are typically too limited to validate the full range of operational conditions. Something like this is more usefully done by the customer himself, as mounting experience through actual operational use produces the most useful feedback to the developers. Furthermore during routine operations a larger number of pilots diversifies the views/opinions that might be useful to further optimize the weapon system.

It fuses two ship formations just fine, but they’ve encountered distortions for larger groupings. Point to note is that a fix will be just a matter of implementing a software patch, which they can do at the squadron level itself.

Also, AFAIK this sort of automated multi ship sensor fusion isn’t featured on any existing fighter (including the F-22).

I’ve heard this from others as well. Where are you folks coming up with this ‘mid 2020s’ figure? It’ll be ‘fully’ developed in 2017 when the Block 3F software is released to the fleet. That’s when the primary operators will have everything they expect from it. No sooner, no later. (Enhancements will of course carry on for the next 2-3 decades.)

Unfortunately, fact is you cannot retrofit VLO capability onto a conventional fighter jet.

Excuse my laziness not to split up your post, the device I’m writing from is somewhat uncomfortable to handle in this respect.

Neither the sensor, nor the sensor fusion capabilities of the aircraft are fully developed yet. Even at this intermitent configuration there are a lot of issues that have yet to be rectified. Don’t get me wrong that’s neither unusual, nor unique to the F-35. Other modern aircraft types had quite similar issues, but these types are already further ahead in their development and as such more mature.

I doubt that the Block 3F standard, even if it arrives in 2017, will be fully developed and mature. I’m inclined to believe that the Block 4 standard will be closer to the proposed capability standard that people are talking about since some years already. It was no different for other aircraft like the Typhoon for example.

Hence it’s my judgement that we won’t be looking at a fully developed and relative mature F-35 before the early 2020s.

Concerning upgradability there are aspects of an aircraft that are more or less upgradeable. Airframe related changes are obviously more limited, avionics and weapons on the other hand are quite upgradeable on any modern design. It are these areas in particular where the gap will most likely be smaller or even non existent.

Concerning the “it’s just a matter of a software patch” I have to cast doubts about your understanding of what needs to be done before a software patch file is finally ready for use on an operational aircraft, from its inception. There is quite a lot, time & money consuming work to do to achieve this. That’s not to say it’s not practical or as easy as “fixing a bug by uploading new software”, but it’s not as trivial as developing a piece of software for your smart phone or home PC. There are a lot more dependencies, stringent requirements, tests and documentation needed!

As you may have noticed I haven’t rated the F-35 here in comparison to any other aircraft! Keep that in mind and don’t hesitate to ask if something of the above is unclear to you. I would appreciate this over speculative interpretations of the stated.

Wasn’t there one report recently complaining about F-35 not fusing much if anything at this point? Theory and praxis are two different pairs of shoes. Right now the discussion is often about “what the aircraft should be capable of” once it is “fully developed”. Ofcourse fully developed is a relative term as modern aircraft evolve at a constant pace. The difference is thata Rafale and other aircraft deliver closer to their promises at this point in time. The F-35 may well do this too, but only somewhere in the early to mid 2020s! By that time other aircraft will have evolved further and the capability gap will be much smaller than the imaginary one based on future promises vs current reality. Arguably any modern combat aircraft is or was in such a position as development and induction of capabilities is an increasingly continous, overlapping process. No aircraft these days offers the full range of specified capabilities on day one! It may take a decade from entry into service until such a point is reached!
By that time new requirements will have emerged already.

It’s not in elevation.

Okay’s here something I’ve been wondering for a long long time.

There’s been an ongoing discussion on the DDM-NG and whether or not it can track enemy aircraft. Well if we come over to the Eurofighter – it has a an ‘active’ MAWS with a proposed PIMAWS.

The thing is, the Eurofighter already has a network of IR cameras around it to facilitate the Striker’s ‘X-ray vision’. Even assuming they aren’t as sophisticated as the EODAS’, is there any technical reason why the system can’t be developed (fairly cheaply) into at least a passive MAWS?

There is no network of IR cameras on Typhoon. You can attach conventional NVG to the helmet and project PIRATE’s FLIR image on the visor, but that’s it.

Shift them up by one, removing the EIS, which may not come at all. As stated however these timescales are more than 2+ years old, so delays can’t be excluded, not to say they are invitable considering the latter than hoped for contract signature and the delayed commencement of flight trials, previously envisaged to begin in 2014.

Dunno whether this has already been posted or not.

Saudis are fighting for it but it’s not enclosed in the original order. Last time I checked they have asked for the last 24 airframes being fitted for future AESA and CFT. Which would indicate that the current ones cannot be upgraded in that way?

Current ones are T2 equivalents without provisions for CFTs. AESA is possible, but it takes a bit more to bring a T2 up to accept it without penalties, i.e. cooling provisions etc. Concerning upgrades the Saudis were the first to introduce P1Ea, but there next step appears to be P2E. Btw the Storm Shadow integration as part of P2Ea is for the Saudis, not for the UK or everyone else.