2AIM-120C7 missiles is not good enough for you? Remember that is what most F-16s are caring around and is much better than what the Harrier has now.

F-16s usually carry 4 AAMs, oftentimes 3 AMRAAMs and 1 AIM-9X.

I imagine that indeed they would send their F-35Bs to intercept incoming planes to protect a carrier or an air base. The F-35s would be too vulnerable on the ground vs in the air. But they would still be risking high value assets for not much punch.

$4 mil is nothing and unless something unexpected comes up, TR2 (which is part of 3i) includes all anticipated hardware for Block4 upgrades.

4 million is not negligeable at all. And the block 4 will maybe use the same computer hardware, but will have several other hardware upgrades.

I am not sure if the F135 block I engine upgrade is included in the F-35 block 4, but if you want it it will certainly cost a significant amount.

I’d have to do some checking but from my understanding is that the move from 3I to 3F is simply a function of installing the software, so its not as much about how fast they go from 2b to 3F but how fast they go from 2b to 3i. From what I remember, the new F-35B deliveries are with 3I so those aircraft would be moving much faster to 3F.

What is more important from a capability standpoint for the Marines is how many F-35B’s they get between 2017 and 2020 as the block 3F jets…

It is not because the new built F-35As will get block 3F in 2017 that the new built F-35Bs will have the block 3F too at the same date. The problem is that each variant has to be tested for each block. Fielding the aircraft with block 2B has also complicated things quite a bit, because it doesn’t have the same computer hardware.

Definitely. It seems to me that building a large filed of view turret like the EOTS is less complicated than building the optics and writing all the algorithms, so probably everybody could do it.

looks like DAS believers had a collective brain-fart and came to the delusion DAS has the range of IRST

But it is true that the EOTS has a good FOV to the sides.

Mr. Beesley might have reported that internally, I have little doubt about it. But in the end, he’s not in the decision board, only doing what he is told to do and saying what he is told to say.

We agree on that, he probably knew it, he reported it to his superiors, and probably nothing was reported to the program office, for the simple reason that redesigning the canopy would not only have cost some money, but also would have increased the drag, and the F-35 would have missed its range KPP.

Your suggestion to reshape the canopy is pretty much impossible. Or impractical, depends on how you call it.
Mr. Beesley did not have the helmet back in 2006.

Pretty much impossible? Huh and why not? It is not sure it would affect stealth negatively it is hard to tell.

I checked, the helmet flew for the first time in january 2007. The first variant of the helmet was pretty large too, so Mr. Beesley could have seen the problem. Is he a former fighter pilot btw? I find it hard to believe a fighter pilot would not be concerned with being able to check its 6 !

This is the stupidest post yet in this thread. They certainly cannot and will not redesign the canopy in this phase of the project and the seat is probably designed to take the least space possible. It’s much cheaper and simpler to replace the helmets later on with smaller ones as the related tech develops if there’s in fact a problem with the current ones.

I’m sorry but your post is the stupidest, no contest. The problem should have been identified and solved long ago. What you are suggesting is to develop a new helmet, which is a huge undertaking. Changing the canopy would be very easy in comparison. Will they do it, it is not sure, given that funds are limited ( mwhahaha ) and there is so much work left to do.

Such fix is not possible. There were other, even more serious issues with the helmet which needed a fix. The Gen II had many issues with microsecond delays, as well as the ISIE sensor. It is only the Gen III with ISIE11 EBAPS which finally at least remotely works as advertised. Size or weight of that thing was pretty much on the very last lines of Pareto list.

I don’t see why this problem would not be fixable. They could enlarge the canope to have more space for the helmet’s movement and they can modify the head rest to make it smaller.

That problem should have been identified by Beesley and co back in 2006 on AA-1.

The F-35 is not very maneuvrable but the pilot should at least have the ability tu use the full maneuvrability available while using the advanced helmet to the maximum.