The USAF is still trying to make up it’s mind to either upgrade the F-22 with MADL (they had a program at one time but canceled it due to MADL delays) or to change MADL to work with IFDL.

btw, Northrop already has a terminal that handles both MADL & IFDL (and BACN & MADL Ground Test Set too)
http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/SDRs/Documents/Freedom550_datasht.pdf

It can act as it’s own BACN hub too.

As an added bonus, it’s using F-35 CNI hardware so no custom stuff and a good supply of parts.

IMHO the smartest thing that NG could do is work with BAE & LM to borrow as much of the avionics from the F-35 as possible.

Overview
–They (NG) already own the CNI (communication package & MADL), APG-81 & EODAS, so that’s a no-brainer
–They could split the cost of the EOTS upgrade with LM
–Since they have already worked with BAE on the ESM to APG-81 integration, that is also a no-brainer
–L-3 Communications for the ICP & Cockpit display.
–No need for the the F-35’s HMDS, a simpler (and lighter) HMD should be fine but the F-35’s HMDS could still be used.
–Depending on the requirements, the F135 might also fit the spec and would lend itself to future ADVENT/AETD upgrades
–UAI, coming in F-35 Block 4, would allow for faster & cheaper weapons integration for LRS-B

How It Works
–The software in the F-35 has been designed from the ground up to be upgradeable (software & hardware)
–Generic backend ICP. There is no need for specialized processors as it’s all software driven.
–Middleware allows you change hardware (new displays, engines, radars, etc) without the need to recode large amounts of the program.
–The F-35’s modular avionics lends itself to adding/removing functionality as needed.
–Thanks to the above, individual items (radar, ESM, etc) lend themselves to scalability without the need to recode large parts of the software.

Case Examples
–If you want a larger display, rotate the 8×10 panels and add another one. New display is 10×24 (vs original 8×20)using the existing hardware.
–You can make the AESA array & ESM receivers larger for more sensitivity while keeping the backend processing engine.

Benefits
–Much shorter development time for LRS-B
–Much cheaper development cost for LRS-B
–Cheaper procurement, maintenance, and future upgrades for BOTH the LRS-B and the F-35.

That’s the plan although I think it’s the SAM operator that launches the missile using the plane’s sensors.

So basically, by 2020 the F-16/F-15/F-18/Rafale will be more expensive (out of production) and the F-35 will be in a better position (cheaper due to Economy of Scale, at block 3F leading into 4.1, more known about capabilities & costs, etc).

Should be interesting.. too bad the Canadian economy will have to take a hit.

They did min power takeoffs too where they dropped 17feet below the deck after takeoff & before climbout.

There is a reason why the USN is developing its own Anti-TBM capabilities.

1/ you always carry as much fuel as possible when you start and/or refuel in the air… if you need maximum agility, the F-35 is stuck with all its fuel inside while the f-16 can still drop its tanks if needed

The F-16 drops it’s tanks because they are an aerodynamic drag on the F-16’s performance. The F-35 does not suffer from this. Besides, the 600 gallon wing tanks and the CFTs can not be jettisoned.

2/ as seen with the leaked report, even with half fuel onboard, the f-35 can’t match an f-16 with two wet bags (and don’t try to sell me the “unfinished controls software” BS, the claims about its fabulous agility were made by Beesley and co years ago…

Those were max AoA & departure tests and not BFM tests.