Video of the landing

So which module do you leave out?

EOTS, Radar, EODAS, HMDS, etc?

The hardware is not the problem, it’s the software.

That being said, Canada could have made the same choice that the USMC did, go IOC with Block2.

You’re forgetting that the JPO decided to declare IOC at 3F due to the lessons learned from the F-16 and all the years & money it took to get from Block5 to Block 30 (full multi-roll).

Any thoughts on the lack of an IRST?

Or does it have more to do with being a prototype as the J-20 got an IRST after a few versions were flying?

These facilities do not exist yet.

Let me introduce you to a few of them.

Italian FACO– It is the largest foreign facility as it will work on multiple parts of the F-35 and handle assembly.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232884[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]232885[/ATTACH]

Japan is building a FACO too.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130621/DEFREG03/306210017/Lockheed-Mitsubishi-Sign-F-35-FACO-Deal

Turkey is building an engine center
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-pratt–whitney-agree-on-f-35-engine-center.aspx?pageID=238&nID=66776&NewsCatID=345

—————Here is more info on how Global Sustainment will work———–

[ATTACH=CONFIG]232887[/ATTACH]

Opening up the world market
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140706/DEFREG02/307060009/Global-Competition-Opens-F-35-Sustainment-Deals

19 New foreign facilities worldwide in the next 5 years
http://www.defensedaily.com/dod-accelerating-global-f-35-sustainment-network-bogdan-says-2/

Eurpean Support and Training
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130906/DEFREG01/309060008/Britain-Norway-Working-F-35-Support-Training-Collaboration-Agreement

And for example why I (as an X nationality) should have to send my “broken” plane (or parts of) to some Y country to get fixed.

Because you want to keep your costs under control.

Also what If I am for some reason facing a threat the others are not facing? Why should I trust the X country to give priority to my planes and not those of other paying customers who might actually have a vested interest with my “enemy” ?

How is that different than having to buy parts from France, the UK/Spain/Germany, or Sweden when buying the Rafale, Eurofighter, or Gripen?

Spud – I know about anti-tamper (although unless your tamper-detection codes are 100% good you just introduced a whole new clutch of failure modes) and replacement-versus-repair (GLWT on a carrier, LHA/D or FARP). But it makes the jet a bit of a black box to its non-US operators.

Keep in mind that the worldwide support & logistics plan means that these “black boxes” will be maintained at different facilities around the world. This is one of the key cost savings measures in the O&S chain. Without it, you would have each country having to set up shops, train personnel, etc to deal with almost every aspect of sustainment. As it stands now, each level of service is being done at several locations worldwide and those centers will compete for the worldwide work.

Competition is a good thing.

Do you want to imply that a source code of fighters like Gripen or Typhoon would be easily replicated/tampered with? And if yes, then by whom? Czechs? Hungarians? Or Saudis? What exactly would they do with it?

Whether they are or are not, I do not know. It’s not like anyone is clamoring for their level of tech.

My point was that the main driver that kept the F-22 from being exportable was the lack of these kinds of protection at the appropriate level.

I see. It’s much more profitable for LM to do a LRU replacement for full price tag, for a part that could potentially be fixed for a bargain. Makes sense now..

LRUs are not sent back to LM, but are sent to local (in country, regional, etc) sustainment facilities for repair where they are then put back into the parts pool. While LM may get some profit in this cycle, it’s not up to them but the contract that the client and the facility have as to the final price. There is also various Performance Based agreements where the contractor (not the client) pay for parts as needed per the contract.

It is not the capabilities that make something exportable or not, it’s the ability to protect those critical technologies from being compromised, copied, hacked, etc.

As has been said many times before, it’s the F-35’s avionics that make it special and since those avionics were designed from the ground up to be exportable, it can be.

The F-35 has the best chance of detecting and tracking a PAK FA in that scenario.. so Gripen?? GMAB

Good luck flying much faster than mach for any appreciable amount of time in the Gripen with any weapons or meaningful amount of fuel.

btw, “intercepting” does not mean a tail chase, it means meeting the target along it’s route before it get’s to where it’s going.

OK, this is what catches me every time…..and even you said it……”The F-35 will be capable…”…and that is an issue….is not that really saying that people THINK it will do these things?…but in all honesty it hasn’t done those things at all?…or yet?

It has done every one of those except carry 6 AAMs. It’s gone past m1.6, past 9gs, past 55 AOA, has the avionics already in, etc. It’s not that people “think” it can do something, it’s that it is performing as designed and there is no evidence that it “cannot” live up to it’s design.

Now I have noticed that you have mentioned SIX 6 missiles in the Internal Bays, yet I have never seen that referenced, only TWO pylons in each bay for a total of FOUR internal missiles, so what is the “truth”?…..

But why?…if it has the Capacity, why wouldn;t the capability be made to match? I had realized that it has an external capability, but that essentially negates it’s stealth if loadout is all external pylon mounted…isn;t it then just become an average Gen 4.5 with SOME stealthier features ( granted the avionics etc are new….)

There are three simple reasons why it’s starting with 4 AAMs rather than 6 internal:
–Requirement
–Time
–Money

Given that most fighters use 4 BVR missiles in a majority of their missions, the JPO set the SDD requirement at 4 missiles. Given that they put the upgrade to 6 AAMs internal for Block 5, they do not even see it as a priority.

The F-35 currently has the capability to carry 4 internal AMRAAMs, but has the internal capacity for 6.

Only in fan dreams.

So it was fanboys that created the Block plan, put them at Block5, paid for the Skunk Works study to validate the bay capacity, and produced the video (screenshot below) that showed the 6 internal AAMs?

There is no longer any serious effort to do six internal AMRAAM.

Block 5 development does not start for a few years.

That’s why USN is looking at AIM-9X Block III.

The USN will have their Superhornets for longer than anyone else will have their F-16s.

Here is the list of general items that are planend for each of the upcoming blocks:

Here is the Current Block 4 Timeline:

Here is the old Block timeline. Shift it to the right as appropriate and you will get a feeling as to when Block 5 dev will start.