Ignorance is Bliss.. NOT

Not so much, it seems like the radar saw it from a good distance away, as could the destroyer’s radar (already discussed above). You will never have 100% SA and you may not be able to point the nose at all threats and there is a gap in low band jamming with the AESA.

By all accounts the radar was intermittently broadcasting throughout the night. If the F-117 was carrying a decent RWR & datalinks then it would have marked the source and it would be avoided by all.

This is what I am talking about re: SA. The JSF carries a very robust ESM package and a LPI/Directional datalink which gives it the ability to share tracks and develop a precise location of all detected transmitters safely, long before they are in range.

Here is the source where the pilot, Dale Zelko, talks about that night and the events that led up to , during, and after the shootdown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjbnyNGz4j8

The majority of the VLO Features are inherent to the shape of the F-35B and cannot be “undone”.

Except by a dousing of salt water or a quick dirtblasting with hot asphalt, that is…

Give me a sec while I put on my hip-waders to deal with all the FUD floating around 😉

As you are WELL aware, the F-35 has already gone through RCS verification and it’s RAM is designed to operate from sea & austere basing, so salt water and dirt are non-issues.

It’s current RCS is actually better than spec because spec assumes a lifetime of wear and tear. Speaking of tearing, there is a program quote that says that you have to physically damage the RAM to affect the RCS.

When it comes to maintainable stealth design, the F-35 represents the state of the art, O’Bryan said, superior even to the F-22 Raptor, USAF’s top-of-the-line air superiority aircraft.

The F-22 requires heavy doses of regular and expensive low observable materials maintenance. F-35 stealth surfaces, by contrast, are extremely resilient in all conditions, according to the Lockheed team.

“We’ve taken it to a different level,” O’Bryan said. The stealth of the production F-35—verified in radar cross section tests performed on classified western test ranges—is better than that of any aircraft other than the F-22.

This, he went on, is true in part because the conductive materials needed to absorb and disperse incoming radar energy are baked directly into the aircraft’s multilayer composite skin and structure.

Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.

The F-35’s radar cross section, or RCS, has a “maintenance margin,” O’Bryan explained, meaning it’s “always better than the spec.” Minor scratches and even dents won’t affect the F-35’s stealth qualities enough to degrade its combat performance, in the estimation of the company. Field equipment will be able to assess RCS right on the flight line, using far less cumbersome gear than has previously been needed to make such calculations.

In designing the new fighter, Lockheed Martin engineers assumed they would guess wrong about some access doors; it would be necessary to put some in different places during the course of its lifetime.

Thus, said O’Bryan, the company left open several ways to make field modifications that can create a quick-release door in the aircraft’s skin. These doors won’t then need tape or caulk to restore stealthiness, the application of which is a time-consuming and expensive chore in other stealth aircraft.

The repair and upkeep of low observables has been one of the F-22’s “main maintenance drivers,” he said, “and that goes away with [the] F-35.”

http://www.airforcemag.com/magazinearchive/pages/2012/november%202012/1112fighter.aspx

i suppose she can be “re- skinned”. How much will it cost and How far will reach the security concerns is another set of questions – sry.

Because the skin is part fo the structure, you would have to redo a whole lot of testing and programming (Due to changes in weight, center of balance, etc). Any cost savings (if any)would be eaten up in the process.

Short answer: Weapon Integration (WpI) is part of the Software Block process. It has ALWAYS been this way.

Long Answer: The reason that WpI is part of the Block process is that multiple components in the aircraft communicate with the weapon and/or are involved in its use. They both have to go hand in hand. Yes, it is an asinine way of doing things (speaking as a software developer).

However, all is not lost. The entire purpose behind the UAI initiative is to break the “bond” between Software Blocks and Weapon Integration. What UAI does is that instead of including all of the software needed to integrate a certain weapon, it contains the software to support weapon features. Any weapon that limits it’s interaction to the plane to only the supported features can be integrated using just UAI.

Let’s put it in terms most of us can understand, Windows and Printers.

Back in the days of DOS, each program that ran on your computer had to have its own support of any printer you had attached (think weapon). For example, your Wordperfect might have support for your Laserjet 1, but Lotus 1-2-3 did not. Then you go buy a shiny new Laserjet 2 but cannot use it till WordPerfect and Lotus release new versions of their programs to support it (think Software Block).

When Windows introduced “Print Manager” (think UAI) it severed the dependency of programs to create their own interaction. Now, each program (weapon) only had to talk to the “Print Manager” (UAI interface) using a standard set of protocols. The “Print Manager” would then convert the information from the program into a format that the Printer (weapon) would understand. On the Printer’s side of things, they only needed to create a driver that the “Print Manager” would understand. There was not need to create drivers for each program.

It works the same for UAI. The avionics talk to UAI, which converts the data and passes it to the weapon and vice versa.

The only integration work that needs to be done with the weapon that applies to each plane is safety of flight and separation tests. Once that is done, the weapon’s UAI “drivers” are uploaded to ANY F-35 that has the right Software Block (and UAI Version – see graphic below) along with the mission planning updates before a mission. No need for a new software block.

The first version of UAI covers most A2G functions. The second, more A2G. Third up is UAV and 4th brings A2A weapons. Future plans are to incorporate pods like FLIR, recon, EW, etc.

Now I know you are asking, “Why are we waiting for Bloick4 to put it into the F-35”? There are two main reasons for it not being part of the IOC (Block3) F-35s:
1. The UAI initiative did not start till after the F-35 program began.
2. They had to make sure that delays in UAI would not delay the F-35’s IOC. (see one of the original timeline charts below.

The UAI program is also International. Several international programs have already expressed a desire to add UAI functionality to their weapons. To that end, the UAI program actually has language in it to foster international cooperation.

This is what the FY2015 budget has to say about UAI.

This is what the FY15 budget says about it:
Universal Armament Interface (UAI) is an Air Force program to develop, enhance, and implement standardized interfaces in current and future aircraft (manned or unmanned), weapons and mission planning to support integration of weapons independent of aircraft Operational Flight Program (OFP) cycles. UAI is currently being implemented on the F-15E, F-16 Block 40/50, and EPAF(European Participating Air Forces) F-16 aircraft, Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) I and II, Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM), Laser JDAM, Joint Air-to-Surface Stand-off Missile (JASSM) and Precision Guided Munitions Planning Software (PGMPS). Additional aircraft and weapons, including but not limited to, Joint Strike Fighter (JSF/F-35), MQ-9, as well as Army and Navy systems, have program plans to implement UAI. The UAI program office is responsible for development and enhancement of the standard (U.S. and allied), support to coalition/allied/joint interoperability efforts for weapons-platform interface efforts, provision of certification tools and implementation support to aircraft and weapons.

…

FY 2014 Plans:
Continue development and configuration management of UAI standards in response to user needs, working group management, technical meetings and workshops, risk reduction studies, common mission planning, and integration support. Also, continueintegration and updates to test tools, including maintenance and procurement of certification tools. These tools are shared among aircraft and weapons programs to reduce time and cost for UAI integration efforts. Start negotiation for multinational Memorandum of Understanding to broaden the use of coalition partners.

Yes later on in block 5, but not for the US services.

Popular misconception.

ANY weapon integrated by ANY service will work on ANY F-35 (Block & model specific limitations still apply).

This is one of the cost savings measures as there is no need to track multiple version of the software.

This ability goes into overdrive once UAI comes online.

One of the advantages of the AMRAAM (D and above) is that its increased use of a lofting profile allow it to use gravity to maintain energy in the endgame as it plunges down on the target. It’s two-way datalink and GPS assisted INS play a big part in that feature.

Spud – Yes, Rover appeared after SDD started.

However, it is now essential (that is, it has been mandatory for CAS in some AORs) for the primary mission of the third largest customer, and has been so since 2008-10. If not added outside the Block process it will not now be available until 2022, seven years after that customer’s alleged IOC and 14 years after its value was recognized.

. That was my point, i would really love to know if this due to the rigidity of the system or of the program management. And personally i’m really pissed with that rover missing capability (you know why). One of the defects of F-35 i’d sincerely love to see corrected quickly, even if i’m not found of the program.

The Services themselves in cooperation with all Partners form the JPO and decide what features appear, which do not, and in what timeframe it happens. They then have to balance that with any budget restrictions that are put in place. While you may not like that schedule, it is in no way a “defect”.

Keep in mind that Block 3 F-35s will form the smallest number of F-35s flying and their primary mission (sans the USMC) will not be CAS that requires ROVER. Also keep in mind that Block 4 is just a software upgrade to Block 3 as they are on the same TechRefresh. All Block 3 jets will quickly transition to Block 4 when it comes out.

The goal with the -81 was to make it flexible and modular so that it can absorb technology without resorting to developing a brand new radar.

Another feature of the APG-81 is that the radome is sealed. It is not meant to be maintained in the field or ever opened for the life of the plane. While the array itself is not meant to be maintained, the back-end electronics can be accessed, from behind, via the front wheel bay. This reduces the LO maintenance requirements for the radome. The performance requirements for the APG-81 are based on EOL array performance that assumes that a certain number of T&R modules will fail over its lifetime.

This is the main reason why you have never seen an APG-81 mounted on a F-35 and only ever see them mounted on test aircraft like the BAC 1-11.

So not having something that was not required or requested negates the ability to be modular?

Try doing a little research on something before coming up with a one-liner.