Anyone using tactics would switch on when cued already, in the way it was done over Bosnia, here’s some examples

Guess what, turning a massive Long-Range Air Defense network into a series of SHORADs is a win as it creates a lot of gaps where you will never be near enough to a IRST to get picked up in the first place. There is also no guarantee that the radar will pick you up when it goes active too. Then there is the issue of once you do go active, everyone knows where you are and weapons will likely be inbound from outside the IRST/radar detection range.

It’s a one-trick pony.

btw, As has been said SO many times before, Bosnia happened for several reasons:
1. They flew a repeated, predictable route
2. They did not have adequate ESM to detect & track the radar as it looked for them
3. They did not have the ability to share EW intel
4. They did not have the ability to respond kinetically to the threat

Ever wonder why there were not more losses in Bosnia, simple, they were lucky to get the first one.

It makes no sense to produce a lot of fast ageing hardware, when you have not the software at hand to make best use of that in the near future at least. See the F-35 about that. Just from 2018 you will have the final software to get all the promised performances you should have had from the start already. In the meanwhile you run your very expensive hardware for years well below the promised performance.

The processing hardware has not been sitting around doing nothing as the final hardware has not even been created yet. The F-35 will go through three stages of hardware (called Tech Refreshes) before it goes IOC at Block 3F. The first Tech Refresh happened during Block1 and included going from a single-core CPU card to a quad core one. The next Tech Refresh will happen during the transition from Block 2 to Block 3 and includes not only CPU improvements, but also radar and ESM improvements.

A free of reality claim to stay polite. The AD will not give away the positions of the SAM-sites, when informed it will be challenged by stealth fighters in the near future. All your claims may work against a smaller foe without some network capability at least or that kind of scenarios to find in exercises or power-point presentations. In the last ones the enemy will play to the rules given by you.

If a radar site does not emit, it cannot detect = useless and a mission kill.

I’m not sure anyone other than the one quoted LM official has said that “speed and maneuverability are irrelevant”.

IIRC it was one line in a Northrup Grumman video that said that “maneuverability is irrelevant” in regards to WVR combat and tracking via EODAS. I have never heard a LM employee, or anyone else connected to the program say that it or speed was irrelevant.

If you like your upgrade, you can keep your upgrade.

Another broken promise? 🙂

You can’t see me? My stealth must be good 😉

Possibly, some time under Block 19,

It’s pre-wired for NGJ or some other interim active pod like Terma who was talking about doing one based on the pod. I would not be surprised if Israel comes up with one.

and “I read an interview with someone from BAE years ago” is not that strong of a source.

The ESM is one of the most secret aspects of the F-35 so it does not surprise me that they don’t talk about it.

However, the problem with putting active EW on the penetrating stealth platform itself is knowing when you have been detected – because if you go active prematurely you have just exposed yourself.

This is why the F-35 is attributed as having one of the best ESMs on the market and directional/stealthy datalinks to share what they find.

Neither does realtime route planning work if the adversary radar can see you to the horizon.

Logic dictates that a plane (even a 4th gen one) with a good ESM will be able to detect a radar site before the radar detects the plane. This is even more the case with a VLO airframe. The DoD and LM both own radar test facilities that operate low frequency radars and they are quite aware what the capabilities and limits of the F-35 are.

The first link is formatted incorrectly to the PDF.

Here is the correct link:

http://www.dodsbir.net/sitis/view_pdf.asp?id=AF141_076_Ref_5_AIAA_2008_376.pdf

Same goes for IRIS-T or ASRAAM. I think its more of an integration question. If customer wants it, it will be integrated.

Not sure about IRIS-T, but ASRAAM does not have a datalink so LOAL is a bit more iffy.

Here is the only pic I could find of the ASRAAM/Aim trapeze.

Those are DOD costs, not LM.

For delivery to start in 2017, they need to order by 2015.

FY2015/16 GWS (Gross weapon system = everything except base building, pilot training, and weapons) is $142/$128 mil. By FY2018 it should drop to $108. Those costs are in the last few LRIP contracts. Once they go FRP it will get even cheaper.