It is funny to see you defending a stance that you were so fiercely fighting against just few years ago in F-22 vs Su-xx threads. 🙂
Looks like your logic is pretty adaptable to boundary conditions. When your favorite aircraft doesn’t have IRST, then IRST is useless. When it does have some advanced IR sensor, then suddenly the IRST becomes The Magical Solution. 🙂

Anyway, what kind of weapon will you use on those 30+nm miles distance? Your AIM-9X makes some 8-9 nm in typical situation.

I try never to state things in absolutes, so I am sorry if I did .

That being said, fighting against a VLO airframe will make BVR combat more difficult but not impossible. Besides IRST, ESM hits will also contribute to target detection. If your datalinks are uni-directional, circuits are leaky, etc then you are making it a lot easier for my ESM to find you (and my IRST to track you).

As far as a weapon goes, just because you are a VLO airframe does not mean that an active seeker cannot get you at BVR ranges. I requires a good seeker, proximity fuse, INS, datalink, and sensors on a supporting aircraft to back it up. The F-35 / AIM-120D combo should not have too much of a problem doing a 30 mile head on VLO shot in clear conditions.

btw, public documents from the SU’s manufacturer claim effective ranges that are a LOT shorter than what the F-35 carries so I do not expect parity using IRST.

Quite on the contrary, if both opponents are LO/VLO and use correct tactics, then BVR is a no-go. The only option left is WVR.

Did you forget BVR using sensors other than radar?

IRST anyone?

LM has shown that EOTS should be able to get a solution out to 30+nm in clear weather.

Can we please take this to the F-35 Discussion thread?

I don’t know at what point in the last few years you think that happened.

The 2010 re-baseline and every slide to the right since then.

I think one of the biggest errors in planning during SDD was the decision on how to address increased test & development demands. The DoD decided to delay IOC (in order to maintain year-to-year SDD funding) rather than increase year-to-year funding with an eye towards keeping to the schedule.

While this would have increased short-term SDD costs, it would have saved on concurrency, SLEP, and LRIP costs. It would also have gone a long way to stabilizing the Partner buys and to more FMS contracts (as the buyer would have a better idea on costs and would be buying FRP jets rather than LRIP ones).

All 6 EODAS sensors (not EOTS) take up less than a TOTAL of 5 cubic ft (less than 1 cf each).

IMHO there is no long term cost savings to going with SH-ish avionics at F-35 IOC and then developing more later.

The only thing that is saved is initial development funds and time.

Actually, it would cost a lot more in the long run.

1. Any new avionics will have to go through recertification again.

2. Any new hardware will have to go through a lot of physical testing.

3. Lack of EODAS at IOC means that the F-35 has no IR MAWS.

4. Lack of EODAS means a lack of self-BDA.

5. Lack of EODAS means the rear-limited cockpit visibility has no way of being corrected.

6. Lack of EODAS also means that the WVR survivability is greatly diminished since it will not be able to do significant HOBS shots.

7. Lastly, many are crying about, and have made significant cuts in order to reduce, concurrency. By not including the full hardware suite at IOC then you are increasing concurrency costs considerably.

Iirc, LMA hinted that the F-35 Electronic attack variant would not be needed, because the NGJ could be plugged into the F-35 without serious modifications….Any more on this?

There are several contributing factors in this.

1. Dedicated Fiber Optics: Every A2G station (even the belly one) have a dedicated fiber optic connection to the ICP (Central Computer) . This alleviates the need to “re-wire” the F-35 for the NGJ, or any other future pod. The beauty of Fiber is that to upgrade it, you only need to upgrade the transceivers at each end. Currently the F-35’s fiber is single channel, but they are already working on a multi-channel over a single fiber version.

2. An extra ICP: When the F-35 underwent TR-1 (Tech Refresh) during Block upgrade 0.5 the rear ICP (about 1/3 the size of the Primary ICP) was removed. However, the space was left alone for future upgrades. What this means is that if the NGJ needs more ICP space than the Primary ICP can provide, the rear ICP can be used without the need for airframe changes, rewiring, etc.

3. Middleware: The avionics of the F-35 are designed so that changes in hardware do not require a complete redo every time hardware changes. A layer of software called Middleware interacts with the hardware and only the middleware needs to be changed when the hardware changes.

4. UAI: While the first 4 versions of UAI deal with munitions, talk has arisen that UAI would also start to cover pods.

5. Power & Cooling: The NGJ handles its own power & cooling needs so nothing from the F-35 (or any other fighter) is needed in those areas.