Net centric capability is here to stay…Most of the things i have mentioned would be capabilities that the F-35 would enjoy pretty much from IOC or shortly thereafter…These are the capabilities that adversaries would have to deal with…Future investments in upping interoperability, net centric capability is also Clear, investments are going to go up and more capability added..

The F-35 will benefit from Multi-Ship Net Fusion via MADL or Link-16 starting at Block 2B.

Besides basic target data, Block 2b has 2-Ship Emitter Geo-Location and Mission Assignments.

If the F-35 “sees” the other aircraft 300 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot, and the other aircraft “sees” the F-35 200 miles away and presents the information clearly to its pilot – what effective difference is there?

Even the Über F-35 Haters at APA do not think that the F-35 can be picked up at 200 miles (think less than 30-35 miles at best).

Its ability to shake off the incoming AAM is reliant on directed countermeasures rather than the more traditional chaff, flares and turning.

The F-35 still carries chaff & flares and it’s maneuver ability is virtually the same as current 4th gen.

What it adds is much better SA on the threat and forces Active AAMs to get much closer to get a lock.

From the recent AUS testemony:

Air Marshal Brown: … But getting back to the situational awareness, the ability to actually have that data fusion that the aeroplane has makes an incredible difference to how you perform in combat. I saw it first hand on a Red Flag mission in an F15D against a series of fifth-generation F22s. We were actually in the red air. In five engagements we never knew who had hit us and we never even saw the other aeroplane at any one particular time. That is a current fourth-generation aeroplane.

The data fusion in the stealth makes such a difference to your overall situational awareness it is quite incredible. After that particular mission I went back and had a look at the tapes on the F22, and the difference in the situational awareness in our two cockpits was just so fundamentally different. That is the key to fifth-generation. That is where I have trouble with the APA analysis. They tend to go down particular paths in the aeroplane, whether it is turn rate performance or acceleration. These are all important factors, but it is a combination of what you have actually got in the jet and the situational awareness that is resident in the cockpit of a fifth-generation aeroplane that makes the fundamental difference.
…

Air Marshal Brown: Let me get back to my example again. In all those cases, neither turning performance nor speed were the factors that caused us to die in those five simulated engagements. In any practice engagement I have had in the last 20 years where I have turned with another aeroplane in a bigger picture environment—rather than the static one by ones, two by twos or four by fours—every time I have tried to do that I have ended up being shot by somebody else who actually is not in the fight. As soon as you enter a turning fight, your situational awareness actually shrinks down because the only thing you can be operating with is the aeroplane you are turning with. The person who has the advantage is the person who can stand off, watch the engagement and just pick you off at the time. So you got to be really careful about how you use those KPIs.

What about SC? Never heard of any significant mention of sustainable supersonic performance on dry power….If the F-35 has to go high high to achieve any respectable supersonic speed (even high transonic) in dry settings it defeats the purpose for its really not going to be operating at that altitude in most of its missions..

Besides the limited statement, we do not know altitude, load, if the 125 mile was total SC or half of the SC radius, etc. All we really know is that it did do it. Considering that it is not a requirement, I am surprised that it would ever get to that point in testing anyhow.

What about a whole bunch of official statements that F-35 can’t supercruise ?

Why is it that many have no problem accepting the fact that program failed to meet a spec, yet will not accept when a program exceeds a spec?

Other ways it exceeded spec:
1. VTO when it’s a STOVL design
2. EODAS tracking TBMs
3. EODAS tracking ground fires (artillery, S2S missiles, etc)
4. MADL exceeding range spec by “multiples of range”.

Not sure about double but at altitude Supercruising at around mach 1.4- mach 1.5 at altitude the EF Typhoon should be able to pull around 50% Greater more range compared to an F-35 operating at medium altitude. The F-22’s operating at altitude and at high supersonic claim the same vs legacy non-supercruising crafts .

So you think that the Eurofighter will be cruising around at high alt at SC speeds without any idea of where the F-35s are? That will burn up his fuel real fast. When it comes time to launch an AMRAAM the F-35 can punch it up to m1.6+ if needed so assuming a kinematic missile advantage is a failure in logic.

Question 1: “who has been right, the fans or the critics?” Let’s see…
..Schedule goes to critics
..Budget goes to critics
..Can’t fly, turn, climb BS goes to fans
..EODAS goes to fans
..Helmet goes to fans
..VLO airframe goes to fans
..Superb radar goes to fans
..Superb RwR goes to fans
..A2A performance goes to fans
..VTO goes to fans
..Superb Data Fusion goes to fans
..Supercruise goes to fans

I could go on, but there is just too much to cover. Basically all the stuff that makes it a war fighting machine and will be used to defeat the enemy and bring its pilots home “goes to the fans”

Question2: “Schedule & Cost concerns”
Post re-bas lining it has met the schedule and costs are constantly going down. Going IOC early will further bring down costs.

Question3: 2008-09 projections
The only thing it did not meet were the budget and cost schedules. See Question#1

USAF plans to go IOC in 2016 with Block 3I!!!

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-lockheed-fighterbre94j0v0-20130520,0,6064960.story

Andrea Shalal-Esa
Reuters
8:33 p.m. CDT, May 20, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Air Force plans to start operational use of Lockheed Martin Corp.-built F-35 fighter jets in mid-2016, a year earlier than planned, using a similar software package as the Marine Corps {Block 3I} , two sources familiar with the plans said on Monday.

The Air Force’s decision to accelerate its introduction with a slightly less capable version of the F-35 software package means the planes will carry fewer weapons at first, although the software will later be upgraded to the final version, said the sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.

We shall see. Official plans due by June 1st.

Here is a good breakdown of the blocks.