Speaking of which: will this be the ‘generation zwei’ point defense of choice ?

Maybe.

There are several things that munitions mfgs can do to counter this:
1. NOE approach minimizes detection and reaction times
2. Swarm tactics
3. This will not be very effective vs JDAM like inbounds as the case is very thick and the explosive is “insensitive” to a cook-off.
4. Ablative coatings

I have already said if I find proof that US personnel are not required for any LRU installations I will post a link.

Here is some info I have found at http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/255/All-F-35-maintenance-to-be-performed-in-Australia

Speaking to the media on August 23 August {2012} in Canberra, Lockheed Martin’s F-35 program manager Tom Burbage explained that once Australia’s F-35s are delivered they will never have to return to the US for maintenance.

…

However, even though the aircraft is unlikely to be as maintenance-intensive as those it replaces, work will still need to be done. Until now, many observers of the project had assumed that the Australian aircraft would have to be returned to the US at some point for deeper level work. Not so, according to Mr Burbage. He was definite that once in Australia, they will be supported here for their lifetimes – though individual components might need to be returned to their manufacturer, depending on the circumstances.

He and his colleagues were complimentary of the up-front work that the RAAF has required from Lockheed Martin to define what will be needed for in-country support and he indicated that Australia is more advanced than other F-35 customers in this regard. Exactly how support activities will be arranged is a question for the future. The RAAF itself is likely to do some of it. However, it seems highly probable that Lockheed Martin will lead a team of local companies – probably based near RAAF Williamtown outside Newcastle – to also take on a percentage of the work.

Read up on PBL (Performance Based Logistics) as it is the plan being put forward by the JPO as the way to reduce the the O&S costs. It is up to each service to use PBL and to what degree.

Can Australia plug & play all of the LRUs without the presence of US staff to put in programs or codes?

This is a complete non-issue and can be addressed rather easily.

Does replacing LRUs in the F-15/16/18s sold world wide (sold without the codes btw) require US personnel on hand?

If so, then why is nobody complaining?

If not, then why do you think that the F-35 will be any different?

My concern is not with the modification or addition of new systems or upgrades to the F 35 but with the ability to pull out a damaged component such as a radar & replace it with one from storage or from another damaged F 35 & have it work fully with only the Australian maintenance crew.
Could you provide a link showing that all components will be plug & play? “Please”

Their are called LRUs (Line Replaceable Units) for a reason.

There was quite a bit of grumbling about Australia being sold FA 18s with degraded radars & having to steal the source codes to fix it

That was a “story” that was much ado about nothing and dealt with the RwR and not the radar.

Basically, while the Hornets contained all the RwR threat libraries for Warsaw Pact systems in the region. Popular conjecture is that what Beazley is talking about is that they requested the threat libraries for American systems that were beginning to be sold to customers in the area (Singaporean F-16s, etc) and for obvious reasons were denied.

This is from the latest news on F-35.

How much more is the F-35A delayed right now? We are Talking about past 2015 now.. and that is not even software related..

Loads for Blk2B will be tested first so the USMC can go IOC in 2015, then loads for Blk3F will happen in time for Blk3F IOC.

Testing in lots of different areas happens at the same time, there is not going to be an increase in SDD or delay due to this.

From Sep 2012

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2012/09/06/norway-funds-f-35-drag-chute-for-canada-and-the-netherlands/

/ Lockheed Martin’s Keith Knotts recently explained the situation to Defence Watch:

“As Norway increased their buy of aircraft from 48 to 52 and then additionally accelerated their buy, they pretty much stuck out in front of everybody else and they agreed they would go ahead and fund the event themselves and the other countries would just have the future benefits of that in a future date when their aircraft are manufactured,” he explained. “Norway has taken the lead and will ensure that drag chute capability is available for not only those two countries but any country that wants to add upper attachments points to the aircraft as well as having a drag chute capability.”

So Norway is paying, on its own, to accelerate the chute development but all partners can install it if & when they want.

I’ll look some more for any timeline details.

Thanks for the correction on Italy, still a long way from Australia though.

Australia will likely have its own if it wants. Nothing but money is keeping that from happening.

Even Britain was upset about not getting the source codes to do maintenance.

You do not need the source codes to do maintenance, only software upgrades (which nobody is going to do on their own as that would drive up costs considerably). Only a few in the UK and some Sheeple were upset as they did not understand the issue.

Their only legitimate concern is the use of integrating their weapons and custom components on the F-35. Two technologies are in the F-35 to address this:

1. UAI: This is like a print driver in Windows and will allow any weapon that has a driver to be used without ANY need for the Software to be changed (hence the lack for need of the codes). UAI is part of Block 4 (2020 timeframe). The first two parts of UAI cover A2G weapons, the third is UAV specific, and the forth is for A2A weapons. Future UAI plans are for pods (FLIR, IRST, RECCE, jammer, etc) and will allow for deeper integration into the F-35. It is up to the weapon mfg to create the drivers and is not under the control of LM or the US gov.

2. The deal with the Israelis on custom equipment (not part of the first 20 airframes when delivered) will accelerate some aspects of API development. This will allow any JSF user to develop components that are API compliant.

3. Neither of the above two solutions requires the software codes or changes to the software blocks in the F-35.

That Australian MRO&U facility will depend American personnel with the source codes & if those personnel are ordered home when Australia goes to war with Indonesia or some other friend of the US because America wants to remain neutral then Australia’s ability to repair it’s F35s will be extremely limited when needed the most.

While I am sure there will be some US personnel at every MRO&U facility, they will be mostly staffed by local workers. Remember that the F-35 is built around a GLOBAL supply chain and the US trying to choke off a partner from it is likely a violation of the MOU and would be very hard to do.

How can Australia justify buying an aircraft without the source codes when those aircraft could be unusable after a few weeks of combat?

Exit question: Do you think that the F-35 is the first jet where buyers did not “get the codes”?

Remember that the largest international western fighter program in history did not release the codes to the clients. Just like the F-35, these clients did a majority of the maintenance & upgrades locally, had a global supply chain, etc and yet did not complain about it when they bought it.

What am I talking about, the F-16 of course.

Btw, I did not hear Australia (or you, for that matter anyone) grumble about not having the codes for the Hornet, Super Hornet, or Growler.

bbtw, Horde = Perter Goon… the other half of APA.

http://www.ausairpower.net/CV-PAG-2007.html