A critical observer will realise that LM does claim a “general” Block 3 software dispite further splitted in capability , when the former meaning will become available from 2016 really. 😉

Giving that level of detail to this type of schedule would be mind numbingly unnecessary. It’s not like they are hiding this level of information as here are two docs that show Block breakdown and how it applies to the program schedule. The first if from Nov 2011 and the last is from 2008.

FY 2012 = October 2011–September 2012 – How many F-35s have been ordered till end of September 2012 for that FY?!

All of the FY2012 F-35s are in production with the first delivery scheduled for Feb of 2014. I am sure the holdup with the LRIP5 contract has kept any announcement on LRIP 6 from happening.

Originally, IOC was to be declared concurrently with IOT&E, not after.

They have been producing F-35s at higher than 30 for several years. The only reason they are not producing at 100+ today is that they backed away from concurrency in a short-sighted attempt to save short-term money at the expense of long term costs.

Pilots don’t just jump into a fighter like the F-35 on a “visit”. It takes weeks of prep and sim work to get to that point.

@TS:

The fist pic is of the X-35B Technology Demonstrator (Prototype) and the second is of a F-35A Production fighter.

Two Very Different Aircraft. 😉

The hardware is certified for use before the software needs it. Actually, the F-35 is currently flying it’s 2nd version of CPU card and might get a new one as part of Blk2B.

New hardware for the F-35 comes in batches (every two block upgrades) called “Tech Refreshes”. The first Tech Refresh happened in the middle of Blk 0.5 and the next is part of the Blk2B conversion.

Modes/channels is virtually the same thing as saying parameters.

There are so many systems involved that they would have to spend paragraphs detailing each one (radar modes, ESM bands, CNI channels, IFF codes, EOTS images, etc) that it would not only take too long, but give away too much classified info.

Point being that they are talking about specific and unique features that they were able to triple when going from the F-22 to the F-35.

USAF mulls options for replacement of Boeing F-15E Strike Eagle

F-35 related parts

Indeed, industry sources say detailed studies have been undertaken for a two-seat F-35 along with extended-range models. Both are “do-able,” and are not mere theoretical constructs. And, if the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) adaptive engine technology development (AETD) programme yields an operational powerplant, it could help extend the F-35’s range, particularly if the AETD delivers its promised 35% fuel efficiency increase over the existing Pratt & Whitney F135. Pratt & Whitney and General Electric are working on competing designs for the AETD programme.

Gunzinger does not doubt that building a two-seat F-35 is feasible, but questions if there is a need to do so. What would be more important, he says, is extended range and increased payload. Adding a second seat would require a more extensive redesign, which on a stealth aircraft is even more challenging than on a conventional jet, Gunzinger says. In any case, building a larger version of any stealth aircraft is practically as challenging as designing an all new aircraft. “Could you do it? Yeah, but it’s probably more expensive than sticking with a single seat.”

Dan Goure, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, disagrees. “What would you replace [the F-15] with? It’s not an F-22, and it’s not an F-35. Here we go starting to talk about sixth-gen or something,” he says. It would have to be a clean-sheet design, but there is probably not going to be enough money to pay for an F-15E replacement given that the USAF will need to pay for a large number of aircraft procurements in the 2030 timeframe.”

Goure says that significantly modifying the F-35’s design to add greater range and payloads, let alone two seats, would result in practically a new aircraft. Goure says that if the F-35 is modified to take on the F-15E’s role, it would be closer in scope to Lockheed’s abortive F-22-derived FB-22 concept than the Joint Strike Fighter. And, if the aircraft were to be designed for service entry in the 2030s, there would also need to be major avionics and stealth technology upgrades. “You can call it an F-35, like we used to talk about an FB-22, but it’s hard to see it not being at that point of a new aircraft,” Goure says. There may also have to be compromises between range, payload, stealth and cost. “If it’s stealth, and it’s bigger, and it’s a two-seater, it costs,” he says.

So, assuming they end up with a F-35 based solution, what are your ideas (from cheapest to most extensive)?

Cheaper things that can be done –
–C wing w/o folding mechanism on the A body (no internal gun, tailhook, or heavy landing gear to save fuel)
–Larger intakes to take maximum advantage of newer AETD engine

More expensive solutions
–Six foot plug behind cockpit for fuel and larger weapons bay to allow full 2k Paveway, 5k bunker-busters (or at least an LJDAM version thereof), tandem 1k JDAMs, 6-pack of SDB, etc
–Part of that 6foot plug could be used for a back-seater.