Good catch, my bad.

You are over-simplifying matters. Partner nations not only get very detailed info, they also are involved in building the most complex components of the F-35 (BAE makes the ESM).

Here is the section on IP from the testimony:

Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade – 16/03/2012 – Department of Defence annual report 2010-11

Dr JENSEN: On the specific issue of the IP with the JSF, it concerns me that we are 10 years into this process, yet it staggers me that we still do not know exactly what the potential IP issues are.

Mr King : It is a big program and it is a work in progress, and I cannot move away from that position. That is where we are. We could maybe handle it when we come to that section on the Joint Strike Fighter. I think all the partner nations and the FMS customers—there are now two FMS customers who have joined the group—at the executive steering board yesterday noted this was a big topic to be defined in more detail. Work has been done on it and there are a number of working groups working on it. It is to be finalised. There are economic decisions to be made about what assets should be held where. One of the benefits of that joint project office is that the best available price will be available to all.

Dr JENSEN: It staggers me that 10 years down the track we should, according to the initial estimates, have had them in service pretty much now, yet we do not know the complete IP implications.

Mr King : I do not think we know the complete IP implications but we are working to that position. We are only just starting to buy our first two aircraft.

Air Vice Marshal Osley : As far as the intellectual property for the Joint Strike Fighter, we have an increasing amount of visibility of that data as we go along with the program. The nondisclosure process is well under way. We are looking at exactly how we embed our people into the software development facility. The software development facility will provide the emission data for the aircraft, the smarts for the aircraft. We have a proposal under way whereby we will have Australians embedded in that with full visibility of how the software comes together and exactly how we program the aeroplane and what the capabilities of the aeroplane are. At this point in time, we get approximately 11,000 pages of information every month from the program. That includes a lot of the data that we need to assess the aeroplane. We have obviously been getting that for years and we have a very good understanding at this point in time, I feel, of the aeroplane. Yes, there are some aspects that we are still getting the data on, but we have a request-for-information in for those and we are anticipating having full access to that information.

What is the chances of an open fly-off between F-35/Rafale/Typhoon any time soon…

The first meet might be a USMC F-35B at RedFlag 2014/15, or were you speaking of a competition flyoff?

Has anyone based a purchase of F-35 yet on anything but powerpoint and promises?

Nobody has based a purchase decision on just those two criteria. The Partners receive 10,000+ pages PER month of JSF related data. I am not sure what kind of data Japan got prior to it’s purchase.

While I will not get into a debate about what the PK of an AMRAAM is, the Aim-9X Blk2 can be fired in any aspect and has LOAL with EODAS guidance. Actually, the F-35 is currently the BEST plane suited for the Aim-9x Blk2.

2. What happens to the ageing Tornado fleet?

Once the FRP F-35 settles in, the economy improves, and the naysayers crawl back under the rocks from which they slithered from, then the UK will order F-35As. IMESHOOC 🙂

Balance that against this:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/137265/gripen_ng-costlier-than-expected%3A-report.html

The Swedish Armed Forces will have to cut back on billions of kronor by next year if they want to afford putting the new super jet JAS Gripen into production, according to a report by national broadcaster Sveriges Radio (SR).

The military in March supported an earlier proposition voted through in the Riksdag that Sweden should develop up to ten of the E/F model JAS.

But according to SR, the army and the government in May received a cost prediction from the Saab Defence Group, a figure reportedly way above what was expected.

In January, SR reported that the expected price tag on the development of the new super jet would reach the vicinity of 32-33 billion kronor ($4.7-4.8 billion), but this figure has allegedly since risen significantly, according to the broadcaster.

That is due to them being on the EF bandwagon… which did not work out too well for them.

They can always buy them FMS or buy their way into the JSF program as a Partner.

If I understood correctly emitter location doesnt matter,

Here is what LM says about their own BiStatic radar system.

The advertised system performance figures are dependent on several factors; the most important of which are the geometric diversity of the illuminators, the illuminator transmission power, and the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the target.

Notice that the number one performance dependent factor is “geometric diversity”, which means that you need the transmitters spread around.

different frequency matters, coz RAM ans RAS are not much multi band capable, are they?

While that “may” be true of earlier RAM/RAS, the F-35’s RAM is specifically designed to defeat a broad range of EM bands (as public patents show).

Regarding broadband jamming covering stealth, doesnt it even provide more food, more signal for the PCL system in order to find what doesn’t want to be found?

No, as the transmitter’s location is not known.

Are you aware that the US is developing an airborne bistatic radar?