I don’t think that NG will hand over their IP to Raytheon so they can make their radars better.
That, depends on which mode the AGP-63(V3) are oprating in.
The APG-63(V)3 does not have the same LPI modes that the APG-81 & 77 enjoy.
APG-63(V)3 AESA array will have longer lookdown vs the F-35 AESA array!
Not to mention it will show up on enemy RwR sets much sooner than the APG-81. 😉
First 3 words say it all “An unnamed source“. Add to that the fact that neither the “expert’s” name nor the parameters of the simulation were given, it does not surprise me that someone can setup a scenario in which the F-35 comes out on teh bottom.
You do know that the F-35 can go faster than an F-18E carrying just 4 AAMs, don’t you?
btw, its rather impressive the way you twist things permanently.. an article says: “this is the problem and this is the way it affected the program”, you come and say “that article says how it does NOT affect the program”
they tell you they found a crack they had to fix and airframes are out of the particular testing they should have performed, you come an say “it was done on purpose”
Sorry, in other threads I reference it as no significant delay and I forgot to state the same here. BTW, Did you miss the last sentence of the quote?
“BF-3 and -5 (and BF-01 by the end of Dec) are available to do Stovl work, so this is not holding us up,” McFarlan says.
paint
Now, one can wonder why, if the weakness was discovered several years ago, why they didn’t make those modifications earlier.
Once the crack started to form, the SDD program would continue to monitor the crack in order to assess it’s source and potential damage in totality. Only after the tests were completed could the SDD program determine the best permanent fix to put in place. Once a fix was designed, they would then have to test that fix in order to decide its impact on the rest of the aircraft. This is why there was no quick fix.
It shows it is never a good idea to buy LRIP examples in numbers till most of the testing is not finished.
The DoD decided that the benefit of a faster deployment (eg high concurrency) was more important than potential upgrades to LRIP aircraft (btw, this crack only affected SDD airframes).
Flight test airplanes are specially intrumented for specific testing duties. After a few hundred flight hours, their test flights are finished, the planes are deactivated and sent to museums.
The SDD aircraft will not likely see a museum for decades to come. The reason is that they will be needed for testing the Block upgrades as they come out. They may retire the F-35s that do not have mission computers sooner than the rest though.
AWST report details just how the crack IS NOT affecting flight tests.
1. BF-01 has already been modified with the new part and will return to flight in Dec.
2. BF-05 had the new part installed during construction.
3. BF-02 will have the new part installed during a scheduled downtime.
4. BF-03 & 04 have not had the cracks appear due to not flying as many STOVLs. BF-03 & 04 will be modified later during their own scheduled downtimes.
McFarlan says the actuator supports were identified as “hot spots” during structural testing, and Stovl (short takeofff and vertical landing) aircraft from test jet BF-5 onward have redesigned beams and are not affected.
Aircraft BF-1 has been fitted with the redesigned support beams and is planned to return to flight at NAS Patuxent River, Md., in December. BF-2 will be modified during scheduled down time, he says.
BF-3 has done less Stovl testing and has not yet developed cracks. It will be modified, as will BF-4, which for now is being used for up-and-away flight testing. “BF-3 and -5 are available to do Stovl work, so this is not holding us up,” McFarlan says.
To copy info from it:
1. Save to HD.
2. Open with Foxy online utility http://foxyutils.com/unlockpdf/
3. Save unlocked file to HD.
4. Open with any PDF reader.
Tested and worked on the above file.
Notwithstanding the fact that the bird in the above shot is mush after rebounding off the door, the blades will slice up any remains.
The F-35B’s lift-fan & door should stand up pretty well to birdstrikes. Besides, there is nothing in the fan to “flame out” or otherwise lose performance when struck.

Any “LO Pod” that would be developed for the SH could also be carried more effectively by the F-35.
1. While the SH could carry 3 pods (12 AAMs), the F-35C could carry 4 pods and still have 4-6 internal AAMs (20-22 AAMs all under full LO RCS). If the SH loads up the other non-LO hardpoints, it can get up to 20 AMRAAMs (but with a RCS and additional drag hit).
2. The inner pylons of the F-35 are cleared for 5k. A LO Pod with a fuel cell can be designed that will offset the reduced range due to pod drag.
3. The F-35 could also carry them more effectively due to less drag (hello SH canted wing pylon issue).
4. There is also the issue of the SH still having a large RCS. The F-35 with 4 LO pods should have a lower RCS than even a clean SH.
The E-2D is a rotating AESA dish.
They limited the “design” top speed to mach 1.67 because they did not want to spend the money in testing when they did not plan on operating above that region of speed. I would not be surprised if late in the SDD phase they fly a true top speed flight just to see what it can really do.