Inc 3.1 kits have been part of the purchase program since FY2008 (12 bought) and will start to be installed in FY2011. There is no reason not to install them as they are already paid for.

6 will be installed in FY2011 (starting in 07/11), 24 (6 from FY2008 & 18 from FY2009) in FY2012, 40 (6 from FY2009 & 32 from FY2010) in FY2013, etc. A total of 144 are planned and does not include F-22s which will be 3.1 from the factory.

Here is the budget doc page from the FY2011 budget.

Page 288 of http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-100128-071.pdf

I will have to look it up to confirm what I remember, but IIRC it helps channel the lift-fan.

Sorry if this has been posted, but I came across a very detailed F-35 cockpit video that goes over a lot of info and procedures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5lPZDc8mzsY

So where is all the fuel going to go to get triple the range? They will actually lose fuel because of the 2nd crewmember. They widened the body, but put in a 2nd engine.

Funny how they forgot to photoshop the 2nd refueling inlet and 2nd air inlet out of the pic.

Come one Bluewings, quit changing the goalposts. Either we are talking about turning WVR combat or head on BVR. An IR MICA has what, a 35km acquisition range? At that range one or more AMRAAMs would already be inbound and the fight would not likely see the WVR arena.

My point about the 9X Blk2 is that the LOAL mode gives it options. A LOBL missile has to get the target into frontal hemisphere in order to get a lock. A LOAL missile does not. A LOBL missile has to depend on it’s fighter to get it into the optimal firing position, a LOAL missile does not. A LOBL missile can only do LOBL while a LOAL missile can do either LOBL or LOAL.

With all things being equal a LOAL missile is superior because it gives it’s pilot options and allows the first shot in a post merge turning fight.

You are right in the respect of the best missile is the one which reaches it’s target first. You are wrong, however, to assume that LOBL will be the first. It’s funny that you penalize the LOAL missile for it’s “extra time” needed to compute the target data but completely discount the “extra time” for the LOBL to achieve a lock.

Let’s take a popular cinematic example of why a LOAL shot is more preferable than a LOBL one. Look at “Top Gun”. They spent most of the combat time trying to “get tone”. A LOAL missile does not need “tone” before it is launched. Therefore time is wasted waiting for “tone”.

Second, you are also wrong, about the GPS enabled INS of the 9X Blk2. IIRC, only the 9X Blk2 and AIM-120D are advertised as having a GPS enabled INS. With a traditional INS and LOAL mode, the missile is programmed with the approximate location (and only direction if using a HMS) of it’s target before launch. GPS allows this to be a precise location and can be updated via data links.

But to do that, the target needs to be tracked while it moves, & the SDB needs to be guided to it.

An the SDBs, especially Blk2, are capable of this. SDB1s will need constant tracking updates while SDB2 will be able to take over self-guidance with the IIR or MMW seeker.

Well I suppose the F-22 will remain ‘CLEAN’ up until the point when those weapons are employed, with weapons bay doors open and AIM-9’s poking out into the airstream at an angle.

Presumably none of which will incur any drag penalty. :rolleyes:

When the 9X Blk2 becomes integrated, it will not have to hang out in the airstream at all before launch.

Besides, if the target is close enough for the 9M to be the weapon of choice, the enemy radar is likely to be in rage regardless of the lowered RCS of the F-22. Also, the F-22 will only show a higher RCS for a short period until the 9M launches, then it’s back to a lowered RCS.