Once again, your missing the point.

What they are doing is similar to what happens when computers went from DOS to Windows.

In DOS, each word processor had to support each printer internally. I other words, each printer had to be integrated into each program that wanted to use it. As new printers came out, they had to wait till the programs could be updated in order to work.

When Windows came out, they introduced a middleman called Print Manager. Now, each program that wanted to use a printer would interface with the Print Manager using a common set of protocols. Each printer mfg was responsible to provide drivers for their printers that would facilitate these protocols.

These mfgs did not need to know the inner working of Windows, just the needed protocols. This is the same thing with UAI. Each weapon mfg will create a set of protocols for their weapon that will communicate, in a uniform format, with the F-35’s (or any aircraft that has UAI) UAI interface and allow that plane to use that weapon without a block upgrade. This is why, if you had actually read it, the article says that a plane can use a new weapon with a “one day integration” instead of the several year process that is traditional.

Try doing some research after you take your keyboard of your mouth.

The answer is yes, because it does not work that way for all to see. 😉

Your showing your ignorance here again. Weapon integration DOES NOT require the “codes” or a Block upgrade thanks to UAI.

Even without UAI, they could be integrated during a block upgrade or be programed to emulate an existing weapon.

I wonder if they will need source code to integrate all of this?

Short answer, NO

The F-35 has an interface called UAI (Universal Armament Interface) which allows new weapons to be installed “on the fly”, pardon the pun.

In computer vernacular all they would need is the dev software to write the “drivers” for the weapon.

A New CAPE Cost Estimate for the F-35: Thanks to a new cost-estimating model, the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office’s numbers on the F-35 strike fighter are “a lot closer” to Lockheed Martin’s own internal estimates than ever before, says Dan Crowley, chief operating officer of the company’s aeronautics unit. Crowley told the Daily Report that the CAPE developed a new cost model to use in the recently concluded negotiations for the F-35 Lot 4 production contract that took into account items that the company has been asking them to consider for years. Among them were the multinational complexity the program, “should cost” agreements with vendors, and the economies of scale, said Crowley. And surprise: the CAPE’s numbers are now more in line with Lockheed’s. While there’s still some daylight between the two estimates on both the Marine Corps F-35B and Navy F-35C versions, the CAPE numbers for the Air Force’s F-35A variant “met” Lockheed’s own, said Crowley. “Too bad this had to come after the Nunn-McCurdy” breach earlier this year, Crowley said. The CAPE previously based its estimates on the assumption that the F-35 program would play out just like all previous fighter projects. Crowley thinks the government and Lockheed both seem satisfied with the Lot 4 numbers, which should be made public soon.—John A. Tirpak

Source Link

I am so tempted to say ‘I told you so’ to so many people re: the NM breech being a false one based on overinflated CAPE numbers.

If they did not do that the critics would complain every year as the average price goes up (because of it being a Then Year dollar price that includes inflation).

Links fixed

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4061

http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=4158