would a PC-21 be sufficient for all phases of training? (less types, easier logistics)
or still a 3-4 type progression is better?

The move appears to be PC-21 as the start with some form of lead in, hawk m346 etc, to fast jets.

the bring back refer to the ordnance

Fuel and ordnance are not mutually exclusive and are the only two options for realistically reducing bring back weight. For example an aircraft with a high fuel state and no ordnance could easily be over the max landing weight.

i think only two things matters, ground clearance and wing downforce when it hits,
its pushed in a direction that was never suppose to go over 3 G, so heavy weapons on outer wing pylons is stretching it.
central positioned weight if it has ground clearance, as in internal bombs and fuel, will not be an issue

What are you talking about? SH or F-35 or something completely unrelated to catapult launch at very light gross weights for F-35C. There are currently zero issues with the F-35C landing on the carrier…

i dont buy that the issue only occur when taking off on fuel fumes, no one ever does it,
and they arent doing it on the video either.

And you know they aren’t taking off with a low fuel state how? Given the jets were doing carrier quals and the whole point of the exercise is to test how the jet takes of and lands from the carrier they weren’t flying around the airspace for three hours burning fuel. Even less likely that they took off with a heavy fuel state and dumped the fuel before landing. They certainly weren’t flying with a weapons payload either.

and all go to great length to have more than fumes when landing even, and navy doubly so.

keeping CAP at all time coulda explain why navy didnt have cash to buy next generation destroyers

Landing with a low fuel state is not only good but desired, especially when you are in an F-35C that hits the third wire every time…

Are helmets able to track eyes movements for targeting or do pilot select eg if several targets are in sight? How? Voice commands? Voice changes with gload, are voice systems reliable enough?

JHMCS tracks helmet boresight. When a target is identified the pilot will click a HOTAS button and this will designate the target. Voice command would be too long and potentially difficult during High G. JHMCS can interface with AAM, radar, RWR and FLIR to correlate the track.

Some info on JHMCS can be found here, http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/navy/ntsp/jhmcs-d_2002.pdf

Another interesting thesis about potential advances in HMS, http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3359&context=utk_gradthes

Advanced Super Hornet promoted as a complimentary aircraft to the F-35 for the US navy.

Business Insider 19/01/2017.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/boeing-updated-f18-comparable-f35-advanced-super-hornet-2017-1?r=US&IR=T

The ASH concept is certainly not new. Boeing has shopped it to the USN and RAAF for a couple of years and neither is interested. Boeing isn’t offering a developed jet, they are seeking a customer to fund the development of the whole ASH upgrade. The USN is interested in longer engine life but little of the other offerings.

Kuwait may have ordered the conformal fuel tank option, it was part of the approved deal but I wonder whether Kuwait know they will have to fund the development to get the CFTs?

And Obligatory does have a point, even F-22 are using wetbags out from Alaska and even on US own southern borders. There are ample picture out there to support this.
So it means, the F-35 would also see the use of wetbags.
This is a FACT!

You need to understand how to differentiate between what is a fact and what is an assessment.

Does the F-22 use drop tanks? Yes it does on occasion depending upon the mission type and likely most often as a means of enhancing its RCS…

Will the F-35 use a drop tank? Perhaps…but it needs to be manufactured first. Until that time we can be certain, even factual, in stating that the F-35 does not use drop tanks…

I’m probably wasting my time but will hopefully be understood.

2] you find no particular reason for F-35 to fly at any altitude other than 30k ft to and from target either i see,
neither did spudman, and neither does anyone else

A major reason is when the F-35 is part of a large air conflict. If we look at DS as a perfect example with so many aircraft in the air not everyone can cruise around at their optimal cruise altitudes, especially in the early days of a conflict where there are entry and exit lanes into the battlespace. Hence the profiles often shown for F-35 include cruising at non optimal altitudes.

De-confliction is a huge issue and why the CAOC spends so much time preparing an ATO, to ensure that aircraft are appropriately stacked and spaced.