Originally I was questioning whether the Meteor would be compatible with the limitations of the air to air station of the F-35 (350 lbs). Specifically, since Meteor is a phyically larger heavier weapon, if it at 400+ pounds could fit on stations 7&5 then this would be a positive regarding future missile upgrades. Lastly, the operational impact for UK and other users who would have to use air to ground station to carry it instead of ground ordinance. UAI will ease integration issues for future weapons, not physical limitations of weapons bay and stations. Thoughts?

BIO- interesting video

I thought one of the more telling exchanges occurred when the gentleman asked about the air to air weapons available to the F-35, there was considerable hedging in the answers considering the kinematics of the AIM-120. It is clear that there is an internal discussion going on as to the suitability of the AMRAAM as the principal air dominance weapon moving forward. This brings up a slew of questions as to how the defense industry is going to solve the question of improving the kinematics of the next generation of air to air weapons considering the space limitations on the F-22, and to a lesser extent the F-35. Anything larger than an AMRAAM sized missile is going to impact the number of missiles carried. Consider that the F-22 could only fit four AIM-120 until the clipped wing variant, and I don’t believe there has been a fit check on the suitability of the Meteor on the air to air station of the F-35 (hinting at a limitation on the size of weapon that station can carry). Clearly, if there is going to to be an increase in range/ and or/ burn time on the next ten air dominance weapon, it is going to have to have a HTK capability similar to the CUDA to fit a larger motor or ramjet in an AMRAAM sized airframe.

How many jets have been built? How many hours flown?

By now, there is plenty of data to calculate production costs at different rates, cost per flight hour and the rolling cost of hardware and software upgrades.

If those numbers have not been generated so far, the program should be cancelled and all involved should be encouraged to apply for entry-level positions at Wal-Mart.

Costs per flight hour will fluctuate over the course of the aircraft’s life, there are plenty of examples for that (B-1 comes to mind) The F-22 operating costs are coming down as the aircraft matures, they are still trying to pin down the sustainment costs though production has ended:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/…/RL31673.pdf
The F-35 sustainment cost outlook does seem to be improving as reported in the SAR report, various media outlets and blogs have their own spin on this:
http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Lightning+II+Sustainment+Costs+Decline+by+894+Billion+Procurement+Costs+Rise/article34752c.htm
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_06_03_2013_p26-582961.xml&p=2

As long as the requirements aren’t too disparate, then the USAF and USN can share.

The USMC are out the door though, their “me too” approach has f**ked JSF up something shocking.

I know this is the conventional wisdom among many who feel that the design constraints of the “B” model led to too many airframe compromises. It could be argued that the drive for commonality among the three airframes limited the optimization in certain parameters (tailhook position in the C).

The counterpoint I offer is that without the B version’s VLBB requirement the weights of all three variants would have continued to grow. The wingspan limitations imposed by LHA lifts on the A+B variants largely saved them from the acceleration issues plaguing the C model (in both drag and weight). In my opinion, the F-35C is the most compromised, and contains the most technical risk. Frankly, the fact that the C version weighs almost 5,000 lbs more than the A model is a major concern.

Amiga500;2129929
Fact is, a USN carrier was a much more dangerous opponent in the 1980s than it is now. It’s relative power will be even more diminished 10 years time.

That is a stretch, there certainly is one area where the Navy has lost capability. That is in long range interdiction missions. That was due to the A-12 debacle. The capabilities of the A-6 have never really been replaced. The F-18E/F may not have the legs of the F-14 but is a much more capable weapon system, however unsexy. The S-3 was never really replaced, but I’ve not read anything where the navy considers that a gap in their capability.

I don’t see any way that the Navy gets the F/A-XX with single service requirements. The NG Tacair (F-X) and the F/A-XX programs will most likely share one platform.

Twi engined typhoon do not hit 105 dB end of runaway afaik…

swiss report 114 dBA (115 according to article below for afterburner at 305 meters) for the Typhoon. F-35 dBA at 115 according to this article protesting F-35 basing in Vt. Then 152 dBA according to the article above about navy ear protection.

http://www.stopthef35.com/vermont-guard-commander-tries-downplay-f-35-bomber-noise/

http://defensetech.org/2010/01/12/fighter-competition-timelines-in-doubt/

What does that have to do with the F-35? Lets keep things on topic guys..

Actually quite a bit if you look at the link. Boeing claims the F-35 will not survive without the broadband jamming spectrum of the Growler. The whole PowerPoint is making the case for Growler + F-35. It fits right into the discussion going on. Frankly, I want to hear some opinions on this.

F-35 service ceiling is 60k ft about the same as EF-2000 , nevertheless almost all aircraft can do a zoom climb to alot higher than their service ceiling before launching their missiles , and since F-35 detect EF-2000 first it will have the option to position itself best way possible which mean in real life the f-35 will even have the advantage in altitude as well

I would take that with a huge grain of salt. The quoted service ceiling of fighters is not particularly useful and neither the F-35 or any other turbofan powered fighter is reaching upwards of 60,000 feet without afterburner.