IF it is true that Boeing offered a higher tech approach than LM, one reason for it might be that LM decided to repackage the systems and software from its TR 3 and Block 4 aircraft into its new, presumably much larger airframe.
I figure it's much more likely that LM will propose F-35 commonality in these areas than that Boeing would, since LM already has such extensive familiarity with them, and not just as individual system designs, but a lot of experience in actually integrating them together, finding synergies and deconflicting, and in terms of other areas like quirks of installing them on production lines, keeping them maintained, nice tricks in mission planning, etc. In many cases it even had a hand in picking the subcontractors and designs, too, albeit quite a while ago.
I'm not saying that they would necessarily be the *exactly* the same systems in an utterly untouched, utterly identical way. Rather, in this scenario, they'd be "right sized" for the new platform but otherwise essentially without innovation, or with innovation limited to whatever could be conveniently spun off from the already existing near term F-35 upgrade path. So maybe a larger radar with more T/R modules and greater (Tomcat-esque?) power to drive it when tactically appropriate, but with F-35 commonality at the level of individual T/R modules, back end systems architecture commonality, software commonality, etc. And the same, mutatis mutandis, for the other systems like the BAE electronic warfare system, EODAS, EOTS, flight control system, cockpit, helmet, etc etc.
Call it the "argument from incumbency" or something: the existing provider of the most suitable off-the-shelf product will have a structural tendency to prefer offering reuses and evolutions of that product whenever reasonably possible, while providers with older/humbler offerings will have a relatively stronger tendency to prefer a clean sheet approach. And likewise for the existing systems integrators of those items.
aviationweek.com
