The RWR systems nominally cover certain bands used by radars AFAIK so IMHO it’s not a given that they can receive datalink signals without modification (i.e. possible addition of various antennas to cover different datalink type frequencies which is not a simple task). When you have a datalink system installed, it has the required equipment set to receive and transmit such data and knows exactly which frequencies to listen to (e.g. if there is some frequency hopping method added, etc.), while the RWR system might not so it’s not as simple as “if datalink system can receive it, so can the RWR”.

While that might be applicable to traditional fighters, modern systems are paying more attention to EM outside of radar bands. There is a reason why they are no longer using terms like RwR and instead using terms like ESM.

To put this in F-22/35 terms, this area is one of the reasons that the F-22 is credited as being an “information sponge”. The F-35 is even more so.

Anyone remember the Australian Parliamentary testimony about the ways that the F-22/35 can ID a target? Datalink sniffing, source ID, and GeoLocation is part of the reason whey the F-35’s numbers are so large in that area.

So in most cases a 4-ship fusion plan works and in only a few extreme cases does it not “sometime” show duplicate tracks.

In ALL cases a 2-ship plan works fine and can share tracks with the other two via Link-16. By all accounts this will be fixed by the end of the year.

There was NO reported issue with an F-35 fusing its own data.

Now, compare that to what the “editor” wrote.

unprecedented situational awareness and data fusion – don’t work.

His “option” is not even close to what the facts are.

Let’s look at another of his “opinions”

It also won’t be able to communicate with other aircraft or the ground by datalink, because these don’t work yet, either.

Another outright lie. MADL, Link-16, Radio, and several other datalinks have already been demonstrated.

While LM & Friends will often paint a rosy picture of events, I have not seen them outright lie about something like that “editor” just did.

I am at work and want to dig up sources.. but the “editor” is a notorious F-35 hater who takes things out of context on a regular basis (BIO has already pointed out a few items where he was wrong).

In most cases, Bogdan told reporters Tuesday, the software fusion worked well. But in the most extreme cases, with multiple air and ground threats affecting a set of four F-35s, “we found out that the fusion model sometimes, not all the time, sometimes creates an inaccurate picture for the pilot,” he said.

In the meantime, the Marines are able to operate the jet by changes in the concept of operations used in flights. Although Bogdan was unwilling to go into operational details, he noted one potential workaround could involve breaking up the four-ship F-35s in favor of two two-ship pairings.

Bogdan said the fixes to this issue will be in by the time the Air Force goes IOC in 2016.

So, it’s a 4+ ship issue and not a 2-Ship issue. Also, it’s only related to fusing data from other F-35s and has nothing to do with fusing it’s own data.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/air-space/strike/2015/03/24/f35-software-fusion-challenge-ioc-marine/70388664/

On the HUD issue, that was not in the link you provided and actually cam from a quote about the High AOE testing that took place earlier this year. That plane was AF-2 which is a Flight Sciences F-35 which does not have all the software of a Block2b F-35 (as reported).

Here is what is displayed in the Helmet display for the F-35 when used HOBS (note that the F-35 is tracking targets at all times and actually tells the pilot where to look to see a tracked item)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]239262[/ATTACH]

You have counted 1,626 “valleys”.. The problem is that not every “valley” represents a TRM. The patent drawing you have posted shows the true arrangement. The real number should be around 1,480 TRMs. That affects even APG-80, BTW, which looks to be under 1,000 TRMs.

Not all TRMs are created equal.

While the patent shown does show extra valleys, newer TRMs are installed in a 1-for-1 arrangement.

Here is an example (From the other pic in the same post)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]239222[/ATTACH]

Note the 16 “valleys”

http://micro.apitech.com/pdf/aesa/4-X-Plank-Demonstrator.pdf

He was also talking about using a Gen2 helmet via EODAS at Block 2B to target things rather than the system’s inherent system’s capability to track items at Block 3 (with or without a Gen3 helmet).

Context matters.

dude, F-22 cruises at nearly twice the speed of F-15,

You’re missing the point.

The F-15s NEVER KNEW that they were being engaged until it was over. The F-22’s speed had little to do with that. It was mostly due to the F-22’s SA, Sensors, datalinks, and most importantly.. VLO airframe that allowed the F-22 to dominate.

The F-35 shares or exceeds the F-22’s capabilities in theses areas.

Here is what the ASRAAM’s early trapeze design was like. It would likely work for the 9x also.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]238847[/ATTACH]