EOTS has shown that it can pick out a fighter-sized target at 30+ miles.

The missile itself does not actually “lock on” till after it’s launched, approaches the target, and is only 5`ish miles away.

LO care to share your secret knowledge?

Just that AF-03 just started 3F testing this year and the common knowledge that 2B/3i is limited to 7g

He could release the 5-page report so we can see, in context, what the test involved and how it was conducted.

showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them,

AF-02 is limited in it’s ability to maneuver based on the software block that it has. AF-02 has either 2B or 3i which are both limited to 7g while the F-16, even with empty wing tanks, can do 9g.

actually iam with you on this, f-35 load of only 4 aam seem pathetic for the weapon bay size in my opinion, F-18 tiny weapon pod can carry alot more missiles and bomb

Note that the pod can carry only 4 AAMs and the F-35 will get 6. Also, if the pod has a medium or large (1k or 2k) bomb, JSM, etc than it can’t carry ANY AAMs.

If the pods are all they are cracked up to be then they can always put them on the F-35 too but if they add extras to the F-18 then drag increases massively thanks to it’s canted pylons.

btw, Here is the Official Response from the JPO

https://www.f35.com/news/detail/joint-program-office-response-to-war-is-boring-blog

The media report on the F-35 and F-16 flight does not tell the entire story. The F-35 involved was AF-2, which is an F-35 designed for flight sciences testing, or flying qualities, of the aircraft. It is not equipped with a number of items that make today’s production F-35s 5th Generation fighters.

Aircraft AF-2 did not have the mission systems software to use the sensors that allow the F-35 to see its enemy long before it knows the F-35 is in the area. Second, AF-2 does not have the special stealth coating that operational F-35s have that make them virtually invisible to radar. And third, it is not equipped with the weapons or software that allow the F-35 pilot to turn, aim a weapon with the helmet, and fire at an enemy without having to point the airplane at its target.

The tests cited in the article were done earlier this year to test the flying qualities of the F-35 using visual combat maneuvers to stress the system, and the F-16 involved was used as a visual reference to maneuver against. While the dogfighting scenario was successful in showing the ability of the F-35 to maneuver to the edge of its limits without exceeding them, and handle in a positive and predictable manner, the interpretation of the scenario results could be misleading. The F-35’s technology is designed to engage, shoot, and kill its enemy from long distances, not necessarily in visual “dogfighting” situations. There have been numerous occasions where a four-ship of F-35s has engaged a four-ship of F-16s in simulated combat scenarios and the F-35s won each of those encounters because of its sensors, weapons, and stealth technology.

The release of this FOUO report is being investigated. The candid feedback provided by our test community is welcomed because it makes what we do better.

The disclosure of this report should not discourage our warfighters and test community from providing the Program Office and Lockheed Martin with honest assessments of the F-35’s capabilities.

The F-16 needs both conformal Fuel tanks and underwing fuel tanks to match the internal fuel range of the F-35 when both are only carrying two bombs and AAMs.

It doesn’t have plenty of missiles or effective 360 deg LOS.

Has 4 internal, plans for 6 and can go up to 10 if the SACM missile is fully funded (DARPA program that birthed CUDA)

As far as 360 LOS, it’s just fine in 3F for WVR ranges.

With the rising number of F-35s it is problem, when all tanker will become busy. No longer the option to pick the one with cool fuel for the few F-35s today.

What about “it was never a problem” and “the F-35 is under no unique fuel temp restrictions” is so hard to understand?