Yeah, F-35’s EODAS & EOTS have no prolem even distinguishing a bath duck within that distance.
what’s the odd of a F-35 looking at an enemy carrier from 200 meters above without being shot down by hostile anti-air weapons which look suspiciously like wrenches?
You’re missing the point. I was responding to Rii’s comment about the ship being nearly the same temp as the surrounding water. These pictures clearly show that not to be the case for EOTS and EODAS.
Given what we have seen come out of SniperXR, the EOTS should be able to detect a ship at well over 75nm.
Don’t forget that the F-35 will be using and fusing data from 3 main sensors as it searches and targets the ship.
Why? The temperature difference between ship and surrounding environment is much smaller than that between aircraft and surrounding environment.
As you can see, the F-35’s EODAS & EOTS have no problem distinguishing a ship from the sea around it.


More powerful radar means easier to detect with ESM and the FLIR in the plane will detect the ship long before an IRST on the ship could see the plane.
F-35 JSF Testers Report Progress, Problems
By Guy Norris, Graham Warwick
It’s big and too much to post here in full so more at the JUMP
Here are some of the tidbits
“The DOT&E report offers 10 recommendations. The F-35 Joint Program Office has already taken action on six of the 10 recommendations,” says the JSF program office, noting all of the issues highlighted in the report were known. “Of the remaining recommendations, three involve vulnerability concerns and are being reviewed.”
While the program continues to evaluate fixes for problems already identified, and to test multiple blocks of mission-system software concurrently, it is pushing ahead into new areas of testing. “From a flight-test perspective, there are two priorities this year: complete weapons verification and high alpha [angle of attack],” says Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin F-35 program integration executive vice president and general manager.
“We are using 18 aircraft to conduct the equivalent of three development flight-test programs and one mission-system program,” says J.D. McFarlan, F-35 test and verification vice president. “We expect it to eventually include 8,000 flights and 60,000 test points. So far we’ve collected 22,000 of those, so we are around 36% through the test program.”
Across the three variants, there are 12 aircraft in the flight-sciences test fleet. Another four are assigned to mission-systems testing, with two more—Stovl production aircraft BF-17 and -18—about to join and complete the flight-test stable based at Edwards AFB, Calif., and NAS Patuxent River, Md. Together they had logged 4,243 flight hours by Jan. 7, with the Stovl aircraft logging 1,309 of those hours and conducting 381 vertical landings.Tests to clear the F-35A “clean wing” flight envelope for the Block 2B initial combat capability—to Mach 1.6/700 kt airspeed, 9g maneuvers and 40,000-ft. altitude (see F-35 Capability Plan table)—are wrapping up. The next step will be to clear the envelope with internal weapons-bay doors open, he says. Release of the Block 2B envelope is planned for mid-2015. Expanding the flight envelope to 50,000 ft. for the Block 3F full combat capability is planned for 2016, when development testing is scheduled to finish.
The flight-sciences sortie rate is ahead of plan for the F-35B and C, but behind for the A, says the DOT&E. There are high-speed/high-altitude restrictions on all three variants caused by the tail scorching. New surface coatings have been flown unsuccessfully, so a new skin design will be tested on CTOL aircraft AF-2 early this year, according to the report.
High angle-of-attack testing is underway at Edwards AFB using aircraft AF-4 equipped with a spin-recovery parachute. Where the F-16 is limited to 26 deg. alpha by its fly-by-wire flight-control system, the F-35’s limiter is set at 50 deg. and the aircraft has been flown to 73 deg. to ensure there is sufficient pitch authority. “We have to really slow down to get those pitch conditions—100 kt at 40,000 ft.,” says McFarlan. “Pilots are pleased with the ability to get the nose down from high angle of attack.”
The control system is designed to prevent departure from controlled flight at high alpha. In tests now beginning, the prevention feature is turned off, the aircraft forced to depart and the system turned back on to ensure it recovers the aircraft. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate safe recovery from a flat spin, with the chute as a backup. After completing these tests, they will be repeated with the spin chute removed. High-alpha testing on the F-35B will begin this year.
Systems also play a big part.
An F-16 with an HMD/HOBS combo will likely kick a F-15 without HOBS in WVR all day long.
In the boxing vernacular, it’s the speed of the punch that is key.
The new hook (the new damper is not ready for testing yet) has shown very good results in the latest testing (it snagged the cable every time the pilot put the hook in the right place).
Looking at the 2012 F-35B/C Year in Review vid, they have a section showing roll-in and true traps.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ts8Q6LwDMcs&feature=player_embedded
Back in 2004 , many stupid Americans and British posters on various forums were telling me than the F-35 would be operational before the Rafale ..
Upon further review.. I am a little confused.
2004 was prior to AA-1 taking flight and was the year that the Rafale was first declared operational.
The first French Navy squadron was declared operational in 2004, and the first Rafale squadron for the French Air Force was rolled out at Saint-Dizier in 2006.
Maybe they meant that the F-35 would have a shorter development cycle (First X flight to IOC) than the Rafale?
The Rafale prototype (ACX) first flew in 1986, so development time = 18 years
The F-35’s prototype (X-35) first flew in 2000, so as it stands development is roughly the same, 18 years (depending on when they declare IOC and not taking the F-35B as the IOC date of record).
Who said that????
Hardware level systems never get fixed quickly if there is no operational requirement.
First, they need to understand why the current system is not meeting the need. Then they need to design new hardware to meet the requirement. Then comes testing on static systems. Then they can test it in an F-35.
You also have to test how a new OBIGGS will interact with the rest of the fuel systems.
There is a lot involved which is one of the reasons why SDD takes so long, there are a huge number of interlinked systems involved.
btw, here is the relevant section from this year’s DOT&E report.
OBIGGS Redesign
• The program is redesigning OBIGGS to address deficiencies identified in earlier fuel system simulator test series (LF-09B) to meet the vulnerability requirements during all critical segments of a combat mission and to provide an inert tank atmosphere for internal lightning protection.
• The program reported several design changes during the Phase II Critical Design Review to:
— Fix the vent-in-during-dive problem, wherein fresh oxygen-laden air is drawn into the fuel tanks in a dive
— More uniformly distribute the nitrogen enriched air (NEA) throughout the fuel tanks
— Ensure NEA quality
— Inform the pilot when the system is not inerting the ullage
• The program will conduct verification and certification testing and analyses to confirm the performance of the new OBIGGS design on all three aircraft variants. These tests are expected to begin in FY13.
• Additionally, the current fuel tank venting design is inadequate to vent the tanks during a rapid descent. As a result of the related OBIGGS and tank venting deficiencies, flight operations are currently not permitted within 25 miles of known lightning conditions. Moreover, below 20,000 feet altitude, descent rate is restricted to 6,000 feet/minute. Dive rates can be increased to up to 50,000 feet/minute but only if the maneuver includes 4 minutes of level flight for fuel tank pressurization purposes. Neither restriction is acceptable for combat or combat training.
It’s not coming to light now. The showed up publicly at least two years ago.
From the FY2011 DOT&E report (Jan 2012)
Analyses of OBIGGS fuel system simulator tests showed that the system is incapable of providing protection from threat-induced fuel tank explosions during some critical segments of combat missions when the aircraft is most vulnerable. Program focus is currently on the immediate need to meet requirements to protect the aircraft from lightning-generated fuel tank explosions and on redesigning OBIGGS to provide protection throughout all combat mission segments.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2011/pdf/dod/2011f35jsf.pdf
From the FY2010 DOT&E report (Jan 2011)
Live Fire Test and Evaluation
• The OBIGGS system fails to inert the fuel tank ullage spaces
throughout the combat flight envelopes evaluated.…
Recommendations
7. Re-design the OBIGGS system to ensure that the fuel tank
ullage volume oxygen concentrations are maintained below
levels that sustain fire and/or explosion throughout the
combat flight envelopes.
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2010/pdf/dod/2010f35jsf.pdf
The issues with lightning have been well known for over a year and a fix is already in the works.
old news
The JSOW and JASSM are both capable of an ASM mission and both are operationally cleared for the E.
F-35Bs from a Queen Elizabeth-class carrier or austere basing…
It’s a combination of range and temp. A large cool target could be detected at greater distances than a small hot one.
Typhoon/Lightning bait