MAWS = EODAS, in what universe? MASW is just a warning devise that at best tells you a general direction of in inbound missile.

These are features of EODAS that MAWS does not do:
1. Provide YATO (You Are The One) functionality which tells the F-35 if the threat is headed for him or not.
2. Track all airborne objects (SAMs, AAM, planes, drones, AAA) within the WVR environment
3. Allow for the guidance of HOBS missiles
4. Act as a replacement for NVGs in order to see around the aircraft in low light conditions.
5. Organic BDA, regardless of the angle of the plane
6. Visual quing of detected objects from GMTI and SAR maps
7. Fully fused into the battlespace

—EODAS gets with a software update (ie it’s been demonstrated but not part of Block 3F)
1. TBM tracking to include GeoLocation of the launcher
2. Detection of ground fires (with Geolocation) to include MGs, RPGs, Arty, MLRS, etc

“F-16E/F internal FLIR” = IRST yes, FLIR no

In both cases (MAWS & FLIR) they are not completely fused.

MILITARY SERVICES 5TH GENERATION TACTICAL AIRCRAFT CHALLENGES AND F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER PROGRAM UPDATE

For all PDFs of the depositions
https://armedservices.house.gov/legislation/hearings/military-services-5th-generation-tactical-aircraft-challenges-and-f-35-joint

US Air Force must retrofit 108 F-35As

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-air-force-must-retrofit-108-f-35as-434241/

That is what concurrency is all about, nothing new.

Just to give some perspective, Block 3i jets will cost about $1000 to upgrade (software only) to Block 3F.

Block 2B jets, since they need Tech Refresh 2, are about $4.5mil each to get to Block 3F.

These costs are over and above the “Concurrency Costs” which covers things found & fixed in testing.

Here is a graph showing what the estimated Concurrency Costs are per LRIP.

The F-35 does a better job of ID’ing targets thanks to data fusion and better sensors.

Early pre-contract prices were estimations, not “promises” and reflect a completely different Baseline Year [BY] (=inflation adjusted year).

Most people only quote the “cost” without stating the the BY.

Btw, it’s only “overpriced” if it’s somehow not worth the new price. The recent Red Flag has put that argument to bed. Don’t get me wrong, they blew the contracted cost but the DoD & Partners are still satisfied with it at it’s current price curve.

As far as “outdated” (no longer useful or acceptable : not modern or current), please tell me how that applies to the plane as a whole?

Here’s a question…. If there is no connection, then how are GPS coordinates passed to P2E/DMLGB?

Are they only used or pre-planned targets?

Well the report doesn’t say that:

Sorry that I was not clear enough and was referencing old info. While the laser does some leading, the weapon has to be able to constantly change it’s angle of attack to keep up with the new point of impact. The spec calls for a 70mph (112kph & constant velocity) target. The spec also refers to Block3F in which the EOTS laser will meet the full spec. I’m not even sure if Block3i requires moving target designation but I’d have to look that up.

So what is the list of candidates?

Nic

Basically since it needs to be laser guided then it will have to be a derivative of the PavewayII or PavewayIV LGB since they both will be part of (and are the only LGBs in) the Block3F package.

The spec is for 70mph moving target capability and the GBU-12 simply cannot do that. The weapon needs to properly lead the target and be able to change direction as needed (per the .2g @ 40mph spec).

The laser never “leads” the target, it’s up to the weapon to lead the target based on speed, angle of attack, altitude, etc.