Of DAS, EOTS etc..

No, I read those, which is why I decided to point out they are not true. The author of the article made those claims, none of the quoted reference material backs it up.

It appears like embellished journalism to me, I challenge anyone to find other credible sources that back it up.

I dont have any contrary evidence, I just suggest that articles like this not be taken at face value.

I enjoy browsing this forum, and occasionally point out when I see thigs that are not true, so take it for what its worth to you.

Given that it was an article that included quotes from multiple DoD personnel... It's up to you to prove that it did not happen.

Just saying that it not being a direct quote is enough to claim that it did not happen is ludicrous.

Also, given that there were multiple reporters present, if it did not happen then we will be hearing as much.

You're using an interesting standard for truth/evidence. You question the veracity of statements in the article, as not having supporting evidence, but state that they're unequivocally false, without supporting evidence. There's nothing in the article that offers contradictory evidence. Summarizing the results, doesn't require a direct quote. It clearly stated "The test, which of course brings substantial tactical implications, was referenced as a decisive element of the Pentagon’s now completed multi-year System Development and Demonstration (SDD) test phase for the F-35."
The type of test was mentioned. The type of missile was mentioned. SDD would still be going on, had the results been anything other, than what was written.

The DOT&E report makes references to multiple 2xAMRAAM test events but does not state the setup.

The author of the article is easily one of the best sources on developments in US military, if not somewhat dry and not particularly interested in giving his personal opinion of things.

And those "false" and "out of context" statements would be?

^^^ This ^^^^
not BS, not your opinion, not your feelings, but answer Spud's question - you identify the statements that you are referencing - in quotes.

I'm still waiting for you to post the specific statements in quotes. Then we can see if we agree. I'm not very Impressed with "I dont have any contrary evidence, I just suggest .. "

So without evidence you wish to assert Kris either "embelished" or perhaps you want to go further and say "lied?" I mean "false" is half way there.

Hey you could be right, ... but if you wish to challenge the author you'll at least have to bring your credentials to the table as a start, or quote a reliable proof source, or at least show where the author might have done so in the past.(with evidence) to challenge his journalism.

MHO
BP

This is actually a pretty silly assertion. This was a test point. The F-35 completed SDD. Until we get a report of any test point failures, that completion alone implies the test point - "simultaneous targets" - succeeded... even if there was no article or story by any journalist.

MHO,
BP

IIRC - and boy my memory is just mush at moment searching for NorskMen F-35 stuff - a similar test has been reported here some years ago with a lot of supporting info/articles - but REMEMBER - IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY - IIRC. Capiche?

No, I read those, which is why I decided to point out they are not true.

LOL, that's hilarious - so you get to decide what is true and what is not

Lets try this "philosophy" of yours:
- I decide to point out that the Earth is flat (and not round)!

For all Earthlings out there, beware that the Earth is now flat because I said it so

And as opposed to cheese_e, I provide here an evidence that what I decided became the truth:

Thinking about this concept of the system engaging / deploying / guiding munitions onto targets...

I'd hate to see a ton of $$$ flushed down a rabbit hole if the technology is not there, but given the demonstration Sandia Nat'l Labs conducted whereby they "guided" or "steered" a .50 caliber round onto a target, if a reliable and economical 25mm "smart" shell could be developed whereby it could be guided onto a target within a certain target area or volume, most probably via laser, then I could see a case where the F-35, with pilot's permission, fires a burst, of say 5 shells, which could be guided onto a ground target either via EOTS or a drone in the area or a FAC on the ground. Or a burst of 15 shells could be fired into a volume of space to be guided onto enema drone(s) in the area with EOTS (or EOTS from another F-35). In these scenarios, an optional bursting fuze would be handy.

The possibilities for some really precise direct fires CAS would be enormous.

I've been thinking about the same thing for A2A with the gun.

No countermeasures if you're being gunned from near-BVR, especially on a convergent intercept you didn't know you were on. Combine kinematics with quad-redundant super computing for the gun mode, plus the HMD, EOTS, and AESA, and I'm thinking of some very nasty gun mode possibilities with this thing.

MV for the GAU-22/A-
HEI: 3560fps / Mach 3.16
API: 3400fps / Mach 3.02
PGU-47/U: 3182fps / Mach 2.82

PGU-47/U combines HEI and API so you can cover both A2A and A2G targets. It has a tungsten penetrator with a radial blast fragmentation profile that shreds light skinned vehicles like aircraft. The tests they did on an RF-5 target with it are pretty impressive. Its effects on the fuel tanks, cockpit, wings, and vertical stab show substantial primary and secondary damage that would be catastrophic for an aircraft in flight.

When you consider the evolution of radar ranging gunsight technology from the F-86, to the F-15 and F-16, then factor in AESA, EOTS, super computing, passive ranging, all sensor-fused through the fire control algorithms, I think there are possibilities for gun use that have never existed before. Not out of nostalgia or trying to make a gun relevant, but out of the natural systemic capabilities of this aircraft.

There's no launch warning for guns....especially when someone is merging with you unseen from off-axis, at a much higher speed than you. Imagine a 2-ship slash strafe pass that is integrated via MADL, with solutions driven by the CPU, assessed by the sensors, and adjusted with follow-on burst.

I've been thinking about the same thing for A2A with the gun.

I suspect that guided bullets are going to have a range and ∆v problem when it comes to A2A. The AIM-9 can reach out ~20 miles compared to the GAU-22 or even GAU-8 that list ~4000 yards as the max range.

What I don't know is if that max range figure is due to dispersion or loss of bullet velocity. Maybe both? Guidance can only help with the former while probably harming the latter due to additional drag created during any course corrections.

While it isn't a straight forward comparison .50 BMG fired at 2820 ft/sec is subsonic by ~2300 yards. I would assume that 25mm is going to carry velocity a bit better, but you can see how quickly it bleeds off. Maybe RAP rounds would make the most sense if you're going to go to the expense of putting a guidance system into a bullet anyway.

I believe the "effective" range of the gun for most A2A shots is 1-2000', closer being better. The test program that was implemented on the F-15 (back in the 80's, if memory serves) whereby the aircraft flew a closed-systems solution to put rounds on target I think extended that out to 4000' (6000' at the absolute max).

At 1000-2000ft, the round may be moving too quickly, and the time-of-flight too short to make any auto-guiding/homing cannon shells worth the trouble. I dunno if this is worth the $$ to investigate. Technically it might be doable, but not sure it is cost effective. I was thinking with the keyboard at the time I posited those earlier thoughts.

Since the function of the gun is diminished, why not go with a legacy round, more compact M61 derivative, and fewer rounds so that you save significant weight and space? It's only there as insurance.

Since the function of the gun is diminished, why not go with a legacy round, more compact GAU-8 derivative, and fewer rounds so that you save significant weight and space? It's only there as insurance.

Changed your quote up a bit. 20mm not so good on armor. I suppose it's ok for BMPs / APCs etc. But if you want something with a little more punch, and you change your statement to a "more compact GAU-8 derirvtive", then that is what you got with the GAU-22/A. While it is correctly a GAU-12 derivative (4 barrels vs 5), one could argue the 25mm round is a slightly smaller derivative of the 30x173 round. It gives more "pop" against armored targets.

How much more pop though?

Enough to punch a hole in a tank? Not questioning what you're saying, just curious..