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:

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..

I dunno Mixel, I'm not an aircraft cannon expert. Ever heard of Google? It's this really kewl thing of which you can ask it anything and it spits back answers atchya! (Sorry, just had to rib ya a bit.)

In short: 25x137 (GAU-12/A, GAU-22/A) appears to have roughly twice as much "pop" on a shell by shell basis compared to 20x102 (M61 Vulcan) and half as much "pop" compared to a 30x173 (GAU-8/A -- A-10).

25x137 appears to have no issue with 8mm - 12mm RHA plate at tactically significant ranges (out to 9000', perhaps? That's a LONG shot). 25x137 APEX also appears to be able to handle 20mm RHA plate @ 45° (not sure of the range) and 50mm RHA plate @ 0° (i.e. perpendicular impact). 20x102 seems to handle 8-12mm RHA OK. Not sure how it does with 20mm armor plate.

Am guessing this means M61 Vulcan may be getting a little long in the tooth for the newest armored personnel carriers, but that the GAU-22/A should not have an issue with them. GAU-22/A may be able to handle older tanks, dunno. I read somewhere that even the GAU-8/A may not be quite up to snuff against the very latest tanks. If true, then dropping to 25mm didn't lose much. On the other hand, maybe the 25x137 round may be able to disable an MBT from the side / rear top if it can disable the engine. I don't know how much armor tanks have there. They can't have 500mm of armor everywhere.

After googling a bit, my overall impression is that the GAU-22/A offers roughly comparable (perhaps slightly better?) performance to the M61 Vulcan. The 20mm Vulcan spits out roughly 81% more shells per second, so perhaps slightly better chance of getting a hit from more BBs. But each 25mm shell packs more wallop. So maybe a single 25mm will do in a fighter, whereas a single 20mm will only damage it (badly?). I can's speak to TOF (time of flight), range, or accuracy. Both the 20x102 shell (Vulcan) and 25x137 (GAU-22/A) have similar muzzle velocities. TOF to 1000' is probably negligibly different. The 25x137 *may* retain velocity better at longer ranges. But that's a swag on my part. On the other hand, one parameter I have seen discussed as an air-to-air gun factor is "throw weight" which is total mass a gun system can project in one second. The M61 spits out 100 100g 20mm shells a second for a total throw weight of 10kg. Using a Nammo PGU-47/U 25mm round (222g) for ammunition, a GAU-22/A will dispense 12.2kg per second. So a slight "throw weight" advantage to the GAU-22/A.

One web page, Modern Fighter Gun Effectiveness blah blah's on about a bunch of stuff, throwing out some numbers that I don't know how accurate or meaningful they are. However, they suggest the following:

30mm (30x173) == 2 x 25mm (25x137) == 4 x 20mm (20x102).

That is, the 30mm shell the A-10 fires is roughly twice as powerful as the 25mm shell the AV-8B / F-35 / AC-130 fires, which is roughly twice as powerful as the 20mm shell the M61 Vulcan (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, F-22) fires.

I am attaching below some Nammo PDF's I found. One I've seen before. The other appears to be the Nammo 2016 catalog. You can browse it for all sorts of munitions & projectiles. 25x137 APEX is on p. 89. 30x173 begin around p. 100. Happy surfing.

Some suggested Google search strings:

25mm apex armor penetration
armor penetration 20x102 25x137 30x173
20x102 25x137 30x173 compared
20x102 vs 25x137 vs 30x173

In my opinion, the F-35 possesses a gun system that is roughly equivalent to the M61 20mm cannon for air-to-air work, but offers roughly double the effectiveness in the air-to-ground role. A pilot with a good trigger finger will get 2-3 squirts with the -A model, and maybe 3-4 squirts with the -B and -C. The fat fingered pilot may only get 2 squirts out of each. However, comments by someone else in another thread a while back suggested the F-35 may be able to be programmed to fire precise round counts settable by the pilot via his gee whizzery flat panel display. The mental picture I have is that the pilot may be able to select a 10rd burst, or 20, or 30 etc. Combined with the JTAC wizardry being built in, it may be possible that the F-35 pilot can get / confirm target coordinates from the JTAC, and then have the aircraft fly a closed-system gunnery solution whereby the F-35 fires the gun with a commit authorization from the pilot. Then 10 or 20 or 30 rounds are precisely dispensed on the target. If true, IMO this would be an awesome CAS capability that no other aircraft possesses and could result in some truly special CAS abilities.