POGO Thread

>>32330903
LOCKHEED ON SUICIDE WATCH!

>>32330903
IDK why keep pushing these reports full of WHAT if statements.

they keep pushing out these reports and the F35 keeps proving them wrong.

reports from 2015 said the F35A cannon wouldn't be operational until 2018.
and it was literally used successfully like a month later

File: CAS and gun.png (147KB, 889x312px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 889x312px

>>32330903
ya so this just shows the dude who wrote that report is a fucking retard.
he also mentions not having a gun makes the f35 pointless in CAS and combat in general.

they also fail to mention f35 external pylons Are able to hold the same or more weapons that the F15

who the fuck thinks to air to air gun kills happen in 2016?

>>32330903
>September 9, 2016
That was released 3 months ago dude

Either way, a quick addressing of the things in the PDF they highlight:

>Limited capabilities
Gilmore is saying that Block 2B / 3i (the "beta" software) being used for the declaration of IOC doesn't have all the capabilities of Block 3F, which is a redundant statement.

>Full capacity
Gilmore's main complaint is that completing *all* planned testing at the current pace will take another year, but that test personnel numbers are being reduced - for one thing, not all testing is required; at the start of the year some ~50 Weapons Delivery Accuracy tests were planned; of those only some 20-something were actually required. Reducing personnel also doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in pace - for example, if flight dynamics testing was completed, there wouldn't be much point in keeping as many aerodynamics experts around.

>IOC Readiness Assessment Report
The USAF assessed the jet's readiness for IOC and put their findings in a report; they made statements that apparently agree with at least some of Gilmore's assessments - nevertheless they still believed the jet was ready for IOC.

>ALIS Delay
ALIS is delayed, but that shouldn't be that significant; it's roughly as delayed as Block 3F; worst case scenario is that IOT&E is delayed and the US doesn't get on board with the planned block buy until its third year; that doesn't impact production rates however.

>Low Threat Environments
They say that an F-35 at IOC with Block 3i (/2B) is less capable than most other jets - that shouldn't surprise anyone; they're not cleared for external carriage or the use of the majority of the jet's weapons until 3F.

>No Marking Ability
This isn't new and has been a complaint for several years; it'll get added in Block 4 (the USMC are pushing for ROVER video, etc integration in 4.1 or 4.2 as well). In the meantime the pilot can still talk to FACs / JTACs, use DAS, etc to see where the targets are.

1/3?

>>32333213
2/3?
>Short Legs
Gilmore doesn't compare the F-35 to any other jet, he just says that because it carries a lot of fuel it takes longer to air-refuel, decreasing the amount of time on station. The F-35 without question has far better endurance that the F-16, and there's good reason to believe it's loiter time at a 250nmi combat radius is pretty close to that of an A-10's - Gilmore said earlier in the year that an F-35*B* had about 1/2 to 1/3 the loiter time of an A-10 (which is a weird comparison to make given that the USMC have little to do with the A-10). Accounting for fuel burn to and from the fight, an A variant is likely to have more than twice as much fuel for loitering as the B variant.

>Multiple Tracks
Complex software has bugs

>Multiplies the problems
Fusion over MADL between 2 jets has still been reliable enough for combat purposes. They're currently undergoing 6-ship MADL testing now.

>Block 3F Deficiencies
Block 3F required corrections before WDAs could begin (they began quite some time ago though, so I don't see the relevance), Gilmore wanted to know if these problems exist in 3i, didn't get a response, so he claims its a problem.

>ALIS Upload Time
If a squadron of F-35s are deploying somewhere, they take a portable set of servers with them. It takes 24 hours to transfer all of the data associated with those F-35s to the deployable servers and to verify that the data transfer is complete. This doesn't happen if a jet goes from one F-35 base to another, it's just for when they go out to somewhere that there may not be any / any reliable connection back to the global ALIS telemetry network.

>ALIS Contractors
Some contractors had to go to an airbase to help set up the deployed ALIS, because the expertise yet didn't exist in the services.

>Development Staff Troubles
People are leaving as the test program begins to wrap up, Gilmore assumes that they're important personnel.

>Integrated Test Centers
Same as the last point.

2/3

>>32333343
>HDMS [should be HMDS; get it right POGO]
The virtual crosshairs for the gun may or may not be sufficient to meet accuracy requirements. Testing and refinement will continue.

>Cannon Door Problems
The aerodynamic drag caused by the little door that pops up to unveil the gun muzzle causes a bit of yaw; they'll fix that with simple tuning as they've done on previous jets.

>Required Test Articles
Some of jets being used in testing and which are planned to be used in IOT&E were built early on in the program in LRIPs 3, 4 & 5. They need a bunch of retrofits, partly because they're early models, partly because they were wired for special test equipment. Some of the mods planned haven't been contracted for *yet*.

>VSim
The DOT&E want / need a high-end simulation of the F-35's systems for some forms of testing, it's lagging behind.

3/3

Overall, these are complaints that revolve around Block 3i not being Block 3F, software still being behind schedule and some admin concerns. Nothing that special.

I fucking love pokemon go!

>>32334145
more like pokemon go to the polls!

>>32332632
... lol. Danger close for CAS isn't a fixed distance, it varies with the RED of the ordnance. 20-30mm gun is going to have .1% Pi at 95m while a GBU-12 is 275m. Also, yes a gun is a great weapon for a moving target when you have no LMAVs, LJDAMs, or LGBs. Does this guy even JFIRE?

>dragon putting words in Gilmores mouth
Not surprised.

>>32330903
POGO will interpret it to suit their narrative, even if it bluntly says the opposite.

>Gilmore’s 8 Page Memo in Bullet Format:
>1. Gilmore says schedule delays bad!
>2. Gilmore says much risk ahead!
>3. JSFPO wants incremental OT to accommodate delays, reduce risk and keep schedule!
>4. Gilmore has piece of paper that he likes that says NO to incremental OT!
>5. Gilmore/DOT&E doesn’t want to count incremental beans!
>6. Gilmore says Replan/Stretch the SDD Schedule so OT schedule stays same!
>7. Gilmore says keep DOT&E employed!

>>32333343
>This doesn't happen if a jet goes from one F-35 base to another, it's just for when they go out to somewhere that there may not be any / any reliable connection back to the global ALIS telemetry network.
Even then the military has several SATCOM systems that can provide reasonable reliable internet across multiple classifications, including ones that fit in a single roll-on case, a couple cases, 4-5 case break-down with auto-scan and connect, big multi-band battalion-level systems, and even truck-mounted. Getting internet/NIPRnet/SIPRnet/TS/SCI access is trivial for units these days.

>>32335731
For the record, I don't think Gilmore would agree with the way I phrase things, but I stand by my interpretation of his whining.

>>32335058
Or SDB-IIs.

Don't forget that the GAU-22 has a tighter cone of fire than the GAU-12 it was built from and has programmable burst length.

>>32333367

Hey Dragon, you wouldn't mind if I used your F-35 myth-buster style for some of my own videos?

>>32336196
Correct, but from what I've read about the USMC doing expeditionary trials, those SATCOM systems didn't work too well for ALIS. ALIS does operate fine without any link back to home, but you do miss out on the automated logistics. It'd be neat if they were able to use a bunch of F-35s' SATCOM arrays (while the F-35s sit on the ground either plugged into a GPU or running their IPPs; or by connecting to any F-35s flying in the air via MADL and using their SATCOM) to get a faster and more reliable data link.

>>32336219
Feel free

>>32336292

Thanks, there's a few myths needing busting about my own country's military.

>>32336292
That may be more that the Marines always get old, janky gear.

>>32333367
Just an unrelated question about stealth in general.

How much is an aircraft's RCS affected by opening the weapons bay? Like is the F-35 more vulnerable while firing? I assume it is in some amount, but I don't know if it's a relevant increase.

>>32330903
Muh A-10
Muh brrrtttt
Muh WWII strafing fantasy
Muh tax moneys I don't pay them
Muh F-5
Muh F-16
Muh Spey

Seriously. Lack of cannon? Kys.

>>32337156
Enough that if you know exactly where it is and have a weapon ready with less travel time than it takes to close the bay again it can be a threat.

>>32337156
Depends on the angle to the enemy radar - if the enemy is above you, it's going to have far less of an impact than if they're blow you, etc. The difference in RCS can be either minimal or very significant. The catch mind you is that radars don't immediately recognise returns as enemy jets; normally they take a few seconds to recognise a return as something other than an anomaly, by which time the F-35 could have its doors closed. Once the doors do close, any track that an advanced radar did manage to make would be lost (unless the F-35 is particularly close).

The only weapon that would pose a serious threat under >>32337328's scenario would be a laser.

Thanks Dragon. How did you get the familiarity to make an informed assessment about that report?

>>32337450
By just monitoring the news via a Google News bookmark, using F-16.net and knowing a bit about military engineering projects.

>>32337480
>military engineering projects
What's some good introductory reading to be more informed about these?

>>32337521
No idea sorry, although Revolt Of The Majors is always a good read and is somewhat relevant.

https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/595/MICHEL_III_55.pdf

>>32337616
I've already read Revolt of the Majors. Out of curiosity, are there any counter-arguments to his presentation of Boyd; one would think that, given how well Boyd is remembered, that someone would challenge Michel's depiction.

Relevant to the thread: It's been 10 years since the first prototype flight (even more since development start), any other fighter jet took this long to take off, or is it just an exclusivity of this shitty program?

>>32337870
If the JSF pisses you off, man, the Eurofighter will make your have an aneurism

>>32337694
The most straight-forward counter arguments would be that his critique of Boyd's EM and OODA loop theories, while repackaged / nothing new, were / are still useful tools. As a bit of a comparison, pretty much every safety protocol out there could be considered common sense, yet it's taken decades of revision and repackaging to bring safety standards to what they are today (being far greater than they were 50 years ago).

As for how he's remembered, I'd argue that it's to do with nostalgia and selective history - ie, most pilots know Boyd for being a fighter pilot that brought us OODA loop and EM theory, which is still relevant for aspects of ACM, few remember him saying things like that the F-4 had no hope of defeating a MiG-17, etc, or the fact that he'd never flown a fighter with proper avionics, etc, or that he had become somewhat of an opponent of the F-15, etc.

Put another way, how many people can you think of are remembered in a more positive light than they maybe deserved?

>>32337870
The F-35 took 9 years to go from first LRIP / non-tech demo plane to IOC, the F-22 took 8 years, the Rafale took 10 years, the Gripen took 9 years, the Typhoon took 9 years.

File: British_Aerospace_EAP_at_the_Farnborough_Air_Show,_1986.jpg (235KB, 1120x700px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 1120x700px

>>32337870

>>32330903

Dr. J. Michael Gilmore:
http://www.defense.gov/About-DoD/Biographies/Biography-View/Article/602704/j-michael-gilmore

seems like a solid resume

Dragon029:
???

hmmm...

>>32338060
>The F-35 took 9 years to go from first LRIP / non-tech demo plane to IOC, the F-22 took 8 years, the Rafale took 10 years, the Gripen took 9 years, the Typhoon took 9 years.


All of them apart from the gripping (i think) where pretty dubious programs.

>>32338182
The DOT&E has been called useless overhead by both Mabus and Odierno. It's not like Gilmore's credentials make him immune to criticism, and it's not like savvy amateurs haven't been better than experts from time to time.

>>32338182
>bureaucrat whose job security depends on him whining on a regular schedule vs knowledgeable internet enthusiast

Who do you think is less biased.

So when can the piece of junk fire its own gun?
2029?

>>32338320
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69Nv3FIHNK0

Should f-35 be made into a religion by now? This board seems to have enough true believers to make The Holy Church Of F-35 viable venture...

>>32338390
Can you make a factual argument instead of trying to manufacture an emotional high ground?

>>32338423
Can you?

>>32338453

I know i can, but can you?

>>32330903
>can and will serve its purpose, so its not trash
>that price tag
>minor improvements
>will be bested in every sence in a few years
Seem very sketchy
Do governments really need this overpriced retarded f22?

>>32338762
>Costs less than contemporary 4.5 gens
>Does everything better
>Russian/Chinese planes are 20 years behind

Everything you typed is stupid.

>>32339748

>Costs less than contemporary 4.5 gens

HAHAHAHAHA NO.

>Does everything better

It's a jack of all trades, master of none. So, no.

>Russian/Chinese planes are 20 years behind

Yeah keep repeating that and it might be true one day.

Everything you typed is stupid.

>>32339811
>Costs less than contemporary 4.5 gens
Look up the flyaway cost of a Rafale will you. Or what Egypt paid for theirs.

>It's a jack of all trades, master of none. So, no.
You of course have evidence for this assertion, right?

>>32339834
>Look up the flyaway cost of a Rafale will you

Is the Rafale the only 4.5 gen in existence?

>You of course have evidence for this assertion, right?

What is a multi-role fighter again?

>>32339834
>Jack of all trades, master of none

Yeah, because the F-16 and, F-18 and F-15 are such pure and uncompromising specialist in one area.

File: bob7.jpg (165KB, 1600x1024px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 1600x1024px

>>32339811
Anti F-35 are like liberals reacting to Trumps election. The F-35 being superb is something they can't push out of their safe space echo chamber.

>>32339859
>Is the Rafale the only 4.5 gen in existence?
The latest Tranche of Eurofighters doesn't really help your case either.

>What is a multi-role fighter again?
How about you name some actual compromises or deficiencies?

File: CzjBBatUsAARstj.jpg (206KB, 1600x1134px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1600x1134px

>F-35
>100+ produced, declared IOC, but still never took part of any Red Flag-esque excercise after 10+ years of development.

>J-20
>about 24+ produced, declared IOC, but already took part in a Red Flag esque excercise and absolutely murderized its opposition. After 6 years of development.


No comment.

>>32340056
>After 6 years of development.

Why lie?

>>32340056
Wasn't it in Green Flag?

File: 11.jpg (76KB, 690x471px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 690x471px

>>32340093
J-20 first appeared in Dec 2010, first flight January 11th 2011.

I'm even being modest with 6 years.

5 years, actually.

>>32340101
"Red Sword", actually.

>>32340056
dayum shame.

>>32340115
So you are not aware of when the J-20's development started, just when it was made public.

>>32340056
The F-35's been to Red Flag already (VMFA-121 took 7 jets IIRC to Red Flag 16-3), as well as a bunch of other exercises like Northern Lightning, Green Flag and a couple of others that I can't remember right now.

They haven't talked about Red Flag, other than saying that they went well, but we did get told that F-35As at Northern Lightning got >110 air-to-air kills (for unknown deaths, likely zero based on the results of smaller training exercises though), and that F-35As at Green Flag suffered no losses while doing CAS amongst enemy SAMs and air threats.

>>32340056
>J-20
>No engines

File: 5f6ff8c9gw1extdal9lqqj20ec0ao770.jpg (108KB, 516x384px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 516x384px

>>32340178
1997 ONI received information that a J-XX project has been started.

But at that point, the J-20 was just a paper-model. At best, it was a wind-tunnel model.
Back then, Shenyang was the stronger contender with its Triplane layout. Pic related.

File: Chinese Su-35 announcement - 14.12.16.jpg (221KB, 1255x793px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 1255x793px

>>32340223
Still more operational than the F-35 will ever be kek.

And engines will soon come; pic related: 117S cannibalized from the first Su-35s.

>>32340248
Well those could keep it operational for almost 40 flight hours. If they can get another hundred Su-35 to rip apart for parts they will be able to give one pilot enough flight hours to qualify.

>>32338762
>Comparing it to the F22

OPINION DISCARDED

>>32340274
Jokes on you, the WS-10 powering the J-20 already has 2000+ hours of lifetime between overhauls.

And PLAAF pilots already fly more hours than American ones.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/366872/us-air-force-pilots-fly-less-chinas-do-michael-auslin

>>32340056
Why would you just straight-up lie like that?

Oh wait, this is /k/ where facts are pointless and memes are epic

>>32339980
Even trump doesn't like this scam with wings
Even the f16 kicks its ass

>>32340364
See, if you want to troll you should hide the bait better. Not right out in the open like that.

>>32340387
>muh bait
Absolutely outstanding argument

>>32340364
>Even the f16 kicks its ass

A falcon beating the living shit out of a pigeon isn't news.

>>32340398
Fine, i'll take the bait.
In what ways does the F-16 beat the F-35? And please, be specific.

>>32340056
examine the top photo

is a toyota corolla faster than a J-20?

>>32340364
http://www.sldinfo.com/the-moment-pilots-first-realized-the-f-35-was-something-extraordinary/
>

Mo: I was leading a four ship of F-35s on a strike against 4th Gen adversaries, F-16s and F/A-18s. We fought our way in, we mapped the target, found the target, dropped JDAMs on the target and turned around and fought our way out. All the targets got hit, nobody got detected, and all the adversaries died. I thought, yes, this works, very, very, very well. Never detected, nobody had any idea we were out there.

>>32340433
Basically this
https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

Tell you in exact details why the glorious f16 is superior to that military complex scam

>>32340481
Fuck you, now that shit is stuck on my head again

>>32340456
>propaganda
Sure thing chump

>>32340621
Can you prove it wrong

>>32340655
Probably not without using Rick-roll

>>32340284
The WS-10 is theoretically capable of operating for 400 hours between refurbishing. On average, they operate for 30 hours between failures and any claim that PLAAF pilots get more flight hours then USAF pilots is pretty absurd.

>>32340655
Can you prove Bigfoot doesn't exist?

File: oriental.png (44KB, 883x837px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 883x837px

>>32340056
wew lad

>>32343030
It's not asking to prove a negative, fucktard.