Dude, that’s from January 2015

For some reason a lot of people have problems understanding that things do not stay the same, especialy in the middle of a developemnt program.

Case in point, a poster on Forbes.com said:

Hmmm. And where is Loren’s coverage of what Michael Gilmore, director of Operational test and Evaluation, said?
For example that: “The radar system exhibited shortfalls that – if not corrected – ……….

Then he gave this link

http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf

The real funny thing is that pdf is a Feb 2013 report about Block 1A :stupid:

Lord knows that nothing would have changed and we all should be still complaining about things that were fixed YEARS ago.

Have a look at the edito…

Think this is bad, have you seen his latest F-35 “note”?

(EDITOR’S NOTE: It should be noted that the performance of the F-35’s helmet described above is what the helmet is supposed to do, not its demonstrated performance.
A wide gulf remains between the two, as repeatedly reported by the Pentagon’s own director of Operational Test & Evaluation.
Also worthy of note is that the F-35’s price as reported above – $148m to $337m each — is still a very long way from the $85m average that Lockheed Martin claims the F-35 will cost in 2019.)

If you can’t even understand the difference between WSC? ($148) and RecFlyaway ($85) or that the $85 only applies to the F-35A and not the B or C… how does this guy have a job?

He is also wrong in his assessment of what the helmet can do (as of F-35A Block3i & Gen3 helmet).

btw, The WSC has not been in the $148 range for years. As of the FY2017 budget it’s $113.

Ah.. Selective Copy/Paste I see.

You seemed to have missed this part about CLAWS and AoA being in the VERY FIRST sentence.

You also seemed to have missed the next sentence that said what the test was about.

The Flying Qualities criteria were that the aircraft response would be positive and predictable and that there should be no undesired, unexpected, or unpredictable aircraft responses

In other words, it was a CLAWS test, not a BFM test.

For anyone who want’s it, here is the link:

http://aviationweek.com/site-files/aviationweek.com/files/uploads/2015/06/F-35%20High%20AoA%20Maneuvers.pdf

It’s not that it was marked “Classified”, just that it was marked “Not For Public Release” (on the bottom of every page).

My position as a technician that has worked on machines all my life is the fact that ANY machine that is supposed to be a do all, end all, all things to all people, ends up doing all those jobs rather poorly. This would include the F-35

So the F-16, F-16, F-15E, Rafale, Eurofighter, and Gripen all do their jobs rather poorly… Shame on them :stupid:

The back half is all YF-23.. I just can’t “place the face”…..

Funny how the norm “ie a QF drone not being shot down due to the AAM being either command detonated or guided to an offset” is now looked upon as something odd. PPL, very few AAM tests result in an impact, it’s just too expensive.

In the above example, two AAMs were shot but only one QF-4 was provided. That fact alone proves that that it was meant to survive as thy would have stopped the test after the first shot if it was a true “miss”.

The final nail in this ridiculous “survived” scenario… the photo’s caption reads “while a manned QF-4 trailed to ensure mission success”. If there was a live AAM anywhere near the unmanned QF-4, they would not put a manned QF-4 in the area for safety reasons.

is that entirely down to weight difference or is there altitude difference in addition ?

The slide did not specify but I am sure it’s a combination of the two.