Forum: Program and politics

Greater than 700 nm mission radius in both air-to-air and air-to surface low observable combat configurations

"With unmatched capabilities, interoperability with allies and the potential for billions of dollars in job-creating industry partnerships, the F-35 Lightning II is the right partner for a secure Canada.

Join us as an F-35 expert and F-35 test pilot discuss why the F-35 is the best solution for Canada, including:

Unmatched stealth and agility to protect Canada’s borders

Industrial partnerships with more than 50 Canadian companies

Full interoperability with allies for a more secure world
The 60 minute webinar will feature a presentation by Steve O’Bryan, Vice President of F-35 Program Integration and Business Development, and Billie Flynn, Senior F-35 Test Pilot and former Royal Canadian Air Force CF-18 pilot."

Spaz posed a new doc that shows some new info.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNph ... 131#251131


I noticed one interesting thing while looking at the latest F-35 doc as it relates to Canada.

On page 4 it says:



Thoughts (simple type, increased estimations, etc)?

“...Senator FAWCETT: I have one last question, if I can. Speaking of the key performance indicators, obviously for the overall program they are cost, schedule and performance. In cost and schedule we have seen a number of changes and rebaselining to allow for things that have happened. In terms of the KPIs against your original ops requirement document — you do not have to disclose which ones have not been met — but at this point in time have all of the original essential requirements from the ORD been met?

Mr Burbage: We have 16 key performance parameters on this airplane. Half are logistics and sustainment-related, half are aeroperformance-related and one or two are in classified areas. We have an oversight body called the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, the JROC, that looks at those requirements every year and makes decisions on them — 'Are we going to meet them, are we not going to meet them? If we are not going to meet them, what is the impact of that?' We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement. For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise the engine by five per cent fuel flow and two per cent thrust. Those margins are given back as we mature the design and get more and more solid on exactly what it is going to do. They are there for conservative estimation up front. We have not taken back any of those margins yet so, when those margins are taken back, the airplane will continue to be well in excess of its basic requirement. The airplane is meeting all of the other requirements today.

Senator FAWCETT: So have those requirements like schedule & cost been rebaselined, or are they are still the original ORD?

Mr Burbage: Schedule and cost are not KPPs. I thought you were talking about performance.

Senator FAWCETT: No, I recognise that. You have rebaselined schedule and cost as you have gone along. What I am asking is have the KPIs been rebaselined & does the statement you just made apply to today's KPIs or does it also apply to the original ones?

Mr Burbage: To the original set. Today, all the KPPs are green because that ground rule was changed to be common across all three airplanes on the range. But we have not taken back the margins that are being withheld to make sure those performance predictions are conservative. We are not going to have degraded engines. We basically measure our performance characteristics with a highly-degraded engine capability. Our actual flight test information coming back from the engine is better than nominal. These calculations are not done using actual airplane test data. They are done using an artificial penalty that gets paid back as the design matures....”

No external tanks as it said "low observable combat configurations "

700nm is possible for air to air on internals alone: Removing 4000 lbs of bombs and a hi-hi-hi profile will offer the extra 220 nm miles required. Thats a sort of gold standard for the RCAF fighter operations (the CF-18's range can be an issue.) 700nm a2g is a bit more problematic. It might be possible if you only carried 500 lbs of bombs and stayed in hihihi, or with external tanks.

"...We have one this year which was the range of the Air Force airplane which had a specific set of ground rules associated with how that range is calculated which is not similar to either of the other two airplanes. The airplane flies a large part of its mission at a non-optimised altitude in the original calculation. The JROC agreed to change the ground rules to fly that airplane as the other two were flown and, when that happened, the airplane had excess margin to the range requirement...."

, I think LM is playing fast and loose with the facts.