Forum: Program and politics

spazsinbad wrote:

Here is the old KPP mentioned with WOD criteria. Don't know if this Environmental Condition applies today but it is notable that 'tropical' is mentioned. BUT does this include WestPac? Are they in the Tropics? Quote below is mentioned elsewhere on this forum probably multiple times by now BTW.

Scorecard: A Case study of the Joint Strike Fighter Program by Geoffrey P. Bowman, LCDR, USN — 2008 April

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_download-id-14791.html [PDF 0.3Mb]

"The USMC has added STOVL performance as a service specific key performance parameter. The requirement is listed as follows: With two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, execute a 550 foot (450 UK STOVL) STO from LHA, LHD, and aircraft carriers (sea level, tropical day, 10 kts operational WOD) and with a combat radius of 450 nm (STOVL profile). Also must perform STOVL vertical landing with two 1000# JDAMs and two internal AIM-120s, full expendables, and fuel to fly the STOVL Recovery profile.

The Marine Corps has used the more limiting deck launch, rather than a simple expeditionary airfield, to frame its requirement."

Spaz, (I know it was in the original) but I always like it when they specify 'sea level' in the KPPs for ship launch and recovery. Wink

F-16.net Sponsor

spazsinbad wrote:

BUT does this include WestPac? Are they in the Tropics?

The South China Sea, Spratly Islands, the Paracels, the Philippines and even Taiwan (barely) are in the tropics.

'maus92' I don't need a geography lesson thanks. I had thought it was self-evident.

'quicksilver' yes I noticed that sea-level [left if for 'maus92' Smile

] But I guess deck heights may vary and heave, sag or whatever swell thing like that can have an effect on 'deck height'. Very Happy

When the KPP mileage can be haggled over in units of one nautical mile then I guess it pays to be pedantic. Tropics anyone? GO TROPPO! Twisted Evil

On that pedantic note perhaps it is worthwhile to mention that yesterday the 'how to deck land' FREE PDF at 2GB was updated/uploaded. USN LSOs have to be particularly pedantic with lots of detailed information or pointers to online information in the PDF as described:

The 2GB PDF has 'how to deck land' information in general and in particular for various aircraft including helicopters. Or URLs on those pages point online to more information.

Perhaps when the F-35C does deck land next year then this PDF might be updated however the theoretical criteria for such an event (and the potential fix for the hook problem) are included in detail in this PDF.

Again copy/paste this long URL for the folder named '_How to Deck Land March 2012 PDF 2GB'

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cbcd63d6 ... I/TQDzM7Mk WvmGlpc=7&jsref=1&id=CBCD63D6340707E6%21296
OR
Short URL: http://alturl.com/7uwpi

It seems that as well as the above post URL this long string will allow the entire PDF zipped to be downloaded rather than the individual .RAR/.EXE parts in the individual folders. I guess (without me downloading the zip file) that it will contain all the .RAR/.EXE 100Mb individual files. So it is simply a matter of having all the files in one folder and double clicking the .EXE file to recreate the entire named PDF in a folder of your choice. Please let me know if any problems.

spazsinbad wrote:

'maus92' I don't need a geography lesson thanks. I had thought it was self-evident.

'quicksilver' yes I noticed that sea-level [left if for 'maus92' Smile

] But I guess deck heights may vary and heave, sag or whatever swell thing like that can have an effect on 'deck height'. Very Happy

When the KPP mileage can be haggled over in units of one nautical mile then I guess it pays to be pedantic. Tropics anyone? GO TROPPO! Twisted Evil

?

Yep lotsa 'JackSpeak' there 'maus92'. Probably similar to some more obscure American slang for non-Americans. But I'm only guessing. Google is your friend.

GO TROPPO: "...(an Australian slang expression meaning "gone mad/crazy")... : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Troppo

I'll leave the rest of the nautical terms for you to discover 'maus92'. In your own time - commence.

RAN origin RN so Jack Speak is compatible mostly:

http://www.gunplot.net/traditions/Navalterminology.html
&
http://rikravado.hubpages.com/hub/JackS ... oyal-Navy-

spazsinbad wrote:

Yep lotsa 'JackSpeak' there 'maus92'. Probably similar to some more obscure American slang for non-Americans. But I'm only guessing. Google is your friend.

GO TROPPO: "...(an Australian slang expression meaning "gone mad/crazy")... : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_Troppo

I'll leave the rest of the nautical terms for you to discover 'maus92'. In your own time - commence.

Thanks for the advice spaz, but respectfully ignored.

Just as I usually ignore most of your supercilious remarks. Sometimes though there is worthwhileness in investigating what lies beneath. For example it was good to be aware that 'tropical perhaps nil wind' conditions are taken into account for F-35B KPPs - none of us know that for sure in the current KPP - but why not, if accounted for in the immediate past? Good oh.

Now that we have hopefully finished trading barbs, we can agree that no one (here) is sure what what parameters are included / considered when defining the KPPs.

Not a problem - however the older KPP reference probably makes it clear that the KPPs are defined in more detail - just that this is not made public for the moment it would appear. For example we do not know the other KPPs in more detail either eh.

maus92 wrote:

One goal of the policy is to determine whether a decision to relax requirements should be made to improve acquisition cost and schedule estimates."

IMO, it should.
To insist on a few miles just to fulfill the formalities, this late in project is truly a waste.

quicksilver wrote:

They didn't relax the KPP, they altered the GR&A which allowed the aircraft to fly at optimum altitude vice an arbitrary number. There are other elements of the GR&A which were not changed and they remain very conservative by legacy standards.

Indeed, but I find the difference between previous and actual profiles (to quote "near-ideal cruise altitude and airspeed") curious.
It seems previous profile has been calculated considerably different than for legacy fighters, already.

The Tropical Day is defined in MIL-STD-210A or B:

http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=g ... =AD0780508

Here's a temperature chart:

http://www.pdas.com/milstd210.html

The enormous increases from 540, 550 to 600 seem a bit arbitrary in light of selecting "a number" and the LHA and LHD decks in the USN are 800'+ and with 20+ knots WOD. Does anyone know what this requirement is based on? Why not 530, 510 or 480'? Shocked

It's just the politics of saying, "it met two adjusted KPPs" vs. saying, "it didn't meet these two KPPs, but it was close enough since the original numbers were kind of arbitrary to begin with, the actual performance is still more than sufficient for real use, and everything else is so good we're willing to overlook this and still buy thousands of them with your money." Granting a larger increase in the two KPPs than they actually needed to meet them was just more politics; one move of the goalposts will blow over but twenty will keep it in the news until we actually look bad.

Forum: Program and politics

KPPs being adjusted for F-35A & F-35B