Page 13 of 13

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 09:56
by spazsinbad
No - I do not have the answer - hence my question. Now my question: why use those phrases if they cannot be backed up?

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 10:05
by zero-one
Okay, well I thought maybe somebody had the answer.
I just thought that maybe we're paying too much attention in that 8 second transonic acceleration figure as well as the sustained G change when all they said was they "expressed intention" to change it. They may have not really gone through with it.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 10:41
by marsavian
It was changed.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 10:43
by zero-one
marsavian wrote:It was changed.

Now we're getting somewhere.
Mind if you could post the link to that :D

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 14:15
by spazsinbad
My understandings of KPPs Key Performance Parameters are contained in the SAR F-35 Selected Acquisition Report 2019.

BUT "Classified Performance information is provided in the classified annex to this submission" - good luck with that.

Latest SAR 2019: download/file.php?id=27020 (0.7Mb) A two page PDF of KPPs as seen in the GIF below is attached below. CLICK the graphic and then CLICK AGAIN to zoom in to read it, there are some nice changes such as the new STO length.

Someone could search for this "Requirements Reference Operational Requirements Document (ORD) Change 3 dated August 19, 2008 as modified by Joint Requirements Oversight Council Memorandum 040-12 dated March 16, 2012"

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 15:04
by mixelflick
Let's just all focus on getting a more powerful motor.

Easiest way to end these performance issues :)

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 21:42
by XanderCrews
steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
2000 lb bomb was yet another navy requirement. I've taken this "extreme" position before, (but why not once more in thread that compares all 3 varaints??) the F-35C NOT the F-35B as so many claim is the problem child. Its the most different the Navy desire to have 2K bombs lead to a weight increase that then had to be tamped down with the SWAT effort which lead to huge delays. Irony being what is is the service that was the biggest pain in the butt with the F-35 program is also the service that has the Super Hornet and seems very happy with them (that will change of course)


Ironic then... that without that (Navy) 2000lb bomb requirement, the fuselage might possibly be more streamlined / narrower, enough that LM might have been able to give the Air Force their 8 seconds back on the transonic acceleration KPP. Also, with less weight (e.g. less structure etc), LM might have been able to meet the Air Force & USMC KPP for sustained turn rate. Would be an interesting question for someone on the F-16 design team if LM could have met those KPPs (transonic accel & sustained turn gee) were it not for the 2000lb bomb KPP. If so, that would be an interesting demonstration of the cascading effect requirements can have on performance metrics.



even more "ironic" when NG rolls out the Block III weapons pod for Super Hornet and its largest single bomb is 1000 pounds :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang: :bang:

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 21:54
by SpudmanWP
IIRC the "weapon pod" is NOT part of the F-18 Block 3 plan, only the CFTs.

Btw, the acceleration and turning numbers for the F-35 are NOT KPPs (there are only ~9) but are instead KPIs (there are over 400).

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 22:07
by spazsinbad
Where do we find this list of KPIs? Key Performance Indicators? Or something else? That was my point about citing KPPs.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 22:14
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC the "weapon pod" is NOT part of the F-18 Block 3 plan, only the CFTs.

Btw, the acceleration and turning numbers for the F-35 are NOT KPPs (there are only 6) but are instead KPIs (there are over 400).



Well the whole thing was a mockup. Its about the least efficient way one can imagine to carry weapons...

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 23:04
by quicksilver
XanderCrews wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:IIRC the "weapon pod" is NOT part of the F-18 Block 3 plan, only the CFTs.

Btw, the acceleration and turning numbers for the F-35 are NOT KPPs (there are only 6) but are instead KPIs (there are over 400).



Well the whole thing was a mockup. Its about the least efficient way one can imagine to carry weapons...


If one looks at the pics of the pod mounted on the jet, it appears it would be hard to load wps in the pod w the pod on the jet. Very poor pod-ground clearance.

To my knowledge, the KP-whatevers are not public info.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2018, 23:14
by SpudmanWP
The KPIs and KPPs were all laid out in the JSF ORD.. Good luck getting that.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2018, 05:29
by wrightwing
zero-one wrote:


They still might. Will Block 4 have any significant weight gains? The Thrust increase will be 10% if I remember correctly, and if the weight stays the same or maybe even drops, we could meet the original performance KPPs.

10% on the low end, and possibly 20%.

Re: F-35A vs B vs C

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2018, 07:08
by weasel1962
Edited for posting fiction.