UK MOD in a muddle over F-35C

'Expendables' in this context are expendable countermeasures -- i.e. chaff and flares.

And why fuel/oil as indicated in official definition? Do you have a reference to your contention 'quicksilver' please? Thanks.

KPP details are not public data. But, don't over-think this -- 'expendables' is the common reference in US service for chaff/flares. Oil is a consumable (not an expendable) and accounted for elsewhere in the GR&A.

Thanks. How about fuel then? Fuel is mentioned in official definition on previous page:

"expendable supplies and materiel — Supplies that are consumed in use, such as ammunition, paint, fuel, cleaning and preserving materials, surgical dressings, drugs, medicines, etc., or that lose their identity, such as spare parts, etc. Also called consumable supplies and materiel."

BTW the 'Scorecard' reveals some extra data about KPPs plus SAR definitions over the years (not just bland KPPs otherwise in LM PPT slides).

Context Spaz, context -- it's not that hard. Jeez. The KPPs were written by pilots not engineers.

'quicksilver' you make claims - that is all. I'll attempt to have backup for my claims. Claims don't add much. And why do pilots matter over engineers and why does any of that matter in reference to KPPs? I just want to clarify what is included.

From an accumulation of 'SARs over time' PDF document, starting from 1996, here is one example of part of KPP info relevant: [note 'fuel required' for F-35B] Way Back in Dec 2001 note how figures similar today with the notable exception noted...

For comparison thn 2007 version is presented. I'll look for latest version.

http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/logistics_m ... resent.pdf (3.2Mb)

FWIW, the Feb. 16, 2012 CRS Report including KPPs in appendix B.. note still 550-ft STO.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... 1vwL-wzggw

'popcorn' it must be noted that afterward that 550 feet was changed to 600 feet.

Pentagon Slackens Difficult-To-Achieve JSF Performance Requirements J. Sherman Mar 1, 2012

http://insidedefense.com/20120301239200 ... d-926.html

“...The short-take-off-and-landing KPP before the JROC review last month was 550 feet. In April 2011, the Pentagon estimated that the STOVL variant could execute a short take-off in 544 feet while carrying two Joint Direct Attack Munitions and two AIM-120 missiles internally, as well as enough fuel to fly 450 nautical miles. By last month, that take-off distance estimate grew to 568 feet, according to DOD sources. The JROC, accordingly, agreed to extend the required take-off distance to 600 feet, according to DOD officials....”
&
DefenseAlert, March 9, 2012 -- With the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft-carrier variant expected to miss a key performance parameter related to its maximum allowable landing speed, the Pentagon recently adjusted F-35C fuel storage calculations to ensure the aircraft met a critical operational requirement, according to Defense Department officials.

Tweaks Allow Navy To Meet JSF Aircraft-Carrier Landing Speed Target

http://insidedefense.com/index.php?opti ... EuaHRtbA==

spazsinbad wrote:'popcorn' it must be noted that afterward that 550 feet was changed to 600 feet.

Noted, Spaz.. it's not an updated chart.

SAR explanation for 550 to 600 foot F-35B STO distance in March 2012.

AND... HooHaaa... We can see where Mr.SharkeyWard gets BODGY Figures, mixing 'em up mightily (check range figures bottom of graphic etc.)! Funny AS...

SAR for F-35 | As of December 31, 2011

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/pdf/F ... 9-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)

page 6:
"...On February 14, 2012, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) met and made some important decisions regarding the F-35 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The impetus for these changes was guidance from the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who chairs the JROC. The VCJCS asked programs to examine portfolios for KPPs that could potentially be modified based on observed performance or changes in concepts of operation with minimal or no impact on the warfighter that could substantially reduce the cost of a program. This effort is in keeping with the JROC’s statutory requirement to consider cost, schedule and performance. Agreement was reached to modify the following: a) revise a Ground Rule and Assumption (GR&A) for the F-35A Combat Radius. The GR&As underpinning the KPP were updated to reflect the aircraft optimum airspeed and altitude, values that have been obtained through testing. Once these values were applied to the mission profile, the performance of the aircraft exceeded the original, unchanged KPP value, and b) approved a change to the F-35B Short Takeoff distance KPP from 550ft to 600ft. The STOVL variant (F-35B) 550ft short takeoff KPP was based on a four-ship simultaneous launch concept, formerly planned for use by the AV-8B. This concept is no longer in use. Planned F-35B operations (and the way AV-8B’s currently operate) are for a maximum of two aircraft to depart from the ship, and increase the length of useable flight deck. This increased distance facilitated the addition of 50ft to the original, no-longer-relevant 550ft requirement, resulting in significant savings to the taxpayer. Attempting to achieve the original requirement would have required significant resources (e.g. more engine thrust or significant weight reductions), and would have resulted in excessive cost growth. The JROC Memorandum (040-12) that approved these changes was signed on March 16, 2012. Current estimates for all KPP are now within threshold requirements.

The spacing of aircraft on the deck has a direct impact on the tempo of take offs. By dropping to two ship departures they dramatically shift room for use on the deck and have added space for each aircraft to takeoff. It's all a shell game of give and take.

Welcome to the NATOPS shell-game of all the variables, WOD, Temperature, T/O distance available, possible maximum loadout, range required. WX on return to ship and on and on and on and on and on. Nothing up my sleeve.... Watch me pull a wabbit outta my hat!

Chiefs order Cameron to retreat over fighter jets By Tom Coghlan | April 16 2012

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

"David Cameron is due to be presented with what officials believe is an overwhelming case for a change of policy on Britain’s troubled aircraft carrier programme. The Times has learnt that Forces chiefs will unanimously advocate that the Government should abandon plans to buy the conventional carrier version of the American Joint Strike Fighter — the F35C. Instead, a reassessment of the carrier programme will advise the Government to revert to the plans of the previous Labour administration to buy the STOVL (short take-off, vertical landing) F35B version of the Joint Strike Fighter. The findings could be presented to the Prime Minister as early as this week. It will be another headache for Mr Cameron as he returns to Parliament after an Easter dominated by negative headlines about the Budget...."
____________

More of the same hoo-haa as above with this addition.... What a master stroke of planning.

Defence chiefs rethink carrier plan (UKPA) 16 April 2012

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpres ... 542135494A

"The Ministry of Defence is reconsidering changes to Britain's aircraft carrier programme, it has been reported.

Armed Forces chiefs will advocate the Government drop plans to buy the F35C, the conventional carrier version of the American Joint Strike Fighter, and revert to the previous Labour government's plans to buy the short take-off, vertical landing (STOVL) F35B version of the aircraft, The Times reported....

"...A reassessment of the programme, ordered by the Prime Minister, found the F35C would only provide one operable carrier, rather than two, and would carry an extra cost of up to £1.8billion, the Times reported. The review also found the programme would not be compatible with France's aircraft carrier and the new vessel would not be likely to come into service until 2025."

Umm, any ideas why the -C would be incompatible with French carriers? That would affect the USN cross decking as well.