Pentagon’s Operational Test and Evaluation Report 2012 PDF

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:28

'quicksilver': Please - do you have a list of every F-35 KPP? How is this sentence in the DOT&E report explained? "...The program announced an intention to change performance specifications..." Granted 'performance specifications' may not be KPP. A KPP list would be useful. Thanks.

hb_pencil · by **hb_pencil** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:29

I believe a list is included in every SAR, which details how the project is doing to meet those specifications.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:37

I recall looking at a list of old SARs to see that there is not much there at all with minimal changes. Somewhere on this forum there is a thread about it amongst other things. What we are referring to are Key Performance Parameters - KPPs. Is a complete list of KPPs in the SAR? I recall some KPPs are 'secret'. Usually one sees a graphic from a PowerPoint Brief with the KPPs listed. I'm wondering if there are any more KPPs unseen (obviously we cannot see the secret components).

Anyway here is an interesting KPP discussion from some old hands with an anecdote about how the USN changed opinion about the USAF approach to some issues:

Kobren LL Best Practice F35 JSF Part 14 (33Kb)

http://deimos3.apple.com/WebObjects/Cor ... 365207.pdf (33Kb)

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:41

RCS is the only KPP that is secret IIRC.

hb_pencil · by **hb_pencil** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:41

Yeah I think those refer to low observable capabilities rather than aerodynamic performance (combat radius figures are unclassfied in there).

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:43

hbp is correct. SAR has KPPs under Performance.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Jan 2013, 01:51

In other words changing a 'performance specification' is not the same as changing a KPP? Then why the fuss? Oh... I forgot... anything to do with the F-35 is a big deal. Right?

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Jan 2013, 02:06

This graphic is a SUMMARY of KPPs from a Report to Congress dated Feb 2012 but KPPs listed are from 2007 so at least one amendment made. So there is the suggestion that the current SAR will have the complete list (not a summary)? http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf (550Kb)

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 15 Jan 2013, 02:11

spazsinbad wrote:In other words changing a 'performance specification' is not the same as changing a KPP?

Correct.

Why the fuss? Because it's F-35 and it has a very strong array of adversaries, politically speaking. It's success may mean the end of business for some other commercial interests (spell that Boeing, St Louis); for some bureaucracies it is the biggest cash cow, and for others it's a threat to the status quo and the equities they represent.

An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT miserably and has taken years to fix it).

:wink:

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Jan 2013, 02:16

Latest SAR I can find is dated 31 December 2011 (must be due for a new one?).

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... 9-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)

ADDITION - says more or less same as the 'summary' performance wise. Nothing there about turning or acceleration - so no KPP change then.

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 15 Jan 2013, 02:45

quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:In other words changing a 'performance specification' is not the same as changing a KPP?

Correct.

Why the fuss? Because it's F-35 and it has a very strong array of adversaries, politically speaking. It's success may mean the end of business for some other commercial interests (spell that Boeing, St Louis); for some bureaucracies it is the biggest cash cow, and for others it's a threat to the status quo and the equities they represent.

An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT miserably and has taken years to fix it).

Actually the APG-79 performs quite well. It took 5+ years longer than planned, but it works better than the older PESA radars. Especially with nearby EA pods transmitting. This required a lot of work, especially the AESA with EA part.

And just for the record, do you think the APG-82 will fail OT? Or like most derivative projects, technical gaps are closed, and problems solved.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 15 Jan 2013, 03:11

Dave Majumdar now has a dudLine blog post about these matters with a link to the 18 page DOTE report:

Pentagon lowers F-35 performance bar...
By Dave Majumdar on January 14, 2013

"...Some of the backstory, according to an industry source is that originally the designers had intended the F-35 to be somewhat longer and more slender--in keeping with the principles of the Whitcomb area rule. Back then, the weapons bays were placed one behind the other--AMRAAMs in one bay, JDAMs in another. Apparently, the tail-end of the jet started to get heavy, and Lockheed had to change the configuration as a result--which is how we got the current weapons bays. They were kinda squished together--to use a technical description. As a result of that design change, there was never any chance that the F-35 was going to be able to match the transonic acceleration of a Block 50 Viper (Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon) armed only with two wing-tip AIM-120s.

Here is the full DOT&E report. [ http://www.scribd.com/doc/120381738/F-3 ... 012-Report ] It's long and the F-35 has a lot of problems, and there is a lot of work ahead for Lockheed and Joint Program Office. Nonetheless, as an engineer source tells me: "My general thought is that there is not a fundamental problem (i.e., a "show-stopper") on any of the three F-35 types/variants. Many of the issues being resolved are typical of development aircraft."

Source: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... orman.html

BEST to read the full blog post - if only because - whatever.

maus92 · by **maus92** » 15 Jan 2013, 03:22

spazsinbad wrote:Latest SAR I can find is dated 31 December 2011 (must be due for a new one?).

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/ar ... 9-2012.pdf (0.7Mb)

ADDITION - says more or less same as the 'summary' performance wise. Nothing there about turning or acceleration - so no KPP change then.

It usually takes a few months before someone lets it go public. I think the 2011 SAR showed up March/April 2012.

quicksilver · by **quicksilver** » 15 Jan 2013, 03:31

neurotech wrote:
quicksilver wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:In other words changing a 'performance specification' is not the same as changing a KPP?

Correct.

Why the fuss? Because it's F-35 and it has a very strong array of adversaries, politically speaking. It's success may mean the end of business for some other commercial interests (spell that Boeing, St Louis); for some bureaucracies it is the biggest cash cow, and for others it's a threat to the status quo and the equities they represent.

An interesting 'study' is to go back through each of the Annual Reports and read the report sections on Super Hornet. Almost like public service announcements from CHINFO or Boeing compared to our most recent 18-page tome on F-35. Also on SH, they broke out the AESA development from the air vehicle, report-wise, and took a long time to get around saying how bad APG-79 was after having said how good it was before they actually tested it. (Failed OT miserably and has taken years to fix it).

Actually the APG-79 performs quite well. It took 5+ years longer than planned, but it works better than the older PESA radars. Especially with nearby EA pods transmitting. This required a lot of work, especially the AESA with EA part.

And just for the record, do you think the APG-82 will fail OT? Or like most derivative projects, technical gaps are closed, and problems solved.

As I said, it took years to fix it...

As a Raytheon product, APG-82 will enjoy some of the learning that has occurred on APG-79, as well as some other programs.

neurotech · by **neurotech** » 15 Jan 2013, 03:38

@spazsibad: Why do you think the F-5E/F can go so fast (Mach 1.6+) with tiny engines? Whitcomb area rule.
That said, having pylons stores sticking out (F-16, F/A-18 etc.) is even worse for transonic/supersonic performance.