F-35B IOC is Imminent

Prepare for all the Handwringing

Word on the street is that F-35 IOC is all done except for the signatures (which always leaves the political angle, but ya gotta have faith).

I remember all the angst when the B-2 IOC occurred. How did that work out?

Like this:

IOC is the beginning, not the end. People who think you can field a perfect airplane out the door don't know airplanes, people, or how weapon systems become operational.

Note the critics were still acting in accordance to their SOPs even after B-2 IOC. Although the GAO pretty much threw in the towel after they published the report they had already written before Allied Force in 1999 (with only a cursory nod to the reality that just smacked around their paper pushing exercise.  

By the time F-35 FOC occurs, the critics will have lost all their teeth and will be gumming it to death. 

P.W. Singer and August Cole? 'Game Show' Quality Defense Analysis

(Apologies to Game Shows Everywhere)

AKA: The "Axe is Boring Disinformation Cascade" Continues...

Ersatz sound-bite providers cum defense 'thinkers' P.W. Singer and August Cole have piled even more B.S. on the F-35 non-story that was made up out of whole cloth earlier over at 'Axe is Boring'.

To summarize the authors (in sequence):

1. Help propagate the disinformation cascade by repeating the nonsensical hit-piece-on-a-report that neither they nor the original author propagating such drivel apparently are capable of understanding. 
2. Misrepresent the official response to said hit-piece and critique their own misrepresentation. 
3. Repeat a tired old ‘we tried missiles only’ trope. (Only interceptors designed to engage nuclear-armed bombers at a distance were ever ‘missiles only’ armed). 
4. Misrepresent the Navy’s actual design objective of the F-4, which was as a "Fleet Interceptor" of aforementioned bombers, and armed with A2A missiles designed to intercept those same less-than-maneuverable bombers and at very high altitudes (unlike how the ROEs shaped SEA combat). BTW: The Air Force ALWAYS wanted a gun on its F-4s in the fighter role. Robert the ’Strange’ said ‘NO’ to the AF until the F-4E. 
5. Provide a cartoon snapshot of the fighter pilots' post-1968 experience in SEA. 
6. Then reassert the bogus F-35 hit-piece masquerading as ‘reporting’ and analysis as if there were 'facts' involved.

So then.... 

Q: What IS there about the rest of the authors' so-called ‘analysis’ that would make their ‘blog post’ anything other than 'intellectual' booger-flicking?

A: Nothing.

By way of a palate cleanser, lets compare Singer and Cole's B.S. with some, y'know...FACTS.

Contrary to what some might believe, I try not to just point at the stupid people and their stupidity without also providing some positive and countervailing content. So in passing, let us review some information that at least provides some information as to what that 'test' Axe & Co. got their beta-boy panties in a wad over  REALLY means -- instead of what they want it to mean (apparently just because it fits their preconceived life-positions).

The Testing in Question was Described Ahead of Time Last Year 

From the 2014 AIAA paper "F-35A High Angle-of-Attack Testing"[1], authored by a Mr. Steve Baer, (Lockheed Martin "Aeronautical Engineer, Flying Qualities" at Edwards AFB), and presented to the Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference held between 16 and 20 June 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia we find that F-35 High AoA testing was designed to follow in the following progression: 

The test objectives for high angle-of-attack testing are as follows:

1) Characterize the flyqualities [sic] at AoAs from 20° to the control law limit regime with operationally representative maneuvers. 

2) Demonstrate the aircraft’s ability to recover from out of control flight and assess deep stall susceptibility 

3) Evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the automatic pitch rocker (APR) 

4) Evaluate departure resistance at both positive and negative AoA with center of gravity (CG) positions up to the aft limit and with maximum lateral asymmetry. 

5) Assess the handling qualities of the aircraft in the High AoA flight

Now, in case a 'punk journalist' or other factually-challenged reader wanders by, we need to be clear that #5 has nothing to do with "dogfighting". We know this because Mr. Baer makes two points shortly thereafter within the paper. 

The first point is relevant to the state of the testing at the time of his writing. I observe that this paper was written during Objective #4 testing and published at about the time it concluded. This observation is supported by the passage [emphasis/brackets mine]:

With intentional departure testing [Objective #4] wrapped up, the team will soon move into departure resistance [Objective #4] and plan to remove the SRC now that these systems have been verified. In this phase of testing, the jet will test the CLAW limiters with much higher energy and rates than previous testing, fleshing out and correcting areas that may be departure prone. Lastly, select operational maneuvers [Objective #5], such as a slow down turn and a Split-S, will be used to gather handling qualities data on high AoA maneuvers. With the completion of this phase, the F-35 will be released for initial operational capability in the high AoA region.

   Note: 'CLAW' is Control Law and 'SRC' is Spin Recovery Chute.

Clearly the testing was not yet at step #5 at the time of writing but to emphasize same, the author followed the above paragraph with [emphasis mine]: 

While the flight test team will explore legacy high AoA maneuvers for handling qualities, it will be the Operational Test and Evaluation team that will truly develop high AoA maneuvers for the F-35. In the operational world, a pilot should rarely be taking the F-35 into the high angle-of-attack regime, but the ability to do so could make the difference between being the victor or the victim in air-to-air combat....

So with this paragraph, not only does the author expound on the exploring of "legacy high AoA maneuvers" (the 'legacy' part is important) that is to come, he specifically assigns the kind of testing that will "truly develop high AoA maneuvers for the F-35" (vs. 'legacy' which may be differed from) to the Operational Testers and NOT part of the Edwards AFB Developmental Test Team activities. 

In a nutshell, just within these two paragraphs that Baer wrote in early/mid 2014 is precisely what the JPO/LM stated in their official response to Axe's B.S.

Therefore the "reasonable man" may logically and confidently conclude the JPO response:

1. WAS NOT simply something that was contrived in response to Axe's made up bullsh*t  but...
2. WAS accurately asserting what the testing was truly about...

....debunking all and any claims to the contrary.

[1] AIAA #2014-2057

Minor changes for clarity, readability and typo corrections made 23 July 15 @ 1944 hrs.  

. 

David Axe is More Boring Than Ever (Bless His Heart)

And still practicing Punk Journalism 

Bumped! Axe Doubles Down

*******Update 2 at End of Original Post******* 

Gawd. Saw this at work today and am only posting a short comment because somebody (surer than sh*t) will read something into any non-comment on my part, considering how I've already provided input (17 March 2015) on this subject:

I will bet dollars to donuts that IF the program chooses to respond to such hooey, that we will discover the first two BFM "tests" were in the middle of January, the first two flights were on two consecutive days, the missions were flown by two different pilots, and both of them had nothing but glowing reviews about the jet's performance. If I find eventually a public source to validate this 'guess' I will be happy to also share who I 'guessed' were the pilots, which flight they flew, and which plane(s?) was/were flown. And perhaps even quote the pilots.

First, I'm certain that whatever the test pilot report being cited by Axe may bear some faint resemblance to Axe's representation of same. Axe's perversions of the facts, per his usual modus operandi come via his bizarro assertions-stated-as-fact  and their complete disconnect from any reality as to the purpose and goals of the first A2A scenarios that were flown.

What the objectives were came out shortly after I made my first comments. From Av Week online (2 Apr 15), and with important bits in bold/EMPHASIS:

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter has been flown in air-to-air combat maneuvers against F-16s for the first time and, based on the results of these and earlier flight-envelope evaluations, test pilots say the aircraft can be cleared for greater agility as a growth option. 

Although the F-35 is designed primarily for attack rather than air combat, U.S. Air Force and Lockheed Martin test pilots say the availability of potential margin for additional maneuverability is a testament to the aircraft’s recently proven overall handling qualities and basic flying performance. “The door is open to provide a little more maneuverability,” says Lockheed Martin F-35 site lead test pilot David “Doc” Nelson..... 

..... “When we did the first dogfight in January, they said, ‘you have no limits,’” says Nelson. “It was loads monitoring, so they could tell if we ever broke something. It was a confidence builder for the rest of the fleet because there is no real difference structurally between AF-2 and the rest of the airplanes.” AF-2 was the first F-35 to be flown to 9g+ and -3g, and to roll at design-load factor. The aircraft, which was also the first Joint Strike Fighter to be intentionally flown in significant airframe buffet at all angles of attack, was calibrated for inflight loads measurements prior to ferrying to Edwards in 2010.

The operational maneuver tests were conducted to see “how it would look like against an F-16 in the airspace,” says Col. Rod “Trash” Cregier, F-35 program director. “It was an EARLY look at any control laws that may need to be tweaked to enable it to fly better in future. You can definitely tweak it—that’s the option.”

The expectation of the tests was to see how the airplane behaved when slung about in a A2A engagement using the current control laws within the current G-limit design, and they found they can open them up the laws for more. Let's ignore the fact we don't know AF-2's empty weight and that the program was delivering the SDD baseline weight aircraft about the time the engagement occurred.

Let's pretend it doesn't matter that we don't know the weight of the F-16 or the altitudes and speeds the engagements occurred either. Let's also ignore the fact that ALL jets need to have many such engagements before the aircrew really know how to best exploit their advantages. Even without all that, Axe is STILL  just laying down a nice pile of fertilizer for the rest of the Punk Journalists and Faux Reformers to spread and nurture yet another disinformation cascade.

Sit back and watch the fun. Any bets on who cites this weak-a** hit-piece first?

Update: I see F-16.net is on the case.

******************************************************

Update 2(1 July 15)

******************************************************

Wow. A lot can happen in a day, and I can't even go into the kind of detail I'd love to go into for some of it. (I'll have to stay 'hypothetical' about the now-out-in-the-open Test Report, given the caveats plastered at the top and bottom of every page of the report.)

First. A former fighter driver with experience in both the F-16 and F-18 chimed in with some thoughts that fit pretty much hand-in-glove with what I've stated so far in his post: Why The “F-35 v F-16″ Article Is Garbage.
 
Second. The global disinformation cascade Axe set off (and I predicted) was gathering a lot steam until the former fighter driver posted his thoughts.

Third. The F-35 program office and LM then added some information that was also consistent with my posts on the topic. (I'm not claiming any special insight here, just an experienced one that appears to be consistent with other experienced viewpoints.)

Fourth. Axe appears to have felt enough sting in the criticism he's received so far to now have gone a step further and posted a lightly-sanitized copy of the report. If he cared a whit versus just playing a gadfly, I would love to explain to him the cognitive dissonance between what the report says and means in contrast to what he asserts it means. I suspect the JPO or LM will have to go through the process of releasing some of the leaked information for export just so they can spell it out for the low-information crowd.

Until they do, I won't be linking to or addressing anything directly mentioned in the report because doing so could constitute an 'export'. I like my current digs and income status and look terrible in orange or broad stripes, so NO.
Axe better hope he's as insignificant a pissant as I think he is, because the caveats on those pages obviously leave him and his employer open to criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits. It would take a lot of political capital to be spent by the anti-defense crowd to keep Axe and Co. out of the grinder if Uncle Sugar or Lockmart decide to call them out on this. BTW: May whoever leaked the report be far less connected and may the scum twist in wind over this leak.

Given I won't be discussing the contents of the report, I WILL say that Axe's doubling-down on this stupidity gives me some inkling as to how Forest Rangers must feel when some life-long urbanite visits the park and keeps pointing at some small woodland creature insisting it is a 'bear' no matter how many times the Ranger points out the differences. I can't believe he offered the report as if it supported his position. Is he THAT clueless, or is he 'whistling past the graveyard' hoping nobody will call him out further on his peddling crap?

Maybe he wouldn't have made this mistake of misreading things into the report that aren't there, if he read more widely.


      

An Open Letter to Ed Driscoll: Power of CAS Myths

Guest 'Pundit' at Instapundit, Ed Driscoll, links to a craptastic "Save the A-10" editorial (unattributed) at Investors Business Daily.... SIX MONTHS after it was published?

I thought the editorial at the link was so bad at the time it came out (along with a bunch of similar A-10 puff pieces), I don't remember paying it much heed.  But Driscoll's resurrection of this poorly 'informed' op-ed illustrates--- once again-- the power of the CAS Mythology and "narrative". Just look at the comment thread at Instapundit. Yikes!

Normally, I like what Ed Driscoll writes, and writes about, but he's waaay out of his area of expertise this time.

Dear Ed: That IBD Op Ed could have been written by one or more squirrels.  

No, the A-10 wasn’t designed to stop Soviet Tanks. This is a common misconception I've heard General Officers utter. We are so ahistorical.

The A-10 was conceived as a weapon that could attack “hard targets” and cooperate with Army Airmobile forces in SEA. After Vietnam, the Air Force HOPED it could be survivable in the NATO order of battle and did all kinds of things to make/keep it relevant. In Europe, its main advantage was the ability to get below typical rotten Euro-weather that would keep fast-movers off the target. We have sensors and communications now that remove the weather restriction for fast movers. the F-35's The weapons the A-10 was designed to survive against predated MANPADs, Integrated Air Defense Systems and even radar controlled AAA that even the NVA were pushing into the South at the end of the Vietnam War. (Google Lam Son 719).

The A-10 wasn't fielded in 1972. It first flew, in a fly-off, in 1972. (I was there) It didn’t hit IOC until 1976 or FOC until 1978.  Core operational concepts for Europe weren't developed until 1979 (I was there too).

The A-10 HAS to fly low and slow because it doesn’t have the kinds of sensors (SNIPER pods are an improvement, but not enough) and communications capabilities to sort out the battlefield well prior to the attack. It often HAS to loiter longer just because it takes longer to set up an attack.

The cockpit armor and other design features make it harder to shoot down that it would be otherwise, but having bits and pieces shot off you is not a long term survival strategy. A-10s in Desert Storm saw the most intense air defense environment they have seen before or since. They did not do well. A-10s were pulled off the Iraqi Republican Guard units and tasked against weaker units as a consequence.

Yes “A supersonic fighter pilot flying miles above the battlefield will not see enemy forces the way a Warthog pilot can” – They will see it better. I’m always fascinated by people who cite 'low and slow" as an advantage: as if flying there gives one more time to view the ground. That maybe true at Piper Cub speeds. But I’ve 'done' low and 'A-10 slow' a the same time and the scenery is whizzing by pretty fast. It ain't that great for picking up and following specific specs out of all the other specs.

A fast mover may cost more $ up front, but if the attrition rate is even a few percentage points lower, the savings, not to mention the ability to sustain operations, far outweighs the operating costs—even if you don’t factor in the fewer 'dead aircrew' part. THAT is the proper context for framing a statement like “Force requirements should be dictated by battlefield requirements, not budget restraints.”

The F-35 will provide CAS in its own way and not in the manner the A-10 provides it, so the open question is not whether or not the F-35 “can take the punishment the A-10 can”. The open question is:

Why do people think you have to take punishment like an A-10 to fly CAS?

The Warthog is still a low-intensity-conflict “hammer”: A Completely appropriate design (ignoring they are worn out) solution if ALL you are going to do is flatten insects. It is NOT so appropriate if you have to also be ready to face  Thor who is swinging his own hammer. Unless you have the extra dollars to buy and support both kinds of weapons systems to deal with bugs and Old Norse deities, you want the one that can beat the gods without getting beat yourself.

May I Suggest Some Remedial Reading?
Start at Part 1 (Links for Part 2 through 8 at bottom of Part 1).

Just found out where and how Driscoll got suckered in.
~Sigh~

F-35 'Reporting' : A Study in Contrast

Take a look at the serious article at AIN on the effects of the latest F-35 cost reduction efforts here, and contrast it with the crap dropped to days ago over at 'David Axe Is Boring' for the low-information crowd.

Yeah, the author (Bill Carey) in the AIN piece brought up the unrelated GAO audit gripe with Pratt and Whitney, but he did so without any of the overwrought uninformed voices of 'doom' we usually have wade through -- and he included the official Program Office response (retort!) to the GAO 'report'. I thought it was a palate cleanser compared to the even-worse-than-usual-drivel that came out of  the 'collaboration' of two punk-journalistas at Axe's place titled: "The F-35 Just Catches on Fire Sometimes".

Duuuude! Heh heh. Heh. Uhhh um Heh...what was I saying?

I bet they thought it was a 'real cool' story when they wrote it. You can almost hear the snickering as they passed whatever they were 'smoking' back and forth trying to weave their contrived tale of woe:

What happened is not entirely surprising. Some personnel and testers have already raised concerns that the F-35 engine — known as the F135 — is prone to safety hazards.
As early as the 2007 fiscal year, engineers warned that a serious fire could break out if fuel leaked into the engine compartment, according to the latest annual report from the Pentagon’s top weapons tester.
By Fiscal Year 2013, tests had confirmed these fears. “Engine live fire tests in FY13 and prior live fire test data and analyses demonstrated vulnerability to engine fire, either caused by cascading effects or direct damage to engine fuel lines,” the report noted.

Hey 'Duuudes'? An engine shatting about 12 feet of metal spears through a fuel tank is going to cause a fire no matter effing what else you do.

For the record, the Punk Journalism employed oversimplifies things greatly. The  FY 2013 report says:

The first test series confirmed Polyalphaolefin (PAO) coolant and fueldraulic systems fire vulnerabilities. The relevant protective systems were removed from the aircraft in 2008 as part of a weight reduction effort. A Computation of vulnerable Area Tool analysis shows that the removal of these systems results in a 25 percent increase in aircraft vulnerability. The F-35 Program Office may consider reinstalling the PAO shutoff valve feature based on a more detailed cost‑benefit assessment. Fueldraulic system protection is not being reconsidered for the F-35 design.
The program’s most recent vulnerability assessment showed that the removal of fueldraulic fuses, the PAO shutoff valve,and the dry bay fire suppression, also removed in 2008, results in the F-35 not meeting the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) requirement to have a vulnerability posture better than analogous legacy aircraft.

Later, the report also says:

In 2008, the JSF Executive Steering Board (JESB) directed the removal of PAO shutoff valves from the F-35 design to reduce the aircraft weight by 2 pounds. Given the damage observed in this test, the JESB directed the program to re-evaluate installing a PAO shutoff system through its engineering process based on a cost/benefit analysis and the design performance capabilities. The ballistic test results defined the significance of this vulnerability. However, the test also showed that a shutoff system needs  to outperform other fielded systems. To be effective, it must trigger on smaller leak rates, down to 2 gpm versus the 6 gpm typical of other aircraft designs, without causing excessive false alarms. - The program is currently working to identify a low leak rate technical solution. The Program Office will consider operational feasibility and effectiveness of the design, along with cost, to decide if PAO shutoff valves will be reinstated as part of the production aircraft configuration. 

 Translated, the above passage says 1) the Program Office is considering its options, 2) the big thing about 'fuses' that DOT&E is all hot about would require engineering and effort to improve the state of the art because 3) the thingy the DOT&E office wants doesn't exist and are 4) beyond current state-of-the-art engineering.

I predict the JPO will develop the d*mned fuses (if they don't cost TOO much) if only to give the DOT&E their (two) pound(s) of flesh. I also note here (perennially it seems) that a '25% increase in vulnerability' gives no true perspective on vulnerability (25% more than "very little" is still "very little") nor the higher impact to 'survivability'. The DOT&E still provides no budget to the programs they write-up to help comply with their whims, and does not EVER weigh the importance of "vulnerability" relative to the "susceptibility" in considering the real metric of "survivability". This is not, per usual, a case of DOT&E actually being an authority on what is best. It a conflict in opinion and judgement between two presumptive 'authorities', of which only the JPO also has the 'responsibility'.

I'll stand with the ones who have the responsibility for draining the swamp, not the ones filming the docudrama, thank you very much.

So just who is writing this junk? 

Kevin Knodell is a professional multimedia journalist and comic writer. He writes about veterans, military history, peacekeeping and refugees for War is Boring at Medium.com. He's the current writer of War is Boring's regular comic series with artist Blue Delliquanti, as well as the writer of the comic mini-history 'How The World Forgot Darfur' with artist Keith Badgely.
From June 2014-April 2015 he was the coordinator of War Is Boring's field team in Northern Iraq. That meant supervising an international team of contributors covering the war with Islamic State, the mounting humanitarian crisis and the ongoing political struggle. The team's work has been cited by Fox News, The New Yorker, Huffington Post, France 24, and Yahoo News. He has been interviewed by Vice Germany and Rudaw English to provide insight on military tactics and new media conflict reporting.

Writer, Comic Writer, Combat Voyeur. Gets quoted by other media every now and then - got it.
At least he's a redhead and can grow a beard:

Very Van Gogh-ish

Joseph Trevithick is a "Journalist and researcher with experience using various open source and public domain resources, as well as traditional research methods (including informational interviewing and familiarity with the IRB process). Has written pieces for print publications such as Small Arms Review, and online outlets, such as a contributor to Small Wars Journal and Tom Ricks’ The Best Defense. Is also a regular contributor to David Axe’s War is Boring, hosted by Medium.com. Has been interviewed for television by BBC World, CNN International, ABC News, and Al-Jazeera English, on topics ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles to the situation in Afghanistan. Is currently working on a number of projects concerning various military topics for a range of audiences."

Also "He graduated from Carnegie Mellon University in 2006 with a dual BA in History and Policy and International Relations"

Summed up: Writer, likes history (small history from what I read), 'policy', and not just mediation -- international mediation . Gets quoted by other media every now and then - got it.

This article is a new low for Trevithick. Which is remarkable, because his old low isn't even a week old yet.

Well, he has access to a big map. Nothing says 'pro' like a big map... I guess.

Weird Days for the 'Death Spiral' Eh?

While there's really no question as to how the "Who's Death Spiral is It?" game is going to be inevitably played out from where I'm sitting, it looks like The Borg and their F-18E/F are going to get at least one more year without too much loss of altitude via the generosity of Congress. But that generosity is not being granted exclusively to just the F-18:

The vote was 278-149 in favor of the bill, which drew stiff opposition from Democrats because it uses a war-fighting account to raise defense spending next year. The measure provides $8.4 billion for 65 next-generation F-35 fighters, eight more than requested by the Pentagon, as well as $16.9 billion toward nine Navy ships.
In the Senate, the Appropriations Committee approved a $576 billion defense bill that also boosts spending on the F-35 program and adds funds to speed replacement of a Russian-made engine used to launch U.S. satellites.
The Senate bill would increase the number of F-35s made by Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth to 67 from the 57 requested in fiscal 2016. It would shift $730.3 million to buy six additional Marine models of the F-35 and add $97.6 million that, when combined with other previously approved but unspent funds, would buy four additional Air Force models, according to the bill report.
The Senate measure for the year that begins Oct. 1 would also add about $978 million for 12 F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet jets made by Boeing Co., rejecting the Pentagon’s plan to end Navy purchases of the plane.

Everyone's a winner!

The F-18 buy doesn't bug me all that much. Yeah the Taxpayer pays (again), but it may be worth it, if only as a wedge to help keep LM's F-35 on the cost reduction slope, And its not as if the Navy isn't going to use up the F-18E/Fs they already anyway even after they field the F-35C. Once the Navy catches up to the AF in fully exploiting LO aircraft however, those new F-18s may last years longer than planned: because they just won't be used all that much once it happens.

Speaking of Cost Reductions. 

Evidently the F-35 unit cost is ALREADY dropping due to LM's  ‘Blueprint’ To Drive Down F-35 Costs proactively, instead of just relying on Economic Order Quantities to survive Congress' penchant for micro-management and irrational change:

Initially, the manufacturer expected that it would see the first cost savings during F-35 low-rate initial production (LRIP) lot 9, which Lockheed Martin and the DOD were negotiating at the time of [Lorraine] Martin’s presentation in mid-February. But it realized early benefits while producing LRIP 8 airframes, cutting about $260,000 from the cost of each of 43 fighters that it will begin delivering in 2016. “So that’s not chump change,” Martin declared. “I rolled that cost savings into the offer I made to the government when I negotiated the contract,” which the parties signed last November...

...At the time of the LRIP 8 contract award, Lockheed Martin said the average unit price of airframes for the three F-35 variants was 3.6 percent lower than the LRIP 7 price. The company reports that the LRIP 8 cost of an F-35A for the U.S. Air Force without its F135-PW-100 engine was $94.7 million. The price of an F-35A with its engine was $108 million, which was $4 million lower than Lot 7 prices, according to the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO).
Martin said the manufacturing improvements her company is implementing could knock another $780,000 from the price of LRIP 9 jets. Ultimately, the blueprint’s goal is to deliver an F-35 with an engine for $80 million in then-year dollars, accounting for inflation. Martin has generated news by saying the price could be even less. “If this works, and we have confidence that it will, [the government is] potentially willing to invest on the tail end $300 million. With these two sets of investments, that’s what gets us down to under an $80 million aircraft,” she said.

Sweet!

Norway's First F-35 Leving 'Major Mate' for Final Assembly

Let's see what the URF cost of the 2016 F-18E/F buy is going to be in then-year dollars is when the next SAR covering the buy is  released. Should make an interesting comparison. At some point in time the mouth-breathers are going to have deal with the reality and stop amortizing F-35 sunk costs over future buys, but it won't be soon. I think they will want to pretend a little longer, if only because there isn't anything else big to b*tch about.

The One DOT&E, er DoD SAR Quote You Probably Won't See Anywhere Else

Now with Don Bacon! 
(As in Corrected, Updated and Bumped with Hat Tip to Same)

Don't expect the Punk Journalists, Loyal Babblers, or Faux Reformers (abetted by Punk Journalists) to bother with putting proper perspective around all their little doomsday accounts of what is going on inside the F-35 program. Remember, its all about either trying to kill a program and/or coming up with enough rent money. "P.A.C.E." is the vehicle that they'd drive off the cliff before they'd ever move away from it.

So there is one DOT&E DoD Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) quote out of all the reports and testimonies that comes out of the unexpurgated December 2014 (for 2015) DOT&E Report DoD SAR that I don't see anyone pushing out to the uneducated masses anytime soon. It is the final paragraph of the report's Executive Summary, Page 10:

In summary, the F-35 program is showing steady progress in all areas – including development, flight test, production, maintenance, and stand-up of the global sustainment enterprise. The program is currently on the right track and will continue to deliver on the commitments that have been made to the F-35 Enterprise. As with any big, complex development program, there will be challenges and obstacles. However, we have the ability to overcome any current and future issues, and the superb capabilities of the F-35 are well within reach for all of us. 

Everything else in the media that surrounds the F-35/DOT&E, DoD SAR, GAO, blah ,blah, blah, reportage is about either rallying the mouth-breathers or herding the sheep.

About the Update: I had meant to identify the report I linked to as the SAR, but let myself get in a hurry and used the incorrect reference at the link that originally led me to the document instead. My 'bad', but it doesn't change the essence of the post or the point either. This update exists because I loathe inaccuracies, even mine and no matter how they are identified.
If anything, the quote is more relevant to my point coming from the SecDef Office SAR than the DOT&E annual report:

The F-35 and the Infamous Transonic Acceleration Change

Part 3 : Updated and Bumped

(Part 1 here: Part 2 here, and 'Bonus' Block 60 Comparison Here)

I'm still working on the F-35A vs Block 60 F-16 comparison, but wanted to add a reference to a comment I made at Breaking Defense in response to one 'Peter Goon': a former FTE (best known as a talking head for Air Power Australia ). I'm repeating it here because for some reason, the graphics accompanying my response did not post, and one is an update of a chart shown already in this series.  Mr Goon dropped a series of snarky comments, any of which can be discarded, but none so readily as this one:

RE: Q: How does an aircraft that takes over 60 seconds to accelerate from 0.8M to 1.2M at 30k ft ISA have "at least" the maneouvrability of a Block 50 F-16C which does this in less than 30 seconds, with 4 missiles on board?

My response reads thusly:

Well Skippy, your first big problem is that the only F-16C Block 50 that can go from M.8 to M1.2 in "30 seconds" can only carry two missiles and....its about out of fuel.

Your second big problem is that you are comparing your infeasible F-16 loadout with an F-35 KPP configuration that is carrying 60% (of a much larger capacity than the F-16) fuel load AND 2 tons of bombs.

To answer your question more fully, and as a object lesson to others that it is YOU who are really pedaling the "indifference to reality" with hyperbolic nonsense, the F-35A at KPP weights and loadouts SPANKS the Block 50 F-16 in transonic acceleration for all but at the very lightest weight/drag combinations identified in the F-16's operating manual.

I dropped two graphics with data extracted from the Hellenic AF Block 50/52 Change 8 Operators manual, but they didn't 'take' for some reason. First, the F-16 Block 50 basic weight/drag data:

This is the heaviest a Block 50 F-16 can get without adding drag by hanging stuff off the outside 

...and then an updated table (data and comment added for clarity only: no existing data changed) of the Block 50's transonic acceleration times:

Only at the lowest weight/drag combinations can a Block 50 transonic performance best the F-35A KPP configuration. Remember the F-35A is carrying 60% internal fuel AND two 2K Lb JDAMs. 

Conclusion?

YES, the F-35A has:

  "at least" the maneouvrability of a Block 50 F-16C. 

Deal with it.

Original Post, as posted on 1 March below this point...... 

KPP Requirement or no, ‘What If’ the F-35 will someday really need to get rid of all or part of extra seconds in the new KPP enroute to Mach 1.2?

(Part 1 here: Part 2 here, and 'Bonus' Block 60 Comparison Here)

The F-35 Transonic Acceleration KPPs were ‘changed’. This change was almost immediately decried far and wide as a failure by the ill-informed and self-serving critics. I’m certain some have forgotten or missed the discussion in Part 1 where I referenced the DoD documentation describing the process by which KPPs are established, and changes are made, and that they are only changed if the changes are validated as being operationally acceptable. I’m certain others will miss the references in Part 2 where it was highlighted that they changes were always going to happen, if only because you cannot violate the laws of physics. (Those people may be sputtering at their computer screen soon if they aren't already). That the F-35 KPP changes were implemented at all proves the changes were acceptable by those responsible for the integrity of the requirements and supporting system engineering process.

This post and series is not for those people.

It has been for people who want to understand more about the changes and their ramifications. Agreement or approval by me or anyone else as to the acceptability of these KPP changes is irrelevant. The agencies to which they are relevant have already decided.(Right about here those ‘other people’ would mentally register a need to utter a Circumstantial Ad Hominem against those responsible that when you strip away all the unsupported assertions, logically translates into little more than “those people are the experts, what do they know?...oh and “they must be lying!” or “what are they hiding?”)

BUT!... probably, someday, someone flying one of the F-35 variants is going to REALLY need to accelerate M.8 to M1.2 as quick as the original KPP specified or even more quickly (just not often enough to pursue it as a KPP). Truth be told, there’s probably going to be a time or twelve where somebody is going to wish ‘instantaneous’ translation to Mach 10, but you have to draw the line someplace within the laws of physics.

IF there is some operational need to shave all or part of 8 seconds (or the longer times for the other variants) going from .8M to 1.2M, can it be accomplished? If so, HOW would it be done, and is the remedy needed so onerous that it will adversely impact the F-35’s viability or operational utility? With the F-35A needing only to overcome 8 seconds, the program office could have easily just specified a lower weight to accomplish the feat, and a checklist item added to the effect of “if you want to do ‘this’, then ensure fuel and weapons on board do not exceed X lbs”. But as fuel on board at a mid-mission point tends to be a valuable commodity, and weapons carriage is a fighter aircraft’s reason for being, I presume everyone can see why the users, JROC and program office didn’t take that route.

“One Weird Trick”

If, by chance, “8 seconds” is a big deal, even for an aircraft with a ‘greater initial acceleration than an F-16’ and it still means those 8 seconds crossed some breakpoint minimum needed operationally, then the good news is it is rather easy to accommodate. In fact, fighter pilots have been using ‘this one weird trick’ (Man, I hate those ads) for decades to squeeze extra acceleration out of the transonic region.

It’s called ‘Unloading’

Hat tip to Pat ‘Gums’ McAdoo, USAF Lt Col (Ret), at F-16.net for first reminding me of this ‘way back when’:

“RE: transonic accel....... I'll bet that the profile was st-and-level and then gofor it. We who have done it know that all ya gotta do is reduce AoA by lowering the nose a tiny amount and shazaam!”

You can also bet any future opponent that the F-35 runs into WILL also be doing the same thing. Sometimes ‘unloading’ will be the best thing for a pilot to employ, sometimes something else will be the best thing to do. Aeronautics has advanced to exploit the medium to its maximum. There is no magic airplane that does everything better than any other airplane within each generation or two: there's always a 'catch'.

Unloading the wing during an acceleration run through the transonic region pays off in increased acceleration (or reduces the decline of acceleration if that is all that is desired) immediately. It is also the key part of employing the Rutowski Profile (Ref #10 in Part 2) in reducing climb times for the same reasons. When a pilot completely 'unloads' the wing, all of the wing wave drag coefficient contribuion due to lift goes to zero, and the aircraft ‘sinks’ (altitude decreases). This is a relatively slower rate of descent compared to an actual ‘dive’, by the way. But a dive is also an option for even greater acceleration, and as Shaw observes (Fighter Combat, p. 407) it is even more effective the heavier and ‘cleaner’ an aircraft is-- assuming the dive does not take the aircraft past its structural limits. When that much wave drag suddenly disappears, the acceleration rate increases dramatically (Shaw recommends a “sharp pull-down” to a dive attitude then an ‘unload’ as particularly effective). Higher acceleration rates are like compound interest: the more you have earlier, the more the distance you cover and the more speed you have at the end: If the wing is unloaded early in a run when acceleration rate is already high but late enough that the aircraft is near Critical Mach, the time the plane would need to be unloaded might be exceedingly small for an F-35A to achieve 1.2M those eight seconds faster. It might help people to be able to visualize how little difference there is between M.8 and M1.2 at 30K feet if we use a graphic (we're keeping the numbering of figures as beginning in Part 1):

Figure 20: Every tenth of a Mach is about 40KIAS at 30K ft Altitude

An eight second difference for the F-35A in all probability translated into achieving something like Mach 1,1-Mach 1.18 in the original 55 seconds. That's small potatoes as far as overall speed goes. 

Here’s the example of a straight wing drag profile shown earlier:

Figure 21: Typical Drag Curve for a 'Loaded' Straight Wing 

Now, here’s a representation of what the ‘straight wing’ drag curve looks like if unloading the wing reduces the wing wave contribution by a conservative 40%:

Figure 22: Typical Drag Curve for an 'Unloaded' Straight Wing 

The total peak drag coefficient in this instance is reduced by 25%. Observe in the next figure that the peak drag coefficient ‘unloaded’ at around M1.1 is about the same as just before Mach 1 ‘loaded’, and that even in the typical Critical Mach range for fighter aircraft between M.8 to M.9 (Shaw, “Fighter Combat”, Pg. 399) the drag coefficient is reduced. 

Figure 23: Straight Wing Drag, Loaded vs Unloaded

IMHO, the F-35 Critical Mach Speed, like most advanced fighters, should be well into the upper half of that range IF the performance measures in the Bowman paper are to be believed (We’ll get to that in a moment). 

The actual amount of drag reduction will vary depending upon the total aircraft design (and remember it will also vary by airspeed and altitude). Shaw’s “Fighter Combat” provides a convenient graph highlighting the increases in acceleration that can be expected at different altitudes over a wide speed range for legacy aircraft. It is modified here to illustrate the altitude and Mach range of interest:

Figure 24: Typical Benefits of Unloading on Acceleration (Original source as noted, modified by Elements of Power)

We see in Shaw’s chart that for legacy fighter designs flying from .8 Mach to Mach 1.2, unloading increases the acceleration rates between ~17% at M1.0 to as much as ~20% at Mach 1.2 and ~25% at .8 Mach at the 30K ft KPP altitude (Ref #9). This appears consistent with what we would expect from the differences in the drag curves shown in our examples. It should also be readily apparent that both the F-35B and F-35C could employ the ‘unload’ technique in the same manner as the F-35A. Obviously, the F-35B would only need a small ‘bump’ compared to the F-35C. The smaller the time/speed difference needing to be closed, the more flexibility on timing and duration is available for the pilot to choose when and how long to ‘unload’.

Figure 25: Unloading and/or Diving to Achieve Original KPP times.

The F-35C’s obviously much greater wave drag due to lift than the other two variants (expanded upon in Part 2) also means it would just as obviously benefit MOST OF ALL from the unloading technique. If a dive would be necessary for the F-35C (as the ‘worst case’) to meet the old transonic acceleration standard, it could be able to carry that acceleration beyond 1.2 to perhaps even M1.6  (F-35 Max Speed in level flight. We do not know what the 'never exceed' speed is, so we’ll stick with what we know the F-35C can do. If ending the acceleration run at the same altitude (30K feet in the KPP) is important, the F-35 pilot can accelerate beyond M1.2 and so after climbing at the end of the run, trading smash for altitude, the plane is still flying M1.2 or better.

This might be a good time to interject the observation that if there was ever evidence the original KPPs were established before the aircraft design was even undertaken, it is the original common KPP of 65 seconds for the F-35B and F-35C: two airplanes with vastly different weights and wing areas. This tells me the trade space for the F-35C design might not have been fully understood when the Navy laid down the requirements or the KPP really was a 'let's see what we can get' figure.
We should also note here that the KPPs were/are against a predicted weight standard and that all indicators are that the predicted weights are being beaten, with all variants coming in (for now) below the modeled weights used for the KPPs.  Those lower weights mean lower wave drag to begin with, and in turn better transonic acceleration.   

Shaw asserts that unloading for best transonic acceleration is done close to ‘Critical Mach’. Bowman (Part 2 Ref #9) identifies the F-35A KPP threshold for max speed at 30K ft altitude without afterburner at >.96 Mach. This speed cannot be too far above or below F-35A Critical Mach because “at speeds faster than the Critical Mach number the drag coefficient increases suddenly, causing dramatically increased drag”. Afterburners (and/or unloading) would soon be required to go any faster once Critical Mach is reached.
Bowman BTW, is now a Navy Captain, and as far as I know continues to NOT be an F-35 'fan'. I'm still hoping for some karma backlash that will tie him to the F-35 program as a developer or operator, just for the entertainment value alone.   

Conclusions?

Other than changing the KPPS evidently was not a 'big deal', there's not much to conclude: just a lot of open questions remain.
That the program was warning far ahead of the KPP change that the spec was unrealistic (Ref #3 and #4 in Part 2), makes the initial acceleration KPP looks more like it was a ‘show us what you can do and we’ll revisit the issue later’ placeholder. An entirely likely possibility is that as the program matured, different advantages were seen in areas of aircraft capabilities that shifted design emphasis to 'someplace else'. A KPP may be set based upon an assumption of X capability would require KPP X to be one thing, and then as the design matures, and operational concepts evolve or even threat perceptions shift, it becomes apparent that X capability isn't as important as Y capability, which if is addressed would require more or less out of the KPP X.  

Examples? Program news over the years seemed to talk a lot about range and carrier approach handling as being 'big deals'. Did range become more important than acceleration? If so, fuel could have been added which increased weight and that reduced acceleration. For the C model, did the Navy decide a bigger, higher drag wing meant fewer carrier landing mishaps? It is also entirely possible one or more of the variant KPPs started simply as a wish-list item.

We've heard before about he F-35 KPPs being based upon aerodynamically 'clean'  legacy aircraft specs. Was that a 'miss' where the initial KPP-setters failed to recognize the physics involved, or they did recognize it but since there was no design to evaluate at the time, they let it go: leaving it as an admirable goal but also knowing the KPP could always be changed later? That last explanation makes most sense to me. I've dealt with the acquisition system bureaucracies for decades, and that kind of development  seems totally in character for how the system works. But whatever the reason, we can only 'guess'. We don’t really know 'why', and I wouldn't be surprised if no one is still around within the program who remembers the 'why'. It would make a terrific question for some politico to enquire about, especially if there was some dark secret behind the change as F-35 detractors seem to often insinuate.  

The Bottom Line, Again

For the F-35A model, the 8 second difference between new and old KPP appears to be trivial. The F-35B would probably have to unload a few seconds earlier or for a few seconds longer to meet the old KPP and the F-35C may have to unload a lot earlier and for a few more seconds to do the same.

But it is hard to say for certain, because the B and C early acceleration profiles may be just as good as pilots flying the F-35A assert about the CTOL version. The F-35C might have the toughest time making up the acceleration difference because it has a much larger non-lift contributor to wing wave drag to go with the larger lift contribution. But as it is also slightly longer overall and especially longer in the wing and tail surface areas, the F-35C shape in its entirety may (I don't think so but I can't rule it out) be lower drag than the others above Mach 1.1+. Or the F-35C may have other lower drag advantages due to something like its ‘cleaner’ wing attachment transition on the bottom surface. Who knows?

The newer 'changed' KPPs are as far as we know, still based upon modeled F-35 performance using “end-of-life, worst-case” scenario relative to the F135 engine’s power capacity” (Ref #7 Part 2) and “two per cent thrust” penalty (Ref #8 in Part 2). These ‘wedges’ against the F-35's performance could also be the difference between meeting the old KPP and needing the new KPP in the case of the F-35A, and part of the difference for the F-35B and C. 

The changes might also (almost certainly for the F-35C) have been due to encountering an ever-so-slightly higher than planned/predicted peak transonic drag coefficient, or some combination of the above. Contrary to what some might think, computational fluid dynamics and wind-tunnel testing do not prevent small surprises when the aircraft finally flies, they just lower the chances and severity. Sometimes those surprises go undiscovered for years (Bitburg Roll anyone?), and frankly I'm STILL surprised at how little difficulty the F-35 has had in some performance areas compared to legacy aircraft.  Beginning at about .8 Mach, even the tiniest drag [design] differences affect an aircraft’s [drag] performance out of proportion to the differences. The ability to cruise in military power at Mach 1.2 for some distance (Part 2, Ref#2) indicates that for the A and the B model at least, that ‘peak’ in the Drag Coefficient around Mach 1.1 is a fairly narrow one. 

The importance of the KPP change all comes back to what Tom Burbage was quoted as saying in Ref #4:

“...the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”

The people buying and flying the airplane apparently say ‘yes’. And they've got the data and required knowledge and judgement to make the call. The voices outside the program do not.

Acceleration Sidebar: Is Acceleration More Important to Offensive or Defensive capabilities?

If I had to make a guess as to whether or not F-35 transonic acceleration was more critical in the A2A arena for closing on an enemy or escaping an enemy, I would say it is more important as an offensive attribute for closing on an enemy. Why? For two main reasons. First, I seriously doubt there is a fighter in existence or on the drawing board that can be expected to consistently attempt to overtake an F-35 without hesitation: or any aircraft that will competently shoot missiles over the shoulder at their pursuers. Second. The F-35 is being fielded as an optimal pack hunter: any aircraft pursuing one F-35 will always be a little more cautious if the pilot has reason to expect there to be another F-35 or two that he has no clue as to where it or they are.

Next Up: 

Stimulated by Commenter 'Tim A.' in Part 2, I'm going to do a quick parametric examination  of transonic acceleration differences between the 'ultimate' F-16 (Block 60) and the F-35A at A2G and A2A weights and loadouts. Nothing too extensive-- just something to ponder.

  

The Air Force Reaffirmed "A-10 retirement decision" in a "Week"

Anyone with reasonable exposure to the 'issue' could have done the same thing. 

If I thought anyone was interested, I could lead a little online systems engineering exercise. Except we'd have to endure the "Because Big Gun!" argumentation. You already know where I stand on that 'point'.

And Ohohohohohohoho the A-10 fanboys of the U.S. Nostalgia Force are going to go ape-you-know-what over this one.

After a week of concentrated study of its close air support (CAS) role, the US Air Force essentially has decided to stick with plans to gradually retire the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II and hand the CAS mission to the Lockheed Martin F-35.

It really just took a week to run everyone involved at the top through the relevant information already in hand.

The CAS "controversy" has been studied to freakin' death leading up to this moment, and it's not exactly like ANYONE who has paid attention doesn't already know the USAF has been looking at A-10 obsolescence growing......... like, forever. 

The article at FlightGlobal lays out pretty much what one would expect.

1. Phase out A-10 and phase in F-35 (as planned all along) 

2. Look at alternatives to fill any gaps during the transition (as F-35 capabilities mature). 

That's not 'too complicated' is it? 

Some good details at the link, such as still having dedicated CAS units (Which I note did no good to appease the 'A-10 forever!' crowd the first, last, any time.

If I were to open a group SE exercise to derive requirements for a CAS aircraft, I would start by asking "What capabilities are necessary in a CAS plane?

After the dumb*sses with the 'big gun!' ,'fly slow!', derived qualities spouted off, and if we even cared, we would probably employ the 'Five Whys' approach to backing out the top-level requirements. Example: Why do we need a big gun?, and then based upon the answer, ask why that answer was valid, and etc back to the truly top-level requirements. In doing so, we would arrive at a list of characteristics: effective targeting, responsiveness, lethality, survivability, persistence, etc.

F-35 optimal attack profile with GAU-22 vs. 

A-10 Optimal Attack Profile. F-35 rounds per

square meter density is approximately double 

A-10's even at a much longer, safer range.    

There would be multiple paths that could be followed to meet a desired top-level requirement: a 'Big Gun with lots of ammo' is but one technical solution to 'lethality'.  But we also have 'effective targeting' which does not just support overall lethality objectives -- it also includes "safe to employ" as one of many sub-elements of "effectiveness". So once we got into looking at the optional material solutions we could select for 'lethality' we would then perform tradeoffs among the many desired attributes, and many of them will be contrary to each other. A balance among all of the attributes would have to be achieved. 

Done to Death

But we don't have to do this study. It's been done to death. And it wouldn't have to have been done very well at all to produce an argument that beats PFC Short Stroke's anecdotal recollections of 'that day in the 'Stan', UNLESS we can count on CAS not ever/likely needing a 'better' (as in 'survivable in a medium-high threat arena') weapon system than the A-10. If you can't guarantee a low-threat battlefield future, you have NO basis for preserving an asset that is only survivable in a low-threat environment. That's not the only reason the A-10 needs replacing, but it ought to be the easiest one to grasp.        

    

 

Tyler Rogoway Sets Off a Global Disinformation Cascade

He Owes the World an Apology but Don’t Hold Your Breath: It’s His 'Job'

Rogoway opens with the little Punk Journalistic lie in the title: F-35 Can't Carry Its Most Versatile Weapon Until At Least 2022. Rogoway’s ‘article’ is about the F-35 and the Small Diameter Bomb Increment II (SDBII) , or GBU-53/B.
The BIGGEST problem with Rogoway’s hit-piece is that even within the article itself, it is recognized that all of the F-35 variants CAN carry the GBU-53/B, it is just at the moment the F-35B can’t carry as many internally as it will after 2020-22:

When it comes to the F-35B and this game-changing weapon, the problem is fairly simple. The F-35B, even with its truncated weapons bay compared to its A and C model cousins, was supposed to be able to carry eight SDB IIs internally.

The SECOND biggest problem with Rogoway’s hit-piece, is that it is written up as if it is the F-35 program’s and in particular the F-35B’s ‘fault’, when anyone who’s been following both programs for any length of time knows that the SDBII development contract was awarded to RTN in 2010, quite a few years after the ‘size’ of the F-35B’s weapon bays were set, but not before development was completed. The SDB II program went into that situation with eyes wide open.
Further, Rogoway's article (through his ignorance?) was/is written up without recognizing certain protocols of aircraft weapons design and integration. ESPECIALLY the one that requires new planes to be compatible with selected existing weapons for integration, AND that new weapons are required to be compatible with existing planes on which they are designated to be used. Normally, any conflict between the F-35B and the SDB II would be a ‘hit’ against Raytheon, but since Raytheon wasn’t being beat up for busting some Outer Mold Line envelope, it took me all of a few minutes to locate information WHY no one was pointing fingers (other than Punk Journalists that is).

The first clue is in the 2012 SAR: 

The SDB II program office has made considerable progress on the F-35 risk reduction effort to address the ongoing F-35 System Development and Demonstration program delays. The SDB II team successfully conducted F-35B and F-35C weapon’s bay fit checks utilizing production jets. The data collected during these fit checks will be used to finalize the modification of the F-35B weapon's bay. These efforts are on track and serve as a critical risk reduction event for both the SDB II and F-35 programs.

Talk about ‘concurrency’! This is multi-program concurrency! I'm surprised someone's not b*tchin' about that angle in this....yet. By 2012 both programs had experienced delays. More were to come. Those fit-checks referenced in the SAR 'happened' by the way.

So,,. is Rogoway spotlighting some F-35B issue not known before, not in work, or likely to ?

No.

Rogoway doesn’t like how the SDBII deployment is ‘happening’. Is that the F-35B’s “fault”?
No.

It’s a program decision made a while back (at least years ago: pg 117):

According to program officials, the biggest risk facing the program is integration with JSF. If JSF cannot meet its design specifications, then SDB II may not meet its requirements for weapon effectiveness or availability on that aircraft and may need design changes. The JSF is now integrating other weapons which will allow the program to determine the accuracy of its design documents. Many of these weapons have more stringent thermal and vibration requirements than SDB II. Additionally, SDB I will begin integration with JSF about 2 years prior to SDB II. By integrating with JSF after these weapons SDB II will be able to leverage data from these efforts.

Did Rogoway expect the entire F-35 program to re-jigger it’s schedule (no chance of delaying anything else is there?) JUST to put the FULL INTERNAL SDB II load on the F-35B earlier? I note here that if the program so desired, they could load 4 SDB II’s internally early and 8 later, and all the while put the full external pylon SDB II loadout on as well.

And it’s not as if the SDB II is any different than any other program. To hear Ol’ Ty tell it, the SDB is 'ready to go' and ONLY the F-35B weapons bay tweak is holding it up. Sorry, the SDBII story was still being written as of last year’s GAO rundown on selected systems (pg 119-120). I expect this year’s report will give the ‘all clear’, but it can cloud up again as well.

    

Writers don't always write the headlines to their stories. But I didn't hear anything about Rogoway being arrested for beating up his editor over it. Therefore either through commission or omission, Rogoway's culpable for this trash.

As an aside and IMHO, what this 'issue' looks like is a minor tweak of F-35B weapon bay content arrangements, including all the little ticky-tack pieces of suspension equipment, weapon interface busses, and stuff that is just passing through the weapons bay. I make this observation based upon the acute lack of hand-wringing in the responsible corners, the 2013 'fit check' that cleared the weapon-weapon and weapon-door clearance....and program spokesperson statements at Rogoway's source... that Rogoway didn't bother mention. Doesn't require much insight, just a lot less bias.

What's the point? 

Now, we’ll ignore all of Rogoway’s usual and lesser affronts. such as alternating between effusive awe and hellfire damnation over things that must seem to be like magic to him, use of ridiculous hyperbole (SDB II ‘A.I.’ -- ROFLMAO on that one), and all the self-referential linking to past articles where he didn’t do his research then either.

What’s important, is how Rogoway’s spew of disinformation flew around the world at the 'speed of heat' by the know-nothings. Example? First, Rogoway’s hit piece gets picked up by a New York free-lancer who got the UK Daily Mail to put out this verbose headline online at the top:
Pentagon's most expensive fighter jet which is set to be used by the Royal Navy on HMS Queen Elizabeth CAN'T carry most advanced weapons because of design flaw

Never mind, that the Brits aren’t planning on even buying the SDB II yet (even says so in the UK Mail piece), the title 'says it all'. Really?  REALLY.
90% of readers won't read the article, 90% of those who bother won't recognze the cognitive dissonance between the title and content.

But EVEN the free-lance writer, one ‘Zoe Szathmary (who may have even less consequential knowledge on just about anything 'defense' than anyone), provided more hard information than Rogoway:

Joe DellaVedova, a spokesman for the F-35 program, said in an Inside Defense interview last week that changes are being made to the jet so it can be released on schedule.

DellaVedova also said that Lockheed Martin will likely get the alterations contract down the line in 2015.
'This is not a new issue to us,' DellaVedova told Inside Defense. 'We've been working with the SDB II program office and their contractors since 2007.
'The fit issues have been known and documented and there were larger and more substantial modifications needed to support SDB II that have already been incorporated into production F-35 aircraft.
'These minor or remaining changes were put on hold until the aircraft reached a sufficient level of maturity to ensure that the needed changes would not adversely impact any ongoing SDB [II] developments.'
Inside Defense reported that the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program office so far has not publicly recognized problems - and that eight internal and 16 external SDB IIs are in fact meant to go on the F-35B.

Note the part above about the last "alterations" not yet being on contract? Is that important? I'm pretty sure it is. 

 Inside Defense had this out last week, and the DellaVedova quote above was in Rogoway’s source. But Rogoway made nary a mention of it. What’s the matter Ty, it didn’t support your meme? Or are you perhaps piqued because Joe won’t give you an interview too?? 

Moving on....

The story then bounced from the UK Mail to some Italian rag, who warps the UK Mail article into a message that the UK wants to but CAN’T use the SDB II.  Some Indian defense news website in turn, now limps in with another perversion of the story.

And I know a story has pretty much reached the sub-basement when this guy picks it up .

But this story is a smashing success by Gawker Media standards: A low-brow Dis-Information Cascade.

~Sigh~ 

We are being memed to death on the F-35 these days as the mass media races to  the bottom of the trough to make a headline. We’ll feel the interwebs hum for days about this crap, and then this 'non-factual factoid' will probably pop up for years--argued by the 90% who didn't read the article at the source but will remember Rogoway's lying headline.

Update: If I'd realized a thread at F-16.net had already started washing Rogoway's spew overboard while I was at work I would have just pointed people there. I got this ready for publication last night, decided to check in and relax and found Rogoway's piece pretty much in tatters.

Update 2: Geez Louise. On another thread at F-16.net, 'Linkomart' (Hat tip) posted an update to the original article:

(Editors Note: This story has been updated to clarify the scope of the F-35B internal weapons bay design changes.)
The internal weapons bay of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter cannot fit the required Small Diameter Bomb II weapons load, and a hydraulic line and structural bracket must be redesigned and modified ahead of the planned Block 4 release in fiscal year 2022, the joint program office confirmed this week.

So this ENTIRE exercise is over nit noi 'piece-part' changes? It will take longer to release the engineering drawings than it will to modify and install the new parts.

Looks like the F-35 program is on to a highly effective technique for exposing Punk Journalists eh? : Just let them run with their ignorance and stupidity.  

The F-35 and the Infamous Transonic Acceleration ‘Spec’ Change:

Part 2:  Top-Level Analysis of F-35 Transonic Performance

(Part 1 Here, Part 3 Here, Bonus Block 60 Comparison Here)

Analytical Approach

To make the next part of our exploration as widely accessible and understood as possible, our goal will be to continue to minimize the amount of math and physics to the greatest practical extent: keeping things as simple as we can without doing violence to the phenomena. Think of it as a ‘studies’ approach. 

Therefore, I will try to base analyses upon relative differences in ‘sum totals’ and relative percentages or fractions to some baseline. We can’t get away from a minimal discussion of the nature of acceleration versus drag, but we can illustrate the things about drag and acceleration that we need to grasp without crunching too many of the numbers. Which is a good thing, because without the need to know, we don’t have the actual F-35 numbers (ex: drag values) available to us in the public domain for plugging into any calculations anyway.

First we’ll summarize the relevant things we now know-- or think we know-- about the F-35’s Transonic Acceleration KPP and overall performance. We will focus on the F-35A model in examining the relevant physics of accelerating through the transonic region and how they affect all aircraft and in particular the F-35A. We’ll then follow with a discussion examining just one likely ‘workaround’ that the F-35A might operationally employ (if it is even needed), and discuss the ‘tactical’ impacts and whether or not what may obviate or mitigate whatever the ‘popularly-perceived’ operational challenges the F-35 variants endure passing through the transonic region.

What we know or think we know

Here is what we know or has been reported as stated by the F-35 Program Participants including the user communities that will help guide the discussion.  Note: We’re numbering the references for easing later analysis and possible discussion.

1. The 2012 DOT&E report mentioned the following about the F-35 acceleration from .8M to 1.2M:

A.) A Model: Extended the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 8 seconds

B) B-Model: Extended the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by 16 seconds

C) C Model: Extended the time for acceleration from 0.8 Mach to 1.2 Mach by “at least” 43 seconds

2. A Lockheed Martin representative was quoted in Air Force Magazine (cached) as stating the F-35 can maintain Mach 1.2 for a dash of 150 miles without using afterburners. Adding: "Mach 1.2 is a good speed for you, according to the pilots,".

(3, 4,and 5 are all from the same source)

3. “Based on the original spec, all three of the airplanes are challenged by that [acceleration] spec,” said Tom Burbage, Lockheed’s program manager for the F-35. “The cross-sectional area of the airplane with the internal weapons bays is quite a bit bigger than the airplanes we’re replacing.”…

4. …“We’re dealing with the laws of physics. You have an airplane that’s a certain size, you have a wing that’s a certain size, you have an engine that’s a certain size, and that basically determines your acceleration characteristics,” Burbage said. “I think the biggest question is: are the acceleration characteristics of the airplane operationally suitable?”…

5. …U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Eric Smith, director of operations at the 58th Fighter Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., and F-35 test pilot, said that flying the aircraft is a thrilling experience.

“I can’t even explain the adrenaline rush you get when you light the afterburner on that thing,” Smith said. “The acceleration is much better than an F-16.”

6. The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50/52 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,”Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.”   The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement–especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. “It’s really good at performing in that kind of configuration,” Kloos says. “But that’s not a configuration that I’ve ever–I’ve been in a lot of different deployments–and those are the configurations I’ve never been in with weapons onboard.” – 

7. The weight purge of a few years ago was so “intensive,” Crowley said, that “there’s not thousands of pounds” of weight left to be saved on the F-35. However, even with a three percent annual weight growth, the key performance parameters, or KPPs, won’t be affected.

“All of our predictions for performance are based on an end-of-life, worst-case” scenario relative to the F135 engine’s power capacity, “so the true performance of the jet, throughout its life, will be much better.”

8. PARLIAMENTARY JOINT COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, DEFENCE AND TRADE 20 MARCH 2012 (Tom Burbage) Transcript: 

For any performance-related requirements, we artificially penalise [sic] 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.

Information from ‘other’ sources.

9. The baseline transonic acceleration specifications for the three variants prior to the spec change are believed to be:

A) A Model: The original “threshold” Key Performance Parameter (KPP) specification time for transonic acceleration (.8 to 1.2 Mach) was ≤ 55 seconds at 30Kft Altitude.

B) B Model: The original “threshold” Key Performance Parameter (KPP) specification time for transonic acceleration (.8 to 1.2 Mach) was ≤ 65 seconds at 30Kft Altitude.

C) C Model: The original “threshold” Key Performance Parameter (KPP) specification time for transonic acceleration (.8 to 1.2 Mach) was ≤ 65 seconds at 30Kft Altitude.

These times were asserted in an oft-referenced Air Command and Staff College paper authored in 2008 by a then-Lt Commander Geoffrey P. Bowman (USN). These numbers have been repeated in the popular aviation press (example) and Australian Air Force Air Vice Marshall Osley came close to ‘anecdotally’ confirming the F-35A KPP as asserted in the ‘Bowman Paper’ in testimony before an Australian Parliamentary Committee in 2013. The aircraft gross weights and fuel loads for the KPPs have not been revealed, though the Bowman Paper observes they are for internal-only weapons load configurations.

***********

APC Quotes added 20 Apr 15 (because the Australian Parliamentary Committee link seems to be a 'moveable' feast):

Dr JENSEN: Air Vice Marshal Osley, in a previous hearing you responded to APA's criticism of the F35's aerodynamic performance and you said that it is inconsistent with years of detailed analysis undertaken by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin and eight other partner nations. Given that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation has indicated that the JSF program office, the JPO, has asked JROC to reduce the sustained turn and the acceleration performance essentially to exactly the numbers that APA was predicting years ago, what does that say about the detailed analysis by Defence, the JSF program office, Lockheed Martin and the eight partner nations? 

Air Vice Marshal Osley: The points that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation made there about the manoeuvrability, as you point out it was the sustained turn and the transonic acceleration. He pointed out that the targets that have been set for those parameters were not going to be met by the F35. The figure of I think it was 55 seconds for transonic acceleration, the F35 was going to take 63.9 seconds to do that. That is obviously at a certain altitude, I think it was 30,000 feet, and a range of mach 0.8 up to mach 1.2.
The point to make about those is that that acceleration by the F35 is in a combat configuration. If you look at the legacy aircraft and we talk about comparable performance, a legacy aeroplane would require weapons and, obviously, external fuel tanks to be in combat configuration.

**********

10. …This next reference is included because I believe the article that it is from was at the root of the comment that provided me with the impetus for these posts. It also hints at a way forward within 

An interesting factoid, one of the USMC test pilots mentioned this little tidbit—they have to use a modified Rutowski profile in order to get the F-35B and C up to Mach 1.6. Basically, you do one push over, unload the jet and accelerate, get up to 1.2, turn and repeat until you hit 1.4 Mach, turn and repeat till you hit Mach 1.6. It just barely gets there and barely has any gas left over afterwards. The kinematics are basically F/A-18C-like, though that was apparently exactly what was expected….

FYI and FWIW, here’s one of the more decent explanations of a “Rutowski maneuver” that I’ve found online: 

If the final speed is near the aircraft’s maximum speed, the large speed increase necessary renders the conventional method of using the peaks of the Ps curves useless. However, the energy method works well. Note in this example the optimum climb path includes an acceleration in a dive. This optimum energy climb path is also known as the Rutowski climb path, after its developer. The path (Figure 7.14) [at the link] consists of four segments to reach energy state E in minimum time. Segment AB represents a constant altitude acceleration from V = 0 to climb speed at state B. The subsonic climb segment follows a path similar to the one illustrated to the tropopause at state C. This subsonic climb is usually a nearly constant Mach number schedule. An ideal pushover or dive is carried out at constant Eh from C to D. The acceleration in the dive is actually part of the optimum climb path.

 (It's better at the source with the graphic)

11. There’s a Block 50/52 (F110-GE-129 or F100-PW-229 powered) Dash-1 supplement (Hellenic Air Force) out on the web that provides significant insight as to the F-16 performance baseline used to set the original F-35 transonic KPP.  

Deduced Transonic Acceleration KPP Times Analysis of the Variants

The most important performance ‘data’ in our hands are the believed-to-be-actual acceleration times

From References #1 and #9 above, we find evidence that the F-35 variants are currently expected to perform the transonic dash from .8 to 1.2 Mach in the following times:

Model Original KPP Time (secs) Exceeded by (secs) New KPP Time (secs)

F-35A   55                                                  8 63

F-35B 65                                                 16 81

F-35C 65                                                 43 (minimum) 118

Why the differences, and why by ‘that’ much?

IMHO these differences would make an excellent case study for an introductory course on aircraft design if only to just illustrate how much even small differences in design can affect aspects of performance in large ways. I can’t think of any other case where there are three ‘operational’ combat designs that are so close to each other but still different enough to tease out likely drivers of performance differences. (I am excluding aircraft that have had all sorts of various bulges and blisters scabbed on post-manufacture). The first question that springs from observing these differences is how much of the variation is due to variation in aerodynamic shape, propulsion efficiency, and weight?  

To help us investigate, we now need to take a look at the possible relevant differences. Those would be the differences between aerodynamic shapes, the engine installations, and relative weights: elements affecting the drag equation (Figure 3 from Part 1) which we now modify to remind us that the drag coefficient is but one element in the drag equation:

Figure 8 (Numbering Continued From Part 1

   

As the range of airspeed from .8 Mach to Mach 1.1 is the same, and the same air density (same altitude) are common to all variants, this reduces the number of variables on the drag side of the thrust-drag equation to two: the Drag Coefficient and the Cross-Sectional area. On the thrust-side of the equation, we will have less to work with but not so much less as to prevent us from making several observations and ‘educated’ estimations. Since this little exercise is about ‘understanding’ and not ‘quantifying’, I am comfortable working within these limitations.        

Relative Weights

We’ll model some likely weights (based upon the ‘Bowman Paper’ and acknowledged fuel and weapons carriage plans). Why ‘weight’? Because it is an excellent proxy for examining relative lift differences between the variants which “weight”, in level flight, must equal “lift”—the major constituent driver of ‘drag’.

If we take the empty weights, add half-internal fuel weight and the basic ‘day-one’ combat weapons load weight (with a wedge ‘rounding-up’ to account for the weight of weapon interfaces of each of the three variants), we arrive at a ‘likely’ set of aircraft weights for the Transonic Acceleration KPP:

            Empty Wt     50% Fuel Wt Weapons Load (2 JDAMS, 2 AIM-120s)     Total

F-35A 29300 9240 5000                                       43540

F-35B 32300 6750 3000                                       42050

F-35C 34800 9875 5000                                       49675

These configurations, whether exactly those used for the Transonic Acceleration KPP or not, are at least representative of the aircraft weights before release of air-to-ground stores and at the mid-mission point. They are therefore ‘realistic’ for use as a baseline for our explorations. They also cannot be too far off relative to each other to make too much of a difference in our search for understanding, as the only variable is fuel weight and the lower F-35B model JDAM carriage capability.
Using the F-35A Model weight as the basis, we find that over a range of mid-mission fuel loads, the F-35C weight, and therefore lift needed to be generated in level flight to be around 13-14% higher than the F-35A. 

Figure 9. Relative f-35 Variant Weights

We also see that largely due to a smaller total fuel load and lower weapons payload, the F-35B needs to generate approximately 3-4.5% less lift to maintain level flight. (This also again illustrates a point made in the Sustained G discussion about the lighter an aircraft, the more sensitive its performance is to weight changes.)

We can therefore conclude that the wing wave drag coefficient  percentage contribution to the total drag coefficient that is due to lift for the F-35B is less than the F-35A (under the same flight conditions in the speed region we are looking at of course), and that the F-35C’s wing wave drag coefficient contribution due to lift is significantly higher than for the F-35A. Further, we can conclude there is little, if any, difference between the wing wave drag contribution due to volume for the F-35A and B because the F-35A and F-35B wings are identical in area: they have the same fixed length (chord), and span. We  also know the area of the A and B wings are identical and their cross-sectional volumes very nearly so (more on this in the next section).  

We can also conclude that there is a large difference between the F-35A and F-35C in wave drag contribution as a percentage of the total drag due to both lift and volume. This is because the F-35C has a much bigger wing and control surfaces (more on this too in the next section). The overall coefficient of drag for the F-35C might theoretically be smaller than the A or B at some points along the curve, but that would have to come from reduction in the total drag via other means. For all we know, the total volume distribution of the F-35C comes closer to an ideal Sears-Haack distribution than the other two variants. We cannot definitively rule this out without more data, but given the differences between the F-35A and C in transonic acceleration, I believe we can assume with some relative confidence the F-35C has an overall drag coefficient much, much, higher than the A model, and even if the F-35C drag non-wing coefficient was lower than the A model, it certainly does not overcome the F-35C’s larger cross-sectional area. If the differences in drag coefficient due to wing lift were the only effective differences between F-35 models, we would expect the F-35B to have better transonic acceleration more on a par with the F-35A due to it weighing less when loaded, and we would expect the F-35C to be much slower in accelerating in level flight than either the A or B model. Since the A model has the best transonic acceleration, we should assume there is some other factor (or factors) affecting the F-35B performance beyond wing wave drag. Also, while it appears the C is the worst performer in transonic acceleration, it is almost certainly NOT due solely to wing wave drag contribution to total drag coefficient. This leads us to the next discussion, Aerodynamic shaping.

Aerodynamic Shaping 

Even this kind of comparison without hard data would be impossible if we were comparing completely different aircraft, or if we were seeking to quantify the differences instead of just understanding them. The good news is our limitations will make this section mercifully short.  

Cross-sectional area comparison 

First, we find that the cross-sectional differences between the F-35A and C are different in nature and scale than the differences between the F-35A and F-35B.

  

Figure 10. Cross-sectional Are Differences

The differences between the F-35A and B are more in the 'non-direct' lift regions of the cross-sectional area and are obviously due to the B model lift fan installation (#7). The wing profile is slightly increased at the lower wing root (#6) due at least in part to the STOVL roll-control system installation. 

The shape differences between the F-35A and F-35C are far greater. First, wing (#3) and horizontal stabilizer (#2) extensions as well as the taller vertical stabilizers (#1) add significant cross sectional area to the C model. Further, it appears the C model wing cross-section is indeed thicker (#5) than the F-35A’s to support the greater wingspan, but this could be an illusion from a longer curved under-surface and/or wing twist (either way, this presents an increased cross-section perpendicular to the airstream versus the A or B model). The F-35C wings also present an effectively increased cross-section to the airstream at the wing-folds (#4).  The F-35A and C do have a slightly increased cross-section versus the B model in the area of the tail hook enclosure (#8) but unlike the other cross-sectional areas, it is unclear how much of this is area that is presented perpendicular to the airstream in level flight.  Not known is if there are unseen relative differences in inlet design that affect not only installed thrust but also effective cross-sectional area, bur I believe we've captured the dominant difference drivers.

The Impact of Lift Surface Area on Wave Drag 

As already noted, Wave Drag due to ‘volume’ as a contributor is characterized in terms of a cross-sectional area for some fixed length. The F-35C is overall slightly longer than the F-35A and B, but its lift surfaces also have a significantly longer “fixed length” than the near identical F-35A and B surfaces. The F-35C’s wing and tail surface wave drag contribution due to ‘volume’ is therefore significantly greater than that for the F-35A and B. As a result we would expect the total drag of the F-35C in level flight to be much greater than the F-35A or F-35B due to having both a higher wing wave drag coefficient and greater cross-sectional area. 

     

Figure 11. Extended Vertical surfaces on C model not shown

Engine Installations

Whereas the first two topics of weight and aerodynamic shape dealt with the drag side of the acceleration equation, the engine installation aspect is relevant more on the thrust side of the equation. This is actually a pretty simple thing to compare on the F-35, as all three engines are essentially the same, with the major differences (performance wise) being between the F-35A/C engines and installations being highly common and the F-35B engine installation being very different from the other two. The physical differences of the F-35B installation-- the integrated lift-fan at the front of the system, the articulated exhaust duct with a different afterburner and nozzle installation at the other end, as well as a roll control nozzle system tapping flow off of the core engine in the middle cannot ‘help’ the conventional-mode of operations. Any significant performance differences between the F-35A and C engines would have to be due to any installation differences that are not apparent/acknowledged. 

For all practical purposes, we should then expect the F-35A and F-35C engines to have “the same” installed thrust and efficiencies. On the other hand, with the F-35B we would expect installed thrust penalties due to the added mass of the lift fan drive shaft and open roll-control ducting, the shaft passing through the bifurcated air inlets where they meet, as well as the different exhaust nozzle. We don’t know for certain, but it makes sense to believe the F-35B engine installation may be somewhat less efficient than the A or the C model in the conventional operation mode.

A Summary of Thrust vs. Drag

To summarize the relative differences between the variants that would affect transonic acceleration in a table:

Figure 12.  Factor Differences  between variants, F-35A Baseline 

In these same factors and relationships we find the seeds of understanding the operational implications of the F-35’s performance relative to each other in regards to the Transonic Acceleration KPPs. 

Transonic Acceleration: What is it good for?

The first thing to understand about the transonic acceleration KPPs is that they are proxies for the reasons WHY a fighter aircraft would want to accelerate quickly through the transonic region in the first place. The (obvious) answer is to gain a position advantage against an enemy in the air or on the ground by reaching that position to achieve an advantage before an enemy can position themselves to counter it. In the Air-to-Ground scenario this might mean simply getting to a high speed sooner to reach a time-critical target before it disappears or for some similar reason. We will ignore the air to ground aspect in thinking about the F-35s transonic acceleration KPPs and assume that because they are set at a 0K ft altitude, there wasn't a lot of Air-to-Mud consideration behind them. In the Air-to-Air combat it is about either closing some distance to gain a superior position on an opponent or opening some distance to gain position or keep the opponent from gaining a position on you. So the key thing to remember, and I hope the reader finds this an irritatingly obvious point, is that an acceleration KPP is about the ability to cover some distance over a set time when starting at a relatively lower speed. A transonic acceleration KPP is about being able to cover some distance as quickly as possible while moving ever faster through the particularly challenging transonic speed region.  This seems to beg the question: how significant it is really that the F-35A is projected to exceed its KPP by 8 seconds? (Note: We’ll get to the B and C KPPs in passing as we proceed.)         

F-35A Transonic Acceleration Performance

It has been determined by the F-35A program’s analyses that the original Transonic Acceleration KPP for the modeled F-35A will be exceeded by 8 seconds, taking 63 instead of 55 seconds. But considering we have multiple sources (#5, #6 above) citing excellent acceleration characteristics compared to an F-16 that imply superior initial acceleration, and the analyses are based upon degraded engine performance (#7, #8 above) how likely is it that the 8 second difference is even operationally relevant? Take a look at a second hand on your watch or clock. Watch it for 8 seconds.  If you were going M1.2 at the end of eight seconds, how fast were you going at the start of the eight seconds? M1.19? M1.18? 

Just from the drag equation and the drag coefficient charts we know that acceleration will be much greater at the start of the acceleration run than at the end. Is it possible the F-35A exceeds the initial predicted acceleration but just barely misses the full expectation?  Answers to these questions could have bearing as to whether or not extending the KPP by 8 seconds was even operationally relevant.  As it stands, it should still be viewed as superior to a Block 50/52 F-16. As we will see, Kloos (Ref #6) understates the F-35A’s abilities compared to the Block 50/52, at least at the 30K ft KPP altitude (Ref #10). 

How the F-35A new KPP standard stacks up against the F-16 Block 50/2 

If we examine the F-16’s ‘Combat Max AB’ transonic acceleration data (Ref #11, Table A8-12), and compare it to the F-35A’s newest transonic KPP time (63 seconds) we find the F-35A loaded with two AMRAAMs and two 2KLb JDAMs has better acceleration than the F-16C/D in 20 of the 30 possible weight/drag index combinations shown in the tables (weights from 20K lbs to 41K lbs, and Drag Indexes from 0 to 250).

Figure 13. F-35A KPP Superior to most F-16C Weight/Drag Combinations

Figure 14: External Stores start adding drag quickly

The F-35A KPP is on par with the F-16 in one of the possible F-16C load-outs. At least three of the remaining nine F-16 load-out combinations I would characterize as ‘highly impractical/improbable’ (for those you can have a few hundred pounds of usable fuel, or you can have two AMRAAMs but you cannot have both).






This is about as much as a Block 50/52 F-16C can weigh/carry without increasing the drag count:

Figure 15. Max 'Clean' Block 50/52 weight.( Source Ref 11)

Figure 16: Empty Fuel Tanks and Store Stations Still Add Drag 

Three more F-16 combinations involve simply carrying two more 600 gallon fuel tanks with various degrees of ‘fullness’ along with just two AMRAAMs and no other weapons other than the ever present 20mm cannon.

On the other hand, for 6 of the 20 load-outs where the F-35 KPP performance meets or beats the F-16C, the F-16 can’t even GET to Mach 1.2 (for three combinations the F-16 performance is ONLY subsonic).

In short, even if the F-16 is running on fuel fumes carrying wingtip AMRAAMs and
LANTIRN pods, it can only carry just a little more internal fuel before the F-35A's latest transonic acceleration KPP standard can be said to be ‘better’ than an F-16C Blk50/52 in transonic acceleration.

Figure 17: F-35A KPP performance vs. F-16 w/ DI=100

  

Figure 18: Only 2 AIM-9s greater load than F-35 Internal Load Out. It'll need those AIM-9s long before te F-35 will. 

Even the F-35B and F-35C transonic KPP times meet or beat a similarly-loaded but much lighter weight Block 50/52 F-16s:

Figure 19: With comparable war loads: F-35A and F-35 B beats all & F-35C beats most F-16 configurations.   

 The ‘meaning’ we can derive from the revised F-35A transonic dash KPP is this: It still represents the stated ‘F-16 Like’ performance goals and overall, it exceeds them. Other than that, everything else is guesswork. 

BUT!  The ubiquitous 'some' might ask.... 

‘What If’ Operational needs require the F-35A/B/C to get rid of all or part of those extra darned seconds enroute to Mach 1.2?  

THAT topic we will address in closing the series in Part 3.