CM, the down grading was the sustained turn and acceleration, wasn't it?
Though it seems we aren't that fussed about it
ParlInfo - Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade : 16/05/2013 : Department of Defence annual report 2011-12
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.
Dr JENSEN: Air Vice Marshal, sorry to interrupt you, the basis of my question—
Air Vice Marshal Osley : Chair, can I finish that one off?
CHAIR: Let the Air Vice Marshal finish his answer, then proceed.
Air Vice Marshal Osley : If we compare those two, the legacy aeroplane with fuel tanks and weapons on it, if we take a fourth generation fighter, typically an F16 or an F18, in that configuration it would take substantially longer than 63.9 seconds. If you took a 4½ generation aircraft it actually could not accelerate to supersonic in any time over that 0.8 to 1.2 range with a combat configuration of external tanks and weapons. The point I made originally was that we need to talk apples and apples between legacy fighters and the F35 on manoeuvrability and performance capabilities.
............
Dr JENSEN: I guess my concern is that the numbers that we were talking about, the numbers that the JPO has asked the JROC to reduce them from, are actually threshold numbers. They are not the desired numbers; they were the bare minimum threshold specifications. They did not reach it, but more to the point you had this group APA which actually accurately predicted what those numbers were going to be, in stark contrast to what Defence, Lockheed Martin and all those other organisations were saying. My question is: what does that say about the fidelity of the modelling and the analysis that is undertaken by all those organisations when you can get a small organisation getting the numbers right but all of those that are involved with the JSF have got them so wrong?
Air Vice Marshal Osley : The way that the requirements for the F35 were set up is to talk about mission performance. Mission performance specification is the high level. There is no doubt at this time about the F35 meeting that mission performance—that is, the ability to counter certain threats that might be encountered at IOC and into the future. That level of the specification remains as valid; we are not questioning that; it is actually achieving that. Below that you have your key performance parameters. The aeroplane at this point in time is achieving those, as far as the F35A is concerned.
The figures that you are talking about, the specifications down the bottom with the sustained turn and the transonic acceleration, are derived values in order to meet the overall mission performance specification. We have always been focused on the ability of the aeroplane to meet the overall mission performance specification—the ability to do its air-to-air mission and to do its air-to-ground mission. If you take a particular parameter, such as the transonic acceleration, the difference between—in fact, the F35 can reach mach 1.16 in 55 seconds, so it is 0.04 mach short of that target, and in a slight descent it will exceed the limit.
The point to make is that we do not necessarily get too focused on those individual derived parameters. We are focused on the overall ability of the platform, trading off everything—all the different capabilities—it has there: the situational awareness, the performance of the radar, the performance of the electronic warfare capability, the performance of stealth, the balance of range mission payload and the weapons.
The situational awareness is really the key—taking that and seeing how it performs against the overall mission specification. For instance, the trade-off that might have been made—the delay in the transonic acceleration—might have been due to giving it increased stealth as they were going through the design of the aeroplane. So you really need to see not the individual parameters but the overall specification. At the highest level, as I said, it is all about mission performance. That is what we do focus on.
as to the other data need to write in the reams of paper. (posted on the last page)
Mr Burbage : We actually have a fifth-gen airplane flying today. The F22 has been in many exercises. We have one of the pilots here who flew it and they can tell you that in any real-world event it is much better than the simulations forecast. We have F35 flying today; it has not been put into that scenario yet, but we have very high quality information on the capability of the sensors and the capability of the airplane, and we have represented the airplane fairly and appropriately in these large-scale campaign models that we are using. But it is not just us—it is our air force; it is your air force; it is all the other participating nations that do this; it is our navy and our marine corps that do these exercises. It is not Lockheed in a closet genning up some sort of result.