And any other point or question that is too difficult, Rhino.
A1B,
Your long quote completely misses the point, demonstrating that you either don't understand the issue at hand or that you just choose to ignore it. As it happens, the extract you've chosen this time does two things, it confirms that the acceleration time has increased and, if Osley's numbers are correct, that the problem may be worse than we thought. His waffle about legacy jets not doing any better and F-35 could meet the old KPP in a descent is a bit of a smoke screen.
Regarding simulation, as you've been told several times now, small changes in parameters can have a disproportionate effect on outcomes, so Osley has restated that the performance figures have changed since the simulation that claimed the famous LER was run and that there has been no revision to that claim from repeat simulations using the new acceleration time AND the reduction in sustained g from 5.3 to 4.6 - quite a marked reduction.
What is more alarming about his numbers that you quote is the roll off in acceleration approaching M1.2. He states that the F-35 can reach M1.16 in 55 seconds and concedes that it takes 63.9 seconds to M1.2. He is saying that it takes a further 9 seconds to accelerate by M0.04, which means the acceleration has dropped off to around M0.004/sec. In other words it has hit a brick wall.
Engines,
I completely agree with what you say there and I thank you for expanding on the points. In particular, as I have said before, simulation is good at assessing the effect of changes (as long as you only change one part of the overall system at a time), but not so good at producing direct fighter comparisons. And that is one of the main reasons I treat any claimed LERs with such caution.
Interesting that you should mention the coding errors in the DERA (then) and US sims and the F-3 with AMRAAM in the same post. I too discovered some issues in the dataset associated with those trials, which may have had a significant effect on the derived operational effectiveness. Fortunately the measured change in effectiveness was later shown to be "within tolerances". If anyone believes that all the millions of data points and lines of code are issue free then they are being badly misled.