F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The Great Midwest
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well H. Harry there are different types of testing with different missions.
DoD employs three formal types of T&E (directed by statute) in the acquisition of systems administered by OSD: Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E), Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) and Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E). DT&E verifies that the system’s design is satisfactory and that all technical specifications and contract requirements have been met. Sometimes called Technical Testing, DT&E is sponsored by the program office and can be conducted by the government, by the contractor, or may be a mix of both. Most early DT&E in a program will likely be done at the contractor’s facilities under controlled, laboratory conditions. Later in the program DT&E is often conducted at government test facilities by government or combined government and contractor test teams. OT&E follows DT&E and validates that the system under test can effectively execute its mission in a realistic operational environment when operated by typical operators against representative threats. The difference between DT&E and OT&E is that DT&E verifies that the system is built correctly in accordance with the specification and contract, and OT&E validates that the system can successfully accomplish its mission is a realistic operational environment. LFT&E combines with both DT&E and OT&E to assess the vulnerability and/or lethality of a system before it is approved for full-rate production.
Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35. I sure don't see much "bought and paid for" in that test report.
DoD employs three formal types of T&E (directed by statute) in the acquisition of systems administered by OSD: Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E), Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) and Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E). DT&E verifies that the system’s design is satisfactory and that all technical specifications and contract requirements have been met. Sometimes called Technical Testing, DT&E is sponsored by the program office and can be conducted by the government, by the contractor, or may be a mix of both. Most early DT&E in a program will likely be done at the contractor’s facilities under controlled, laboratory conditions. Later in the program DT&E is often conducted at government test facilities by government or combined government and contractor test teams. OT&E follows DT&E and validates that the system under test can effectively execute its mission in a realistic operational environment when operated by typical operators against representative threats. The difference between DT&E and OT&E is that DT&E verifies that the system is built correctly in accordance with the specification and contract, and OT&E validates that the system can successfully accomplish its mission is a realistic operational environment. LFT&E combines with both DT&E and OT&E to assess the vulnerability and/or lethality of a system before it is approved for full-rate production.
Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35. I sure don't see much "bought and paid for" in that test report.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
It happens because the contract requirements that the manufacturer designed and built the aircraft to were flawed and did not meet real world operational needs. If that is true of the F-35 (a big IF at this point), there's a lot of nations to blame for providing flawed requirements.
-RP
Last edited by Rhino power; 16th Mar 2016 at 01:00.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
DT&E+ Oat&E = Verification & Validation, the classic testing V.
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.
Validation: Did we build the right thing.......
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.
Validation: Did we build the right thing.......
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, pardon my ignorance if I have misunderstood your quote but, are you actually saying that the reason the F-35 is so flawed, is actually down to the customer/'s who issued the contract and specs, rather than LM for failing to meet them, or saying they couldn't actually be met?
And finally "so flawed?". What makes you believe it is "so flawed?"
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T&E+ Oat&E = Verification & Validation, the classic testing V.
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.
Validation: Did we build the right thing.......
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.
Validation: Did we build the right thing.......
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build. ("we" is the contractor. In other words did the CONTRACTOR meet the stated requirements?)
Validation: Did we build the right thing....... ("we" is the government. In other words, did the GOVERNMENT (or in the case of the JSF, several GOVERNMENTS) set the right requirements?)
I believe LM is doing a very creditable job with the former.
According to post #8959 the governments did a lousy job with the latter. I'm not convinced that's really true.
Last edited by KenV; 16th Mar 2016 at 13:12.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
-RP
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And as to your question to why I think it's flawed, there are enough reports, media stories, official and otherwise to wrap that one up (DOT&E 2015 exec summary being just one)
What aspects of the customer/'s contract/specs are flawed?
And if they are flawed, why didn't or hasn't LM said so, either at the time they were set down and requested, or since?
Please allow me to provide several examples. When the customer wanted a mach 3 bomber, the contractor provided one. It was called the B-70. Other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a mach 3 interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-12. Again, other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a small, simple high speed interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-104. USAF bought only a few because, surprise, the requirements were flawed. The F-105 also brilliantly met its requirements, but as it turned out, the requirements were very flawed for the air war in Vietnam. The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s. And this does not just apply to military aircraft. When the customers wanted a supersonic airliner the contractor produced one. The resulting aircraft was brilliant, but the requirement was flawed and so only very few were built. And so it goes.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Leicestershire, England
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KenV
Can you provide flight test data showing LM is failing to meet the customers' requirements?
Originally Posted by KenV
A contractor's job is NOT to question a customer's requirements, but to design and build a product that meets those requirements.
Originally Posted by KenV
The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s
And again, I ask, what 'requirements' have 'The governments running the program' constantly changed?
-RP
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Sussex
Age: 66
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KenV makes the point that certain older projects were curtailed/abandoned at prototype phase, for good reasons at the time.
The trouble with the F35 as I see it in this area is that as it is so complex that to be frank a fully functioning initial capability aircraft has yet to be built and or tested thus making an informed decision on the performance of the aircraft as specified not yet possible.
As yet, to my knowledge, no non test aircraft has flown with external stores, the software is not fully functional, i.e 3F is still in testing, the logistics / support system ALIS does not work as it should, making taking a view on maintenance costs difficult and there is also a requirement to respecify the alloys to be used in some structural components at least on the B.
Back in the day, when the broke UK could afford to develop 3 V bombers etc, the time from commissioning to prototype flight was so much shorter than it is today. Aircraft selection decisions are now far more complex and with far greater ramifications than in earlier times.
Let us hope that the F35 can be made to deliver on the promises that the some $50 billion development part of the project has / will deliver.
The trouble with the F35 as I see it in this area is that as it is so complex that to be frank a fully functioning initial capability aircraft has yet to be built and or tested thus making an informed decision on the performance of the aircraft as specified not yet possible.
As yet, to my knowledge, no non test aircraft has flown with external stores, the software is not fully functional, i.e 3F is still in testing, the logistics / support system ALIS does not work as it should, making taking a view on maintenance costs difficult and there is also a requirement to respecify the alloys to be used in some structural components at least on the B.
Back in the day, when the broke UK could afford to develop 3 V bombers etc, the time from commissioning to prototype flight was so much shorter than it is today. Aircraft selection decisions are now far more complex and with far greater ramifications than in earlier times.
Let us hope that the F35 can be made to deliver on the promises that the some $50 billion development part of the project has / will deliver.
That last bit, "is it what the forces need?" has been a bugger for requirements writing against the forecasting ability balanced with risk and cost. Regardless of what the forces want or need, and here I only speak for the US forces, Congress typically redefines the requirement around a whole host of constraints. The one size fits all constraint is one such.
When you go back to the A/B/C issue, I remain unimpressed: the A isn't Joint. It can't land on a carrier. The program has had this problem for around 20 years, I'll leave the "do we really need a Harrier follow on" to some other thread. (My position has been for some time that we don't, but I realize some of my USMC friends would whack me for that opinion).
Ken's point on "ya get what ya ask for" is mostly true, with the caveat that during the development of a new system, some of the risks and design (we can get there!) predictions come true in forms different from expected.
The one that most surprised me was how long it took the tail hook issue to surface and then get resolved. It got resolved, but I doubt they expected it to be such a bugger initially.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know very well I can't, neither can you or anybody else outside of the program
Really? Under no circumstances should a contractor question a customer's requirements, even if some or even large parts of it, look to be unachievable?
It (the Lightning) met or surpassed the requirements it was required to in the 1950's, end of story.
Last edited by KenV; 16th Mar 2016 at 20:37.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you go back to the A/B/C issue, I remain unimpressed: the A isn't Joint. It can't land on a carrier.
Last edited by KenV; 16th Mar 2016 at 20:38.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: New Braunfels, TX
Age: 70
Posts: 1,954
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken, could you provide a source for your engine and helmet "solutions" preferably from something related to planet earth....
F-35 Test Jets to Undergo ?Burn In? for F135 Engine Fix | Defense content from Aviation Week
Lockheed Is Finally Getting The F-35's Amazing New Helmet | The Daily Caller
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Laughable.
Was directed at KenV's input but hey Spaz [nice to see you back btw, you'll get on just fine withA1_ Bill] since you jumped in there it would be churlish not to share.........
Was directed at KenV's input but hey Spaz [nice to see you back btw, you'll get on just fine withA1_ Bill] since you jumped in there it would be churlish not to share.........
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interview with one of many exchange pilots. Not sure how relevant it is to the F-35 thread. RN and RAF pilots flying Harrier and the guys currently on F-35 would bring back equally useful craniums.
Have things got tough over in your preferred haunt, Spaz? I didn't think you liked us over here very much, judging by some of your posts.
Have things got tough over in your preferred haunt, Spaz? I didn't think you liked us over here very much, judging by some of your posts.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, the standard exchange party lines being trotted out. He'll be buying a few rounds at the Exchange Officers' Conference this year for that load of old tosh.
Very humorous.
Do we have to look forward to more daily doses of web clippings again?
Very humorous.
Do we have to look forward to more daily doses of web clippings again?