Forum: F-35 Lightning II

DoD testers urges delay in F-35 pilot training October 28, 2011 by Bob Cox

http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... ining.html

"...Gilmore, in an Oct. 21 memo, said there are “serious concerns” with commencing initial training for F-35 pilots as early as November at Eglin Air Force Base.

'Gilmore recommended a delay of as much as 10 months to fly the Lockheed Martin Corp. plane 1,500 more hours on top 1,000 already flown at Edwards Air Force Base, by experienced test pilots.

The F-35 “has not yet met the prerequisites previously set for reducing” air-mission abort rates and “resolving other safety-related issues before initiating training,” Gilmore said in a four-page memo to the department’s top weapons buyer, Frank Kendall'....

...In this case the Pentagon says it is listening to Gilmore:
Kendall’s spokeswoman, Cheryl Irwin, in an e-mail statement said the test office “has raised concerns about when flight training should begin given the current state of the test program. The Air Force is reviewing these concerns and will ensure flight safety is adequately addressed.”

Irwin said “it is very important to note -- a final decision on starting training has not been made and at this time no flight training is taking place.”

Much, Much, Much More at the jump...

F-16.net Sponsor

...sounds like more job security from DOTE. Eglin will have six As and six Bs, soon and flying them will be the best test for the program. The maintenance diagnostics should aid in keeping the planes safe while at Eglin and as the fleet evolves the central database will be able to pickup on developing trends, as identified from the network inputs from each a/c after each flight. You can not "stand down" a fleet of a/c for a design/ safety concern, if a proven "short term" (work-around) fix is identified and adequately tested similar to the IPP issue.

Can someone please explain to me the relationship between the guys who are developing and building the plane and the guys who design the test program? Is this relationship one of check-and-balance? Obviously the latter have a big say in terms of the time and costs that will be necessary to bring the jet into service. Who has the final say when the 2 sides can't agree?

More from the linked article:

"Director of Operational Testing Michael Gilmore, Bloomberg News reports, warns that Air Force plans to begin pilot training in November risk a "serious mishap" due to unresolved safety issues.

Computer models project “at least four” training aborts before take-off and “four in-air aborts, including one in- flight emergency,” Gilmore wrote. “There is a significant risk new failures will be discovered for which there would be no corrective actions developed for the pilot to implement,” he wrote.

Aborts use up spare parts and lead to costly additional delays in a development phase that’s already been extended four years. Gilmore’s concerns have been elevated to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, said a defense official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to comment publicly."

Note that computer models are predicting aborts. The concern seems to be that emergency procedures may not have been fully developed before training begins, which might lead to mishaps. Aborts also cost more money to resolve.

Read more: http://blogs.star-telegram.com/sky_talk ... z1cAdfWGJ0

popcorn wrote:

Can someone please explain to me the relationship between the guys who are developing and building the plane and the guys who design the test program? Is this relationship one of check-and-balance? Obviously the latter have a big say in terms of the time and costs that will be necessary to bring the jet into service. Who has the final say when the 2 sides can't agree?

Gilmore's people analyze the results of OT&E conducted for DoD acquisition programs, and provide independent assessments to SecDef - so they are an internal oversight organization (unlike the CRS who provides recommendations to Congress.) SecDef has the final say.

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Can someone please explain to me the relationship between the guys who are developing and building the plane and the guys who design the test program? Is this relationship one of check-and-balance? Obviously the latter have a big say in terms of the time and costs that will be necessary to bring the jet into service. Who has the final say when the 2 sides can't agree?

Gilmore's people analyze the results of OT&E conducted for DoD acquisition programs, and provide independent assessments to SecDef - so they are an internal oversight organization (unlike the CRS who provides recommendations to Congress.) SecDef has the final say.

OK. That helps.. so are they beancounters and eggheads who do all sorts of statical analyses using historical data from similar programs? Or do they have their own technical experts who have qualifications and knowledge on par with the program engineers and test pilots for them to arrive at their judgments? Imposing a thousand additipnal test flights or a 10 month delay must require some serious justification.

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Can someone please explain to me the relationship between the guys who are developing and building the plane and the guys who design the test program? Is this relationship one of check-and-balance? Obviously the latter have a big say in terms of the time and costs that will be necessary to bring the jet into service. Who has the final say when the 2 sides can't agree?

Gilmore's people analyze the results of OT&E conducted for DoD acquisition programs, and provide independent assessments to SecDef - so they are an internal oversight organization (unlike the CRS who provides recommendations to Congress.) SecDef has the final say.

OK. That helps.. so are they beancounters and eggheads who do all sorts of statical analyses using historical data from similar programs? Or do they have their own technical experts who have qualifications and knowledge on par with the program engineers and test pilots for them to arrive at their judgments? Imposing a thousand additipnal test flights or a 10 month delay must require some serious justification.

popcorn wrote:

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Can someone please explain to me the relationship between the guys who are developing and building the plane and the guys who design the test program? Is this relationship one of check-and-balance? Obviously the latter have a big say in terms of the time and costs that will be necessary to bring the jet into service. Who has the final say when the 2 sides can't agree?

Gilmore's people analyze the results of OT&E conducted for DoD acquisition programs, and provide independent assessments to SecDef - so they are an internal oversight organization (unlike the CRS who provides recommendations to Congress.) SecDef has the final say.

OK. That helps.. so are they beancounters and eggheads who do all sorts of statical analyses using historical data from similar programs? Or do they have their own technical experts who have qualifications and knowledge on par with the program engineers and test pilots for them to arrive at their judgments? Imposing a thousand additipnal test flights or a 10 month delay must require some serious justification.

Yes and yes. They are "beancounters and eggheads," many of which have had military and industry experience. Others are purely scientists, statisticians, mathematicians, or posses some other indirect skill. They exist to independently review programs and data, presumably to remove potential bias imbedded by those with vested interests.

--------

It almost amounts to a Hobbesian Choice: Injecting additional delay in an already much delayed program; or risk an accident caused by not being thorough. Both scenarios could cause further political scrutiny that the program does not need in the next few years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMSHvgaU ... ideo_title Whistle

That clip made me laugh so hard I thought I was gonna burst a lung! Thanks

But seriously, this is a very good discussion and very interesting. Reminds me why I like this forum so much.

maus92 wrote:

It almost amounts to a Hobbesian Choice: Injecting additional delay in an already much delayed program; or risk an accident caused by not being thorough. Both scenarios could cause further political scrutiny that the program does not need in the next few years.

I think maus' post sums the problem up best. Already several years behind, the pressure is building on LM and the USAF to get the F-35 operational ASAP; but rushing it into production/service might lead to costly fixes (and possibly accidents) downrange.

So, what to do? Should they roll the dice on the current IOC, or should they accept another delay that could result in drastic cuts to an already threatened program? I just don't know enough to make a suggestion; and given the size and scope of the program, I have my doubts that any one person at LM or the USAF has the information to make that decision.

It really comes down to a problem of organization. During the Atlas program (arguably a much more difficult program than the F-35), a corporation (Ramo-Wooldridge) was created for the sole purpose of coordinating the efforts of all the contractors and military commanders working on the project. This, of course, was done over the objections of the primary contractor, Convair, because it cut into their share of the profits; but the idea worked because there was a 3rd party in charge that could answer questions and make decisions as an informed observer of the overall program. In other words, someone had all the books/information and could be held to account.

Sure there's always been someone theoretically in charge of the F-35's development, but I doubt any of the program directors has had the resources or control that Ramo-Wooldridge had to coordinate Atlas. The impression I get with the F-35 program is that no one is really in charge, no one really knows what's going on, and no one really knows what's being spent. Everyone is just focused on their own particular piece of the pie and feels free to make changes whenever they want.

PS.

Shep, if you think that clip was funny, go check out my reply to one of sark0y's comments on the T-50 fanboy thread (under "Technology"). I normally don't say anything over there, but I couldn't resist.

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

maus92 wrote:

popcorn wrote:

Can someone please explain to me the relationship between the guys who are developing and building the plane and the guys who design the test program? Is this relationship one of check-and-balance? Obviously the latter have a big say in terms of the time and costs that will be necessary to bring the jet into service. Who has the final say when the 2 sides can't agree?

Gilmore's people analyze the results of OT&E conducted for DoD acquisition programs, and provide independent assessments to SecDef - so they are an internal oversight organization (unlike the CRS who provides recommendations to Congress.) SecDef has the final say.

OK. That helps.. so are they beancounters and eggheads who do all sorts of statical analyses using historical data from similar programs? Or do they have their own technical experts who have qualifications and knowledge on par with the program engineers and test pilots for them to arrive at their judgments? Imposing a thousand additipnal test flights or a 10 month delay must require some serious justification.

Yes and yes. They are "beancounters and eggheads," many of which have had military and industry experience. Others are purely scientists, statisticians, mathematicians, or posses some other indirect skill. They exist to independently review programs and data, presumably to remove potential bias imbedded by those with vested interests.

--------

It almost amounts to a Hobbesian Choice: Injecting additional delay in an already much delayed program; or risk an accident caused by not being thorough. Both scenarios could cause further political scrutiny that the program does not need in the next few years.

Thanks. that clears it up for me. I recognize the importance of independent oversight. I wonder if the Russians and Chinese adhere to a siimilar protocol?

Last edited by alloycowboy on Oct 30, 2011 - 01:16 AM; edited 2 times in total

The F-35's come equiped with ejections seats! Let'em fly!

Quote:

“There are only two ways of learning to ride a fractious horse; one is to get on him and learn by actual practice how each motion and trick may be best met; the other is to set on a fence and watch the beast awhile, and then retire to the house and at leisure figure out the best way of overcoming his jumps and kicks. The latter system is the safer, but the former, on the whole, turns out the larger portion of good riders. It is very much the same in learning to ride a flying machine; if you are looking for perfect safety you will do well to sit on a fence and watch the birds; but if you really wish to learn you must mount the machine and become acquainted with its trick by actual trials.”

-Wilber Wright
(Inventor of the Airplane)

[/img]

Putin oversees the PAK-FA development I have read. Very Happy

[quote="1st503rdsgt....It really comes down to a problem of organization. During the Atlas program (arguably a much more difficult program than the F-35), a corporation (Ramo-Wooldridge) was created for the sole purpose of coordinating the efforts of all the contractors and military commanders working on the project. This, of course, was done over the objections of the primary contractor, Convair, because it cut into their share of the profits; but the idea worked because there was a 3rd party in charge that could answer questions and make decisions as an informed observer of the overall program. In other words, someone had all the books/information and could be held to account.....[/quote]

Excellent! and also a recent advent (in the last few years) in other industries project management/ oversight of "world's largest" projects. In hind-sight LM may have wished for the third perty PM/ O in keeping DOD out of their manufacturing hair. Adm. David V. seems to have grasped this problem and we anxiously await his jpo report.

“This is the year to focus on sustainment costs,” Vice Admiral David Venlet, the F-35 program executive officer, told
reporters today. The estimates thus far “have all been predictions without any actual” data to back up the figures, he said.

The program office will begin a so-called baseline review of the sustainment cost, similar to the F-35 design and production review conducted last year, Venlet said.

The review will examine “all aspects of sustainment, from repair to transportation and illuminate the consequences” for the U.S. and the international partners, he said."
Exclamation