Forum: Program and politics

Extracted from Defense news article "JSF Chief Engineer: F-35 Military Flight Release To Happen Soon"

"Ebersole said that the Joint Program Office (JPO) has shifted to an engineering process that is modeled along the lines of NAVAIR. Each variant now has a “class desk” responsible for that version of the jet, he said, and their team has set up a Lightning support desk to help operational units that are beginning to standup — for example the 33rd Fighter Wing at Eglin.

Under Venlet’s direction, the F-35 engineering team has returned to the basics of systems engineering and has instituted formal review processes similar to NAVAIR, Ebersole said. Without these formal processes, problems can be missed as was aptly demonstrated by the F-35C tailhook design.

“We didn’t go start tying to go redesign it. The first thing we did is we went back and audited all of the requirements, Ebersole said. “We actually had a system requirements review … and what we found was that some requirements had been missed.”

While in years past, the JPO did do some form of review, but those reviews were not conducted with the level of formality as they are done now. “I think it was a gap,” Ebersole said."

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2012 ... appen-Soon

F-16.net Sponsor

The follow up question: Should the SecDef consider keeping VADM Venlet in the JSF JPO chief billet, and not rotate it to another service?

It was a worry from reading only the excerpts above about 'missed requirements for F-35C tail hook". So I'll add this extra bit:

"Other problems such as the tailhook, fuel-dump system, and heat from the jet’s afterburner damaging the tail surfaces at supersonic flights are relatively simple to solve, Ebersole said."

My vote would be to keep Venlet for a few more years! Very Happy

We now have Maus telling us of a 'JSF turnaround' -- you read it here first folks. And NAVAIR is responsible. Imagine that (because there was no NAVAIR SME involvement in the original design(s), right)?

But wait, an 'unnamed Navy source' has popped up to suggest that Block 4 is going to be a problem -- before Block 4 has even been defined. Rolling Eyes

YGBSM

suggest that Block 4 is going to be a problem -- before Block 4 has even been defined

I don't find that surprising. The resources are finite and if the earlier blocks are consuming more resource than budgeted the succeeding blocks are going to encounter obstacles as you ladder up because they'll have less available to work with. It's cascading fail that appears to have been detected early, which is good. Unfortunately the later blocks likely will draw on increasingly greater chunks of what has been left. No sh!tt!ng.

One Marine seems to think that the new JPO team is making a difference:

"[Lieutenant General Terry] Robling [deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation] said Lockheed and the Pentagon's F-35 program office had made great strides in better managing the program over the past two years. "They've driven out a lot of cost, and they're still finding ways to do that."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/ ... RV20120226

I don't see NAVAIR mentioned -- I see Lockheed and the JPO.

VV -- we will agree to disagree. Note what the Chief Engineer says -- on the record.

Acknowledged and understood. An issue is the CE is not a software person and they can't simply slap some more cards in and make it behave well. The software problems appear to center on the core processing and routing functionalities. If true, and I also believe concurrency is the greatest hurdle, the resource budget got exceeded beyond design early. Happy to be misguided here, so much is riding on this aircraft and even though I am an advocate of removing meat from aircraft I want to see the technologies win the day. Oh and the US too.

quicksilver wrote:

I don't see NAVAIR mentioned -- I see Lockheed and the JPO.

Respectfully, you should reread the first sentence of the first post.

maus92 wrote:

quicksilver wrote:

I don't see NAVAIR mentioned -- I see Lockheed and the JPO.

Respectfully, you should reread the first sentence of the first post.

Robling's comment was Lockheed and the program office. I read the whole article -- it's about the MFR and other howgozit items, including creation of a 'Class Desk' for each variant and a return to more disciplined systems engineering.

Tag line for this thread suggests that "NAVAIR" showed up two years ago and now we see a turnaround. This ignores the reality -- that from the beginning roughly half the JPO has been NAVAIR, and that NAVAIR-unique SMEs have similarly been participants in SDD for tailhook design and other ship integration issues from day one.

But still we see 'unnamed Navy sources' predicting more bad things -- this time about capabilities that are not even in development yet. Block 4 is 8-10 years away. This is typical bureaucratic sniping that has occurred forever -- but is even more prominent in the information age we live in today. But I guess some of those 'unnamed Navy sources' might have a valid concern given their experience with a large number of un-upgradeable Block 1 Supers.

Lockheed installed a new management team two years ago. The JPO got a new PEO and CE. Ebersole alluded to some of these upcoming internal JPO management changes (eg the variant Class Desks) in an article last summer. (Obtw, Ebersole comes from USAF programs background).

A lot has changed in the last two years, but much of it was already underway when these other changes were put in place. But, it's fun to see some believing the program has now turned around since the doom and gloom of the concurrency report, the QLR, and the DOT&E Annual Report. Cool

It is clear (to most) that the renewed emphasis on systems engineering implemented by Venlet's crew - where ever they originated - has improved the program's chance for success. Venlet was selected to lead the JPO for a reason.

Forum: Program and politics

NAVAIR style management key to JSF turnaround