F-35A Readiness Training Operational Utility Evaluation PDF

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 896
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 01:06

LinkF16SimDude wrote:+1 on the Spaz-meister's last comment.

Just my :2c: but to this old Viper guy it seems like this phase of the program is different from previous weapon systems in that the flight test and deployment tracks appear to be running almost concurrently. And in some cases, the FTUs are helping the Testers to write the rule books and flight manuals as they get more familiar with the jets. In days of old, it seemed like the FTUs wouldn't get jets until the flight test phase was finished enough to send the system to an preliminary IOC status.

Am I all wet there?


Even in those days, there were a steady stream of changes to all kinds of manuals after the jets were delivered (wrt Viper, ask Gums). The difference today is that virtually every pimple on someone's behind gets reported in some fashion, and then re-reported and re-reported, leading some to believe that the stuff must be 'serious' because it's reported so much... :roll:

Some would have you believe that no change or new learning occurs after OT and delivery in a program without concurrency, and that's just not true.
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 01:24

Canadian journalists continue their tradition of promoting their ignorance about aviation.

The story starts off with "F-35 design problems make night flying impossible"

Really? The F-35 has such a serious design flaw it can't fly at night?

Guess this footage was faked by the same guys that did the moon landing shots.

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=7LIsv9LJ ... LIsv9LJPfU

Kinda hard to believe a story that starts off from the very first word with a major error.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1375
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 01:28

Spaz,

Help me out here, is Gilmore disputing the "go-ahead" to pilot training that the Air Education and Training Command recently completed in Dec, 2012. The first pilot class began on 7Jan13 with four 58th Fighter Squadron pilots and two operational test pilots. The class room training was completed before the latest Feb13, grounding and now that the planes are back up flying, the 5 flight syllabus should be completed very soon, Mar13. 36 students are planned to complete Block 1A training during 2013.

Is Gilmore never going to get over the audacity of those who chose concurrency that is obviously challenging his organization to "Keep Up" with all of the progress and advances made by the 50+ a/c flying almost every day?

Are these new F-35 pilots going to have to give back their "Check Rides" and not be real F-35 pilots?, enquiring minds would like to know?? :lol:
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11108
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 03:23

Give me a break 'neppy'. :D I sit at a computer in the great land of Oz trying to figure out this stuff also. The training syllabus expands as the permissions to do extra stuff or more software blocks become available AFAIK. One day everything the F-35 will be able to do - tried and tested and allowed - will be available to the training syllabus. Until then complaints will occur. I'm surprised that newbie F-35 'experienced otherwise pilots' suddenly have credibility (not in the pay of LM) but otherwise the TEST PILOTS (who overall and individually usually have way more experience of every kind) who have flown to the edges of what is known so far with the F-35, regularly get pooh-poohed. Funny that. I feel the newbies pain about not being able to see behind. I guess they will have to wait for all the good fixes for the HMDS II to be in place.

Training for the first F-35 pilots will never stop until they stop flying I reckon. Mostly that describes military aviation. If you think you know it all (usually only a sprog thinks that fresh out of basic/advanced flight school before they get hammered by their new operational aircraft). I'll post a cartoon. Sprog = nugget = newbie. (RAN) Navy News 03 Dec 1982

My experience of military aviation in the RAN Fleet Air Arm is that every day there is a new challenge via a change either large or small; and it is silly to resist the changes. Yes it was nice to train to do 30 degree day dive dumb bombing but realistically the entry altitude was too high when cloud was around so 20 degree became the standard with 10 degree the low altitude roll in standard. These lower angles meant bombing accuracy was more difficult but it was certainly realistic to start lower. Carrier Day Circuit heights changed (from Sea Venom Style to Gangnam Style Skyhawk Woop Woop) and that took some getting used to also. NATOPS changed a lot/a little at regular intervals as mentioned earlier. Bear in mind by the late 1960s early 1970s (my time) the A-4 Skyhawk was not only mature but getting long in the tooth. Change, change and change again.

However I am pleased the new F-35 pilots made the criticisms they did and perhaps improvements will follow where possible; but remember, the F-35 TEST PILOTS know a lot more of the good at this point.

And from the USAF: http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/1206_60years.pdf
Attachments
SprogSeniorSprogCartoonNavyNews03dec1982small.gif
USAFgenGapPropCartoonSmall.gif
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11108
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 04:34

I'm just a headline reader so youse can see why Ize Confuzed....

Top Tester Says F-35A 'Immature' For Training; JPO Says 'Ready For Training' 06 Mar 2013

http://defense.aol.com/2013/03/06/top-t ... s-ready-f/

"Little can be learned from evaluating training in a system this immature," Michael Gimore, director of Operational test and Evaluation wrote in "F-35A Joint Strike Fighter: Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation," a Feb 15 report, one which had at least one Pentagon source sputtering with indignation and a touch of exasperation.

On the other hand, the JPO issued this statement:

"The U.S. Air Force conducted the operational utility evaluation for its F-35As and determined its training systems were ready-for-training. F-35 operational and maintenance procedures will continue to mature as the training tempo accelerates. The DOT&E report is based upon the Joint Strike Fighter Operational Test Team report which found no effectiveness, suitability or safety response that would prohibit continuation of transitioning experienced pilots in the F-35A Block 1A.1 transition and instructor pilot syllabus."

So, someone would appear to be wrong here. Or we just have different organizations seeing the same data and coming to very different conclusions.

The next bit of the JPO statement would seem to indicate the different conclusion hypothesis is sound. "There are no issues identified in the DOT&E report that the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office didn't already know about, and are working to resolve. There is a deliberate process in place to validate the training system's effectiveness through advancing training blocks as they are made available to the warfighter."...

...This is not Gilmore's first criticism of the program. And it is not the first time he bas been ignored or overuled by a service or the JPO, as AOL D readers know. We'll have to see how Congress reacts to this."

Along with reaction to the RADAR inadequacies worthwhile reading at the JUMP.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 05:36

cola wrote:It was my understanding the aircraft's nominal envelope has been cleared by now.
Any idea why pilots are denied the full envelope?


Full fatigue testing has not yet been completed...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11108
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 05:38

Canananananandian Journalists redefine test pilot:

F-35 fighter panned by U.S. test pilots, Head-rest design prevents pilots from looking behind, leaked report says The Canadian Press 06 Mar 2013

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... eaked.html

"...An evaluation in criticizes the visibility in the cockpit of the multi-role fighter, and contains blunt comments from test pilots that suggest the shortcomings could get planes shot down in combat. The design prevents pilots from looking behind them.

"The head rest is too large and will impede aft [rear] visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements," one test pilot was quoted as saying in the U.S. Defence Department's directorate of operational test and evaluation report. A second pilot reportedly said visibility is crucial and any disruption "will get the pilot gunned" down in dogfights...."

Don't bother. But this is the funny for the day: "...Vocal critics, such as aviation expert Winslow Wheeler, say the F-35 is not ready for combat training, let alone combat...."
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 08:42

SpudmanWP wrote:
aceshigh wrote:People, please forget about Winslow Wheeler and adress the issues in the report that Spaz posted. There are some issues there that are troubling and must be addressed.
Sure, why don't you start us out with a few that you think are serious and have not been addressed


Sure,

Pilots identified a number of issues, many of which stemmed from the immaturity of the aircraft.
All four pilots commented that there was poor visibility from the cockpit, which appears to be the result of design flaws


“The majority of responses cited poor visibility; the ejection seat headrest and the canopy bow were identified as causal factors. ‘High glare shield' and the HMD cable were also cited as sources of the problem,” reads the report.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11108
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 08:56

Well if another F-35 pilot said he would be able to carry out a mission in the F-35 with a bag over his head I'm not sure what is so relevant about the lack of view in the opinion of some. I respect all opinions and wonder if the 'adverse about the view views' will not change as the full capability of the F-35 is experienced eventually by the complainants. YMMV.

The A4G had an incredible amount of hardware in front (with an oval bullet proof glass in the middle) obscuring the view forward but one became used to it. The view from the left side front for carrier landings was excellent. The view behind was non-existent only partly remedied by the A-4M modified canopy. You pays your money and you takes your chances. I think the F-35 sensor information will make up for any perceived 'lack of view'. And they will get used to it.

When the Kiwis modified their A-4Ks to KAHU standard with a very large HUD in front with enormous keypad below it I wonder what their 'non-existent' forward view would have been like. However they had a similar to the F-16 air to air radar and other new goodies that made up for that physical view in the same way the F-35 makes up with the sensor views on PCD (Panoramic Cockpit Display), HMDS II and vHUD.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 14:00

spazsinbad wrote:Well if another F-35 pilot said he would be able to carry out a mission in the F-35 with a bag over his head I'm not sure what is so relevant about the lack of view in the opinion of some


Okay, I thought that good visibility from the cockpit mattered alot in combat. Guess I was wrong..
Offline

luke_sandoz

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 228
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2011, 20:25

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 14:42

I am thinking all this petite tempest in a teacup is more about Sequestration and attacking budget buckets and project fiefdoms.

The report is pretty much useless other than as a gossip list of whines and complaints.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 14:52

aceshigh wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Well if another F-35 pilot said he would be able to carry out a mission in the F-35 with a bag over his head I'm not sure what is so relevant about the lack of view in the opinion of some


Okay, I thought that good visibility from the cockpit mattered alot in combat. Guess I was wrong..


In an aircraft that doesn't have EODAS? Visibility around the headrest is important.

In an aircraft that allows a pilot the capability to see in a 360 degree fashion around the aircraft? Perhaps the headrest is less of an issue...

Still 360 degrees is 360 degrees. Please let all fighter designers know how they can clearly improve on that. I'm sure they'll be extremely interested to hear from you...
Offline

aceshigh

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 256
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2011, 19:26
  • Location: Norway

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 15:31

Again the concensus tyrrany around here rears its head. Anyone should dare to imply anything negative about the F-35. The issue is really, if the jet is behind in aerodynamic performance end visibility etc, then one is totaly dependent on the hi tech bells and whisthels to survive. I hope they deliver.
I am only pointing to what the pilots in the report are saying. It is them who are "whining" if anyone.
Offline

Conan

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1000
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2007, 07:23

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 15:49

aceshigh wrote:Again the concensus tyrrany around here rears its head. Anyone should dare to imply anything negative about the F-35. The issue is really, if the jet is behind in aerodynamic performance end visibility etc, then one is totaly dependent on the hi tech bells and whisthels to survive. I hope they deliver.
I am only pointing to what the pilots in the report are saying. It is them who are "whining" if anyone.


Yeah, pilots who don't yet have EODAS available to them or a working helmet and who aren't yet doing ACM with this aircraft...

But no, pilots with less than 5 flights on this aircraft, no maneuvering conducted to speak of and few to none of the capability advantages this aircraft is intended to have because it is STILL in development, are to be believed completely without question.

Meanwhile, the test pilots who flown these things hundreds of times, in far more challenging scenarios and who have reported differently, are to be completely ignored, because they're all just company stooges and therefore liars or something...
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 11108
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Mar 2013, 18:06

U.S. pilots start F-35 training flights as report pans jet 07 Mar 2013 Andrea Shalal-Esa, Reuters

http://www.canmoreleader.com/2013/03/07 ... t-pans-jet

"WASHINGTON - Some students in the U.S. Air Force’s F-35 fighter pilot school took their first flights on Wednesday [O6 Mar 2013] in the new radar-evading jet as a report by the Pentagon’s chief tester found fault with early versions of the plane’s radar, pilot helmet and other systems....

...Defense officials said they were not surprised by the negative tone of the report given Gilmore’s views, but said it included no “showstoppers” that jeopardized the program, which must complete several more years of development before it moves into combat testing and is declared ready for operational use.

The report reviewed an “operational utility evaluation” conducted by the Air Force last year before it decided to start training seasoned pilots to fly the F-35 fighter. The training lasts three months and includes time in the classroom, on sophisticated simulators, and in the air.

This year, the Air Force says it plans to train about 72 pilots and 711 mechanics to maintain the new planes. The first official class just completed the academic portion of their training and are now taking to the skies....

...Winslow Wheeler, a long-time critic of the plane who posted the report for the watchdog group, said the new report showed that the Air Force, or conventional takeoff and landing model of the F-35 was “flawed beyond redemption.”

The Air Force’s Air Education and Training Command, which approved the start of training in December, said it believed the training system was perfoming adequately and should continue.

Lockheed, the prime contractor on the F-35 program, said it agreed with the Air Force’s decision to start training pilots on the F-35, and said it was confident that the service was able to conduct safe and effective flight training operations.

It said it would continue to refine the operating and tactical procedures for the jet as needed.

Joe DellaVedova, spokesman for the Pentagon’s F-35 program office, said Gilmore’s latest report was based on the Air Force’s report about its evaluation, which had found no reason to hold off on training experienced pilots to fly the new plane.

He said the Air Force and F-35 program office already knew about the issues raised in the report and were working to resolve them...."

Any bits missing are already known in this thread but go read it all anyway.
RAN FAA A4G: http://tinyurl.com/ctfwb3t http://tinyurl.com/ccmlenr http://www.youtube.com/user/bengello/videos
PreviousNext

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests