SDSR - The end of UK T&E as we know it? [Archive]

WeekendFlyer

20th Oct 2010, 18:31

I am concerned that the SDSR will have an adverse effect on UK T&E, potentially risking loss of a huge amount of corporate knowledge and experience, particularly at Boscombe Down. The cancellation of the MRA4 and Harrier programmes is a huge loss to RAF capability but is also a huge loss to QinetiQ, which now has to decide what to do with the large teams of dedicated and talented people who were supporting these programmes.

With the planned early withdrawal of Sentinel and C-130J, and with VC10 and Tristar already due to be withdrawn once FSTA is in service, heavy aircraft T&E work is going to be reduced to almost nothing in terms of on-going in-service support, with the only remaining work coming from FSTA and A400M once they are in service. The fast jet side has also taken a big hit with the Harrier going out of service, even though it is nearing the end of a largely successful upgrade programme. Ongoing Tornado GR4 and Typhoon work is likely to be fairly limited, particularly once the Afghanistan withdrawal is completed, and on F-35 the UK T&E contribution is fairly small, hanging on to the coat-tails of the much larger US development T&E effort. With so many platforms leaving service, the TP requirement is likely to reduce too, which won't particularly help ETPS either. It seems the only area to have escaped fairly unscathed is rotary-wing, with Puma LEP and ongoing Merlin and Chinook work.

So is there a future for T&E in the UK? I would suggest it will be limited, and with very little practical trials work unless you work for a major manufacturer or are on the rotary-wing side of life. I suspect the number of redundancies already announced by QinetiQ will increase, because the large teams of people who were working on MRA4 and Harrier will now have nothing to do. It is a sad, sad day for military aviation in the UK. And my sympathy also is with personnel in the RAF and at BAES who are also likely to lose their jobs as a result of yesterday's announcements.

The other thing that really hasn't helped is the way traditional developmental T&E has slowly moved away from Boscombe Down and into the OEUs, often because the MOD budgetary arrangements cause OEU work to be "free" to the DE&S project teams, whereas QinetiQ work costs them. I am staggered that this budgetary distortion has never been properly resolved, and I think the quality and efficiency of UK T&E has suffered because of it. After all, what other nations have physically separated their OEUs away from the national centres of T&E expertise? The French have not, the Americans have not, so why on earth do we think we know better?

Sadly, I think that as a result of policy-driven anomalies such as these, added to the the less-than-sensible idea (IMHO) of including Boscombe Down within the QinetiQ privatisation in the first place, and as a result of the SDSR, UK T&E may now be in a terminal state of decline. A very sad end for an industry sector within which the UK used to be a world leader :sad:

What do other forum contributors think?

GrahamO

24th Oct 2010, 15:39

We no longer make aircraft exclusively for UK Forces. We buy them from other countries, predominately the USA.

If say, we ever get the F35, why do we need T&E of our own ? Not knowing the precise ins and outs, to the outsider (me) it looks a lot like taking a perfectly good aircraft, in use by other countries and their forces, and then picking fault with it "as it does not meet UK standards". And then spend millions to customize it so that it's late, over budget, unreliable and incompatible with every other variant.

This is strangely reminiscent of British Rail and its infrastructure in the 1980's which prevented any economies of scale in it's procurement.

Without the UK facility what exactly do we lose ?

TheChitterneFlyer

24th Oct 2010, 15:52

I'm, very much, surprised that there hasn't yet been a reply to this thread... probably because there's too much truth within it!

Well said WeekendFlyer.

Do you think that there will ever be any 'lessons learned' from the disection of FJTS... I suspect not! The 206(R) TPs will eventually become very tired of an almost daily commute back and forth between Brize and BCE.

I suspect that the age of the UK (RAF) Experimental Test Pilot days are numbered; and, along with it; the future of T&E at BCE.

BossEyed

24th Oct 2010, 17:37

TCF, I think you may be right about why there have been so few replies.

Another factor is likely to be PPRuNe contributors' previous schizophrenic attitude to Boscombe and QinetiQ.

Half the time it is viciously accused of being a handbrake on progress (an attitude which applied before the creation of QQ, I might add), and the other half acknowledges the sustained & effective contributions made to a far from perfect airworthiness and fleet flight safety process . (See Nimrod/Chinook threads, for several detailed examples).

The former attitude never bothers to acknowledge the highly committed SMEs and test aircrew whose primary aim has always been - and remains - the safe an effective deployment of military capability in accordance with JSP55x, Def Stan 05-123 etc etc.

Likewise, it almost always refers in dismissive terms to "QinetiQ" alone, as if the ATEC partnership, and its superb military/civil strengths, has never existed.

This forum is likely far more enlightened than the other on PPRuNe that commonly discusses UK Military T&E and Procurement, and here we understand what the UK, and MOD, might be in danger of losing.

A timely thread, WF. I hope it does develop, ideally with contributions from the wider MOD and which also discuss the pros and cons of what properly planned and implemented OEU/Development T&E integration might look like.

Vertico

24th Oct 2010, 22:06

This has already happened. It began with the move of the OEUs away from Boscombe (always their natural home) and was confirmed in the symposium at the FJTS disbandment dinner in the Spring. There, it was actually described as progress to have "single type" TPs! As anyone who has ever been a tp knows, it is the cross-fertilisation and exposure to differing characteristics which comes from flying many different types that helps the aspiring (and even the experienced) tp to form opinions which he can then defend when necessary.

Sadly, I fear that the anti-Boscombe scoffers in the RAF have won. Tragic.

Tester_76

25th Oct 2010, 12:42

Sadly, I fear that the anti-Boscombe scoffers in the RAF have won. Tragic

I think it's more than that - the RAF appear to be anti anything that isn't their own. I work in industry and we've suffered by the OEU being able to do everything better and cheaper than industry/ATEC attitude that exists within the IPTs. Sometimes it turns out they can, others it turns out they can't. :oh:

120class

25th Oct 2010, 13:03

The recent amalgamation of the OEUs and Test Sqns was in my opinion a move that was way over due and would potentially offer significant synergies. I do however think that the dispersing of the T&E functions over multiple sites will undo much of this potential. The ATEC/Qinetiq partnership whilst well understood at Boscombe suffered in the wider MOD/RAF community due in part to not being part of an easily visible RAF command chain (eg AWC).

Snow Dog

26th Oct 2010, 10:02

Vertico

26th Oct 2010, 10:44

I'm sure you're right. However, the unwritten assumption behind your comment is that all aircraft and equipment as supplied by the makers will always fail "safe". Sadly, many years of experience prove that this ain't the case.

The aim of the manufacturer is always to turn the biggest profit, while delivering kit that just meets the Spec. The aim of T&E is to check that, first, it does meet the Spec (not always the case!) and secondly, that it can be operated safely and effectively. Only at that stage can it go to the OEU for them to find out "how" best to do the job with it.

In my days at Boscombe (several decades ago now, alas!) there were no OEUs. This meant that our only direct link with subsequent users was through the inappropriately named Handling Squadron. I say inappropriately because the unit did no "handling". It was an office job, putting together Pilots Notes/Aircrew Manuals from paperwork generated mainly by the makers and to a lesser extent by Boscombe.

I was delighted to learn of the creation of the OEUs, as they provided that "missing link" between T&E and the users. How sad that this obvious benefit has gone unappreciated by the decision-makers.

GrahamO

27th Oct 2010, 23:00

I am still not clear what we lose.

If we buy a US aircraft, after it has been through US T&E and it is in operational what more do we need to do?

XZ439

29th Oct 2010, 17:20

If we buy 'off the shelf' we have to accept the inevitable issues.

A wise friend of mine said 'if we want to play with the big boys' we have to come with an equally big stick. I just don't think we can afford it now :-(

billynospares

29th Oct 2010, 18:01

Well without an impartial T&E set up (Boscombe) you would have to take the manufacturers word for it all, or hope the US test and operate their assets in exactly the way we do ! For example shall we leave the AAR trials for the A400M to Airbus. MMMM A400M reciever (Airbus) oh and FSTA tanker (Airbus). I am sure they would be open and honest about that ! Having been in the T&E business for many years I can tell you that the manufacturer will tell you exactly what you want to hear and on more than one occasion when looking for a safety case the Americans hadnt actually done any of the trials :ugh:

FlightTester

29th Oct 2010, 21:01

I think it comes down to how things are packaged:

The OEUs find out how things work.

The T&E sqns, with the support of a phenomenal amount of scientific experience, find out how things fail.

As long as everything fails 'safe', which package, do you think, gets accepted most readily.

As I like to tell the people I work with (and for): It's not the job of Flight Test to break the aircraft, it's our job to point out where the aircraft is broken

TheChitterneFlyer

29th Oct 2010, 22:07

FSTA is sheduled to arrive at BCE during early 2011 to conduct AAR trials. As for the A400M; I somehow doubt that it will ever be seen at BCE; hence, beyond 2011, I forsee that all T&E work will be conducted from Brize Norton. The ATEC (read LTPA) will still exist; however, it will be somewhat of a disjointed affair. Boscombe (QinetiQ) will become even more expensive to maintain i.e. Heavy Aircraft R&D trials (on the BAC 1-11 and the Andover), plus, ETPS and RWTES, will become the sole operators at BCE.

I forsee that Experimental Test Pilots will become 'single type' test pilots and that each operational squadron (at Brize or Waddington) will have one, or more TPs, to complement each squadron. Hence, there will be no requirement for the existing TPs to remain current on various types. This will innevitably have a 'knock-on' effect within ETPS, inasmuch that the RAF will no longer require Experimental Test Pilots.

QinetiQ will keep their own 'pool' of Staff Pilots to conduct routine R&D flying laboratory work on it's small fleet of 1-11s and Andovers.

Meanwhile, the 'single type' TPs will be constantly on the go; commuting between Brize/Waddington to Boscombe in order to liase between Project Managers and the like. A less than ideal situation; however, the savings would be astronomical (in not having to keep TPs multiple-type current). The 'bean counters' will, eventually, win; at the expense of delayed projects, UORs etc.

As for QinetiQ... the Company must move forward; or disintegrate! Let's not give QinetiQ a bashing; QinetiQ emmerged from the ashes of DERA; the privatisation of a joint Civil/Military organisation that shifted the financial balance of that of the MOD to the private sector i.e. from the taxpayer. I'm not entirely sure that it's been a success; probably not!

Quite how the (fragmented) future of Military T&E will be managed; I'm not sure. It's my hope that there will be 'lessons learned' from the disbandment of FJTS... perhaps not!

That's my 'two-penneth'... comments invited.

TCF

GrahamO

31st Oct 2010, 09:32

Interesting, thanks for the clarity - it is the answer I expected.

If I could paraphrase the answer somewhat harshly "only we are competent to undertake T&E and all others cannot be trusted, nor relied upon".

So, if that is somewhat close to the situation, why are none of the vast range of US military aircraft failing regularly?

Or could it be that most of our T&E capability is marking others homework, after it has been corrected by another teacher and while we do find things that we do not like, it rarely if ever, is of any substance.

So, back to an example. Once the F35 is in service with the US, why on earth should we be testing it ? It flies, it works, it doesn't drop out of the sky, so why do we decide whether it is fit to fly?

Sounds like another excuse to spend money to me!

Double Zero

31st Oct 2010, 09:41

Graham,

It could be said we were buying an American aircraft in the Harrier II AV-8B / GR5 ; There was still a lot of UK development to do, and it certainly didn't feel like it was being done for the sake of it !

If we really accept things off the peg, there will be tears if such kit ever actually has to be used ( but it would be fine parked behind a politicians' dias or wazzing past at airshows ).

However I sadly feel the overall gist of this thread is probably accurate; the rot set in when RAF accountants overcame BAe accountants by making out OEU work is 'free' which it clearly isn't, as well as introducing penalties such as this state of capability decay.

Snow Dog

31st Oct 2010, 12:19

GrahamO,

You may have hit upon something here fella. I reckon we can save loads of money:

We don't really need to pay for representation in the EU as they're probably extremely competent - in fact, let them run the Euro and we'll just adopt it.

We actually don't need armed forces as we're pretty well protected on all sides by someone who knows what they're doing.

Hey, you can read it across other levels - we don't need local governmental representation, I'm sure London is doing fine. Local education authorities, local ... well, anything really.

If someone else states that it is good enough, why ever ask the question?

Ah, unfortunately, Mr Haddon-Cave has made a bit of an issue about the UK not taking this sort of stuff seriously. The MoD has, therefore, decided to establish an MAA to take this seriously and that MAA is rather insistent that all equipment procured for UK forces is certified to UK acceptable standards. It also seems that the US have slightly different criteria within their standards and aren't likely to adopt ours.

In simple terms, have you ever been at an electronic retailer outlet with a teenage child. They want to buy the kit, their mates (their closest advisors) want them to buy the kit and the retailer certainly wants them to buy the kit. Unfortunately, you know that they'll be disappointed in the long run!

In this world, no-one is doing the 'right thing' out of a sense of moral duty; they are doing it only because there is an independent process overseeing them. While that demonstrably flawed process is being addressed, there are, worryingly, many who have already forgotten the lessons.

GrahamO

31st Oct 2010, 21:20

All interesting points, but still I see the British attitude that only we have it right and everyone else cannot be trusted to do a good job. While I completely agree that there are certain circumstances where in a new platform, one must be cautious, are we REALLY saying that everyone else is wrong and we are the only honest and competent assessors out there?

Another circumstance perhaps - thousands of Chinooks with perhaps millions of flying hours without a relevant incident, and the UK decides to spend £100m of taxpayers money stripping out verifiably safe systems, evidenced by said millions of flying hours, to put back an earlier generation of system "because we haven't approved it".

This is all reminiscent of British Rail in the period up to 1990 when everything was to specific BR standards and as a consequence, the kit worked, but was unreliable, impossible to maintain, unique and hence ridiculously expensive. The doomsayers were around but when BR started to adopt ALARP with emphasis on the R , then costs dropped, reliability improved and safety events reduced as the benefits of using the same standards as everyone elses brought the safety benefits of economies of scale.

Perhaps this is the way of T&E - not taking the sarcastically suggested approach of blindly believing the salesmen, but for once, insisting the T&E community provide evidence themselves on why others standards are actually wrong, rather than just different.

We could buy F15, F35, F22 and have a superb air force, and hardly need any T&E as we we would be buying proven, in service technology. Yet somehow I suspect our industry would object on the basis that such leading aircraft were insufficiently tested and the millions of flying hours without incident were irrelevant.

We do not have a bottomless Defence budget and I for one would vote for body armour and vehicles on the ground, rather than unnecessary duplication of aircraft testing where adequate evidence already exists, but is ignored "because we are British and Johnny foreigner cannot be trusted".

billynospares

1st Nov 2010, 10:33

Well Graham i guess when you go and buy a car you dont test drive it then ! Somebody else said it was ok so it must be :D Of course we could just do as you say but we would then have to use only the kit delivered on the platform as we could not clear or use anything of our own and when our friends and allies wont give us a capability they want only for themselves what should we do ?

green granite

1st Nov 2010, 11:25

Don't forget that Boscombe isn't just about testing aircraft, there's all the system and radar development testing that used to be done at Bedford as well.

Genghis the Engineer

1st Nov 2010, 11:30

If we resigned ourselves to simply buying overseas certified kit, then the obvious consequences would be final demise of our UK military aircraft industry - considerable tens of thousands of jobs at BAeS, WHL, and their hundreds (probably thousands) of sub-contractors. Plus, the net effect on the economy would probably be negative - gain by the T&E costs and something on the price of the kit, lose by the taxes those chaps pay, the corporation taxes, the export orders (how many overseas military forces use just Hawk and Lynx?), plus enormous unemployment benefit payments. The basic concept, from where we are now, just doesn't make sense.

If it did make sense, why are so many countries trying to develop their own defence and aerospace industries? Why does Japan, who isn't even allowed to export any military equipment, develop its own military aircraft and maintain its own T&E capability?

That said, we are probably looking at the end of UK defence T&E as we've known it; some of this is good. Historically the approach of (1) company development T&E, then (2) government acceptance T&E, then finally (3) operator's operational T&E is wasteful. Merging (1) and (2) into a "Combined Test Force" (or insert fashionable acronym of your choice) makes a shedload of sense, which is why pretty much everybody in the world has moved that way over the last 10-20 years.

(3) However is a much smaller effort than (1) and (2) - it does not require the massive infrastructure of telemetry, scientists and engineers, and suchlike which both require. So, the concept of putting (say) the Strike Attack OEU at Boscombe Down in the early 1990s, which ultimately only needed a handful of pilots, a few dozen ground crew (who did need to be separate to the Boscombe civilian groundcrew of-course, so that they could assess operating the aircraft in a war-like simulated ground environment) was a sound one. On the other hand, the SHAR OUE at Yeovilton and the Merlin OEU at Culdrose seemed to function very well where they were.

The real mess here is caused by a few idiot senior officers who have never been near the T&E environment, and so believe it's all about a few aeroplanes and pilots - it's not. It's about the massive joint company/OTC infrastructure that's needed to get T&E right. It probably will not be possible to fully integrate this - because Westlands will stay in Yeovil and English Electric (sorry, BAeS Military) will stay in Warton - and Boscombe needs some homogeneity. But then the only sensible place to put the test assets and CTF core can only be at either the OTC base (Boscombe), or the OEM base (Yeovil, Warton...).

Whether you then put the OEU there, or in a front line station is a moot point; but the US (which does understand T&E more than most) has tended to take the view of putting the OT&E structure at the OTC where it can also tap into the "boffin infrastructure".

Put bluntly, I think that the US is right, and the UK is wrong. The UK is not even saving real money when you start accounting for all of the costs of running telemetry, instrumentation, etc. etc. etc. from a frontline station instead of a company or government test facility.

No, it's a rot, and will badly damage UK defence as a whole.

Chinook, to be honest, is a pure c***-up, that could have happened at any site. The problem was management of the procurement, not the existence of an independent UK T&E capability. Had we genuinely tried to buy unmodified US kit (MH-47Es in other words), then the T&E process would almost certainly have been fairly trivial, but no we (HMG) tried to redesign it first ! Apparently fairly badly. Had there, for example, been a genuine CTF with Boeing and BDN joint leadership, probably based at manufacturer and able to heavily influence design decisions before full scale build was commissioned, then I'll bet the aircraft would have been slightly late, slightly expensive - but in service, working, and just another addition to the RAF Chinook fleet.

G

Vertico

1st Nov 2010, 11:57

we would then have to use only the kit delivered on the platform as we could not clear or use anything of our own and when our friends and allies wont give us a capability they want only for themselves what should we do ?

You've hit the nail on the head! Once the destruction of independent UK T&E capability is complete, we will then have no option to buy and use absolutely standard foreign kit bought off the shelf. We will have no choice but to accept whatever T&E standards the "first user" country adopts.

Furthermore, do our politicians/military brass realise that they will no longer be able to buy Airframe X from the US (let's say) and add that we would like to have R-R engines instead of GE, Smith's cockpit displays instead of the preferred US supplier, or any other "home grown" avionics or other systems? In other words, loss of UK T&E will lead directly and inevitably to further loss of UK design innovation and manufacturing capability.

It is common nowadays to find military aircraft, in particular, having in-service lives of 40 years or more. Naturally, over such long lives, the defence requirement which led to the original purchase will inevitably mutate. As we won't have the independent design or manufacturing capability, we will have to go cap in hand to the makers of Airframe X and ask them to provide the new capability. Unless the requirement is also needed by the prime user, we will inevitably go to the back of the queue - or even be told that to design, manufacture and test a mere 80 (or whatever) sets of kit is not worth them spending their time on it. If you think that defence procurement in the UK has seen some excessive cost overruns, wait until you see what a monopoly overseas supplier charges a tiny, foreign customer!

The TPs contributing to this thread will understand the point I am making, but some of the non-TPs may not. For them, a true story. Back in the 1960s, the RAF was desperate to upgrade the air-to-ground weapons fit of the Hunter. The Hunter was then using WWII vintage 3" "drainpipe" rockets - notoriously inaccurate. An order was placed for pods of SNEB rockets (already in use by the French) to replace them. Boscombe got stick from the RAF for "delaying" the introduction of SNEB. The reason was simple: on the first firing flight, it was found that pod debris had damaged the underside of the ailerons. Hawker Siddeley said that such damage would mean a double aileron change after every two firing sorties! Clearly unacceptable. Details of the problem were fed back to Matra in France. It took them nine months to produce the first attempted cure - which also didn't work. The SNEB was eventually cleared for use on the Hunter, the delay being wholly attributable to the supplier.

If we lose UK T&E capability, it follows as surely as night follows day that the whole procurement process will change. There will be no scope for working up operational requirements from first principles and issuing a detailed spec for interested manufacturers to consider. Instead, the operational requirement will have to be defined in the broadest of terms. The (shrunken) procurement branch will then have to shop around the world's manufacturers to see if any are offering an "off the shelf" product which might be capable of meeting the requirement - without any mods whatsoever. I understand the aircraft industry in China is developing rapidly. Their future products may well be competitively priced, but does anyone believe their T&E standards will be as high as the Western world's?

In any future conflict, forget the UOR which comes from unforeseen problems in actual combat use. Unless the host supplier nation agrees on the need, there won't be a mod.

Sorry to go on at such length, but I'm sure our UK politicians and military brass have simply not thought through the consequences of their recent decisions.

V

GrahamO

2nd Nov 2010, 17:53

"Well Graham i guess when you go and buy a car you dont test drive it then ! Somebody else said it was ok so it must be :D Of course we could just do as you say but we would then have to use only the kit delivered on the platform as we could not clear or use anything of our own and when our friends and allies wont give us a capability they want only for themselves what should we do ?"

When I buy a car I do test drive it, but I don't ask the dealer to take it through my own factory built to duplicate all the manufacturers testing, prior to purchasing and then tell them that its no good,at the cost to the taxpayer despite there being thousands of others already using said vehicle quite happily.

As we do not build our own platforms anymore (which is a whole other debate) one has to question why we as a country should have the arrogance to expect others to manufacturer to our particular needs when we as a country have decided not to build things ourselves.

The sarcasm in your answer belittles your answer but does go some way to illustrate quite clearly, why the T&E community is going to die out. In defiance of logic, economics and reality we in Blighty still believe that we know best. Economics suggest otherwise.

If we knew best we could build and others would buy - not vice versa.

Snow Dog

2nd Nov 2010, 18:46

My sympathies fella, it is one mean selection process.
How many times have you applied?

BossEyed

2nd Nov 2010, 18:56

Graham, I think that you asked a perfectly fair question and deserve (in fact, the UK taxpayer deserves) a properly considered answer. Here's my attempt at part of one.

Firstly, there is absolutely no reason why the UK should repeat another Customer's airworthiness and capability assessments if those provide the necessary evidence to comply with UK regulatory requirements - and in many cases, they certainly should do so.

Too often, though, the independent evidence is not available - and there are a number of reasons why that might be. Those reasons range from commercial or security considerations, through unwillingness of the foreign Customer to release the information (e.g. for resource reasons), to the foreign Customer's evaluation actually not being very good. (Say it ain't so.) There's also the situation where the aircraft/system/whatever is being procured to operate in a different role to the original Customer. Perhaps rare, but it happens.

If evidence is available, then great - use it, and the UK T&E community may "simply" act as MOD's advisors to confirm nothing has been missed out. (Why can't MOD do this themselves? Well, as several threads on the Military Aircrew forum have identified DE&S have deliberately divested themselves of this over the years.)

If it is NOT available, then what?

MOD cannot ignore their regulatory requirements and remain within the law - and post Haddon-Cave, is it likely anyone would dare? (Cue tucumseh!)

So, compliance with Def Stans, JSPs and the AOF needs be demonstrated - and without our own UK T&E capability, how would MOD do that?

A complete answer to your question has a number of other parts, including "Why do we need an independent T&E organisation, when the manufacturer has done his own testing?" and "Why do we have separate organastions to do Operational T&E and Safety T&E?" I may come back later to consider those, although the answer to the second can be summarised as "For no sensible reason, really".

PS Vertico at 11:57 yesterday - great post. However, you have maintained the fiction that only TPs do T&E. Who are all those non-aircrew people hanging around and far outnumbering them, then? :E

billynospares

2nd Nov 2010, 18:59

Well Graham I am glad you can ignore all of the well informed opinions put to you here so easily. I presume from all your answers you work for one of these companys or are just trying to stir up everyone else here. You obviously have never been involved with T & E or any of the hard working people dedicated to ensuring safe and operationally correct platforms are delivered to our brave servicemen that deserve and need them when facing a dangerous frontline. T & E will never be dead in this country as we are very good at it. Look at any project in almost any other friendly country and you will no doubt find at least one Brit involved in its T & E. So maybe rather than calling it dead and trying to belittle anyone here involved in it you realise it is a very marketable resource that could make bankrupt UK some money !

Tallsar

3rd Nov 2010, 00:03

A good thread moving along here.....some washing thats needed airing for a while now.....

Genghis.....a good post a usual......have a bit of a prob with your optimism re the CH47E's provenance though.......one of the reasons believe it or not we moved to the "simpler" Mk3 modification (though the cost against the budget was the main reason).......Oh Dear!!...but then what do I know!:ugh::{:rolleyes::oh:;)

Genghis the Engineer

3rd Nov 2010, 08:11

I'm sure that there are deficiencies in the MH47E - but it does work and was accepted into service by a competent T&E organisation at Edwards.

I read HC3 however as yet another case of their airships making procurement decisions (Nimrod AEW, Tincano, Tutor...), without proper T&E involvement at the design stage - then when T&E are brought in too late, they get blamed for the delays caused by their highlighting major deficiencies that should never have got beyond an early stage drawing board.

G

120class

3rd Nov 2010, 09:32

In many cases of procurement, T&E were involved at far too late a stage, this situation worsened with the creation of the ATEC/Qinetiq partnership as the IPTs now had to pay for this involvement. IPTLs would try to keep T&E away from the project leaving the manufacturer to pursue it's own course. In some cases the relationship between the IPT and manufacturer was too close and both saw T&E has a hindrance to the project.

Of course the costs incurred by the OEUs were just borne by the AWC budget and they were often involved at the design stage in a project. Unfortunately, with no training or exposure to other platforms the value afforded by the OEU input was somewhat variable.

Now that MOD T&E is part of the AWC, this particular aspect has potential to improve.

Two_Squirrels

3rd Nov 2010, 09:41

The MH-47E was indeed tested by a competent organisation. However, since the MH-47E is used differently and flown slightly different than the RAF Chinooks, there were issues found during the UK T&E that had potentially serious flight safety implications.

The context of testing is very, very important. As long as the original equipment is used in exactly the same way as the original T&E activity, then great. That is the way that the C-17, Tutor and Squirrels were procured, for example. The JSF has a multi-national team involved in the testing to ensure that the context is correct for all of the relevant nations. Once it enters service, the aircraft will depart from the original due to the different concept of operations and so on, and the aircraft will start to diverge. T&E will then be required to ensure a safe and effective system. This model, at least, will need to stay within the UK. It should be noted that most other large nations have a T&E organisation, so it is not a case of "Brits not trusting Johny Foreigner" as GrahamO put it.

Dr Moo

3rd Nov 2010, 21:44

It is logical that with less types there is less T&E to be done. It is clearly important for the reasons already highlighted. Ensuring the kit we have is safe and effective, meets UK regulation & standards and having control of our own defence. Effective T&E by competent and qualified flight testers could save money and makes us more flexible to emerging threats.

I think you should stop comparing the Chinook 3 with the MH47E. The NAO report said the 3s were unique aircraft. It is an easy mistake. A K model Herc is a very different aircraft to a J Herc, but they both look very similar from the outside.

Genghis the Engineer

3rd Nov 2010, 23:49

I'm pretty certain that everybody's saying that the HC3 is a substantially different helicopter to the MH47E, and thus needs significant new T&E over and above the American efforts - that is much of the point of the conversation. But that doesn't stop us comparing the two as part of the debate.

G

Vertico

4th Nov 2010, 16:40

Sorry - I realised after posting that some of my comments could be read in the way you have indeed read them. It wasn't my intention at all to leave the impression that only TPs do T&E work.

Of course, the whole process is heavily dependent on the army of boffins who guide the setting up of the T&E programme - and who then do the post-flight analysis of the results which enables Boscombe (or any other T&E establishment) to pronounce with authority on the outcome. It is their accumulated experience over many years, many aircraft types, many situations which has already been largely negated by the co-location of TPs with the OEUs.

What has also been lost is the breadth and depth of experience of the flight line engineers in dealing with new types or variants. However well-trained, the Service lineys on a new type cannot have that experience.

BossEyed

4th Nov 2010, 19:16

Vertico, you have more than redeemed yourself there. :ok:

Especially with the bit about T&E lineys. :D

Ne11ie

8th Nov 2010, 11:28

Hello Graham,
I’d like to point out that the type of assessment that is done by manufacturers is quite different to that of independent T&E assessors.

Manufacturers will be demonstrating that their product meets the contracted requirements, no more.

Independent T&E looks firstly at safety and secondly at fitness-for-purpose.

Now, you may well suggest that these should have been covered by the requirements in the first place, but in the real world it just isn’t this simple. So let’s look at two options – build to order and off-the-shelf.

If a platform or system has been designed to order, then there is much more scope to have the contracted requirements tailored to the intended role. However the process of design and production will be an extended one – Eurofighter Typhoon took 20 years. In that time there will inevitably be many changes in operating environment, role, safety regulations, threats faced, technology etc. For instance, since Eurofighter was first designed we have seen the end of the cold war, and the introduction of global GPS coverage. Both have a huge impact on how a combat aircraft is used. So we can then start altering the requirements as we go through the process of development, this inevitably leads to delays and increased cost. Plus, once this starts happening, there is an effect on the requirements that you already have in place.

Take the example of the car – you decide that you want to have a car designed to your own specifications. So you set out the design for a high-powered sports car. But during the process of development a new fuel is launched that is much more efficient. You decide you’d like to utilise this – it requires a re-design of the engine and fuel system. But it may also mean that the car can no longer meet your original performance requirements. You decide that provided the performance is reasonable you will still accept the car. When the car is finished, you hire someone to test drive the car and measure its performance, to ensure that it still meets your needs.

If a platform or system is purchased off-the-shelf, then it’s always going to be a compromise, because it isn’t designed to be exactly what you need. Your aircraft may be sufficiently flight-tested and airworthy, but it can’t land on your aircraft carrier without modification. Or the comms system isn’t compatible with the rest of your network. Or you want to put proprietary security systems in, instead of relying on those provided by a foreign country. It may come with clearance for weapons or sensors, but not for the weapons and sensors that you have in your stores. Or it may have been designed to carry out an air-to-ground role in the desert and you want it for maritime ops in the Antarctic.

To labour the analogy with the car – you decide to buy your car off the shelf. You look at the cars available and decide on an Italian model. Unfortunately, it only comes as a left-hand drive which your insurance company won’t cover, and there is no option for ABS (the Italians don’t do braking!). Additionally, it needs special tyres that can only be provided by the manufacturer, and these cost ten times as much as the local equivalent and have to be ordered six months in advance. So do you modify the car, and thus have to have it assessed? Or just live with the shortcomings?

Modern day T&E is highly geared towards testing as little as possible, but as much as is necessary. It’s about deciding what we need to know about a system, in order to determine that it is safe and effective as it is intended to be used. Then seeing what evidence already exists (and is available to us), what can be reasonably deduced and what must be generated by testing. Rig testing and software modelling are extensively used so that flight testing is reduced as much as possible.

BossEyed

28th Feb 2012, 17:12

So - a year and a quarter down the line since this thread was started.

What do we think now?

WarmandDry

28th Feb 2012, 19:58

Essential question for T&E when modifying a system:
Does it fit?
Can it be switched on?
Does it burst into flames (or some other adverse occurrence)?
Does it work at all?
Can it be used by an average service operator?

If sufficient evidence exists to answer the above then T&E is minimal. However, a UK navigation system we were ordered against all technical advice to fit to an aircraft already fully cleared by a foreign T&E:
Did not fit.
When made to fit - Did not switch on.
When made able to be switched on - Did overheat.
When the power supplies were corrected - Did not work (wrong data bus spec)
After all these were corrected and we had flown 20 times the original estimated T&E time it was capable of use by an average service operator!

Vertico

28th Feb 2012, 23:50

Precisely the problem with buying off-the-shelf kit from a foreign supplier. Kit almost certainly designed to operate in a different aircraft type, in a different environment and with a different operational outcome required.

BossEyed

In the words of the old Country song, "Another year older and deeper in debt". Except that for "debt", you should read "the mire".

No hope for the future safe and effective UK operation of military aircraft. Sorry to sound so negative, but that's the inevitable outcome of current political thinking.

lightningmate

29th Feb 2012, 11:00

Another factor that is becoming more prevalent and will almost certainly cause troubled sleep for the UK RTS folk considering JSF, is the dreaded 'Worse than Legacy' issue. Military Aircraft Contractors now specify equipment with worse performance, comfort and protection capabilities than equipment used in UK developed military aircraft of 25-30 years ago.

In addition, determining the required levels of T&E needs consideration by people who, firstly, understand the activity and, secondly, understand the equipment to be tested. Such people are becoming a rarity and as T&E is reduced there is no opportunity for new blood to get their hands dirty. Vicious circle syndrome!

Pundits still insist that the tried and tested(!) methods of T&E are too expensive, those same pundits won the day in the early 1990s and now the UK Military Aircraft R&D capability is vapour. As WarmandDry explained, sorting out the cock-ups of quick and dirty equipment procurement generates more costs plus associated delays. Such additional costs and delays are, of course, never taken into account in the original Business Case so the money has to be stolen from elsewhere. A further spiral downwards :ugh:

lm.

Vertico

29th Feb 2012, 11:11

So sad, but all so very true. It's the wilful refusal to admit the benefits of a proper T&E programme, together with that ever-rarer understanding of the nitty-gritty of the job, that's at the root of this steadily-growing problem.

Weren't we all lucky to enjoy our flying (and our T&E work) in the golden days?

John Farley

1st Mar 2012, 14:08

Yes Vertico we were

greenedgejet

1st Mar 2012, 14:40

As with the Army's Snatch LR debacle, if you want clear evidence that rigorous T&E is needed then investigate the way the last EFT/Bulldog replacement was conducted. Boscombe had little to zero input in the selection process. Flight "testing" was left to AEF pilots and QFIs. The result was an underpowered, high drag, low payload and barely aerobatic machine that is near invisible on the standard British day to external observers. Couple this with a poor canopy design that obscures lookout for pitching and turning manoeuvres, no go forward harness and a "jettison" handle that does not do as it's title suggests, and the results are tragic. 6 deaths in 2009 and 4 flying machines destroyed. Thankfully qinetic did get involved post accidents. But the machine remains problematic in service - just read the last years worth of DASORS. The bolt on solutions are not working as first Thot.