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

[Genghis the Engineer]

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]

billynospares

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]

"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 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]

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

[BossEyed]

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?

[billynospares]

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]

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!

[Genghis the Engineer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

BossEyed

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]

Vertico, you have more than redeemed yourself there.

Especially with the bit about T&E lineys.

[Ne11ie]

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]

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

What do we think now?

[WarmandDry]

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]

WarmandDry

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]

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

lm.

[Vertico]

lightningmate

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?