F-35 Cancelled, then what ?
And here comes more amusement:
http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2...D-FOIA-ocr.pdf
Maybe Wasp should be renamed Potemkin...
http://www.pogoarchives.org/straus/2...D-FOIA-ocr.pdf
Maybe Wasp should be renamed Potemkin...
LO. Now that's a bit disappointing and rather flies in the face of all the good news videos and press releases we were bombarded with at the time. Not a happy picture despite the immaturity of the programme.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: A lot closer to the sea
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to admit I am somewhat surprised to see that report broadcast on the internet. It makes the work of the foreign intelligence services a damned sight easier 
I don't see the Russians or Chinese distributing the test reports on their newest aircraft.
Gilmore has consistently used his reports to apply pressure to the JPO and in turn LM to achieve the targets set, as is his job. I am sure that OT-2 is more akin to the direction he has suggested with the full ACE on board.
Development test and Operational test are done for a reason. From a UK perspective the aircraft and the lessons learned by the USMC can all be carefully looked at prior to Queen Elizabeth flight trials in 2018.
I don't see the Russians or Chinese distributing the test reports on their newest aircraft.Gilmore has consistently used his reports to apply pressure to the JPO and in turn LM to achieve the targets set, as is his job. I am sure that OT-2 is more akin to the direction he has suggested with the full ACE on board.
Development test and Operational test are done for a reason. From a UK perspective the aircraft and the lessons learned by the USMC can all be carefully looked at prior to Queen Elizabeth flight trials in 2018.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: UK and where I'm sent!
Posts: 519
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, WO. I am surprised by the 'openness' of the DOD. But I wouldnt worry about it too much; someone will be along shortly with a lovely video clip to show how wonderful everything really is, maybe a short statement discrediting the source. Ooh, look! The videos are already here.
I sincerely hope the reliability numbers look better before QE trials.
I sincerely hope the reliability numbers look better before QE trials.
That said, I enjoyed the video.
What makes the Russian and Chinese task much easier is not so much the FOIAing of a test report, as the Marines' defense of a program that sucks tens of billions out of other more badly needed capabilities while delivering little strategic value.
Are you talking about Osprey, or the F-35B? The F-35 is a Joint Program. All three services are in it up to their necks. The Army are lucky to sit this one out and giggle in the corner.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO,
Thanks for the DoD report, sounds like the F-35 is good to go into IOC with the Marines as planned by them.
Now one has to admit the DoD published report is the beginning of a new phase in program/project reality and perhaps management. Up until this point everything published and advertised by L-M and DoD regarding the F-35 has been generally Okey-Dokey or Hunkey-Dory which ever applied best to the deficient item of discussion. Most deficient items have been swept under the carpet headings of "things are improving, "Things have gotten better" or "That really isn't important in modern day air warfare. However, IMHO, the DoD's love affair with L-M may be ending and rightly so. Their track record for timely delivery promises, cost performance and product performance has been abysmal on newer military aircraft programs, on a naval ship program (USS Freedom LCS1) and a rocket program that was cancelled. Programs they inherited through acquisition of then existing companies still run generally well.
The DoD procurement office seems to be in shambles these day with no abatement of the river of cash flowing through the front doors of the Pentagon from the US taxpayers to cover cost overruns and fix it programs and then they cry wolf for more. One voice that has rang out regarding the F-35 Program has been that of USAF General Bogdan. Two years ago, he felt the way the program was set up with L-M by the DoD Procurement folks made no sense. In fact we have seen demonstrated proof of that as time goes on.
On Total System Performance Bogdan said, “We gave Lockheed very broad things that said the airplane has to be maintainable, the airplane has to be able to operate from airfields, the airplane has to be stealthy, the airplane has to drop weapons—without the level of detail that was necessary. We have found over the 12 years of the program that the contractor has a very different vision of how he interprets the contractual document. We go, ‘Oh no, it needs to do X, Y, and Z, not just Z.’ And they go, ‘Well, you didn’t tell me that. You just told me in general it needed to do something like Z.'
On Payment Structure Bogdan said, “Most of the risk on this program when we signed this contract in early 2001 was on the government squarely. Cost risk. Technical risk. Perfect example: in the development program, we pay Lockheed Martin whatever it costs them to do a particular task. And if they fail at that task, then we pay them to fix it. And they don’t lose anything.” Bogdan explained that, since taking office, he has made burden-shifting a priority. Beginning with more recent batches of F-35s, Lockheed Martin will cover increasingly larger shares of cost overruns as well as a percentage of “known aircraft retrofit requirements”—that is, the cost to fix flaws discovered on planes that have already come off the assembly line.
On Tired of Business as Usual Bogdan said, “Sometimes industry is not accustomed to what I call straight talk. It can get cozy sometimes. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve been there,” he said. “I’ve seen senior leaders on both sides of the fence. And I can tell you that when you take over a program that has had problems like this, being cozy is not an advantage.” He continued, “We awarded the original contract in 2001. We’ve been at this for 12-plus years, and we should be a lot further on in the program and in our relationship than where we are in 12 years.”
So, now we are 14 years along and key dates continue to be pushed out. The political process that keeps the F-35 airborne has never stalled. The program was designed to spread money so far and so wide—at last count, among some 1,400 separate subcontractors, strategically dispersed among key congressional districts—that no matter how many cost overruns, blown deadlines, or serious design flaws, it would be immune to termination. It was, as bureaucrats say, “politically engineered.” And then there is the L-M spin advertising game and lobbyist campaigns.
Perhaps some of Bogdan's observations and resolve has begun to sink into the upstairs deadheads in the Hunkey-Dory floor of the Pentagon, all is not well and realists have known that for sometime.
BTW, don't compare Lockheed of old (Kelly's Skunk Works) to today's Lockheed Martin, they are by far two different entities.
Thanks for the DoD report, sounds like the F-35 is good to go into IOC with the Marines as planned by them.
Now one has to admit the DoD published report is the beginning of a new phase in program/project reality and perhaps management. Up until this point everything published and advertised by L-M and DoD regarding the F-35 has been generally Okey-Dokey or Hunkey-Dory which ever applied best to the deficient item of discussion. Most deficient items have been swept under the carpet headings of "things are improving, "Things have gotten better" or "That really isn't important in modern day air warfare. However, IMHO, the DoD's love affair with L-M may be ending and rightly so. Their track record for timely delivery promises, cost performance and product performance has been abysmal on newer military aircraft programs, on a naval ship program (USS Freedom LCS1) and a rocket program that was cancelled. Programs they inherited through acquisition of then existing companies still run generally well.
The DoD procurement office seems to be in shambles these day with no abatement of the river of cash flowing through the front doors of the Pentagon from the US taxpayers to cover cost overruns and fix it programs and then they cry wolf for more. One voice that has rang out regarding the F-35 Program has been that of USAF General Bogdan. Two years ago, he felt the way the program was set up with L-M by the DoD Procurement folks made no sense. In fact we have seen demonstrated proof of that as time goes on.
On Total System Performance Bogdan said, “We gave Lockheed very broad things that said the airplane has to be maintainable, the airplane has to be able to operate from airfields, the airplane has to be stealthy, the airplane has to drop weapons—without the level of detail that was necessary. We have found over the 12 years of the program that the contractor has a very different vision of how he interprets the contractual document. We go, ‘Oh no, it needs to do X, Y, and Z, not just Z.’ And they go, ‘Well, you didn’t tell me that. You just told me in general it needed to do something like Z.'
On Payment Structure Bogdan said, “Most of the risk on this program when we signed this contract in early 2001 was on the government squarely. Cost risk. Technical risk. Perfect example: in the development program, we pay Lockheed Martin whatever it costs them to do a particular task. And if they fail at that task, then we pay them to fix it. And they don’t lose anything.” Bogdan explained that, since taking office, he has made burden-shifting a priority. Beginning with more recent batches of F-35s, Lockheed Martin will cover increasingly larger shares of cost overruns as well as a percentage of “known aircraft retrofit requirements”—that is, the cost to fix flaws discovered on planes that have already come off the assembly line.
On Tired of Business as Usual Bogdan said, “Sometimes industry is not accustomed to what I call straight talk. It can get cozy sometimes. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve been there,” he said. “I’ve seen senior leaders on both sides of the fence. And I can tell you that when you take over a program that has had problems like this, being cozy is not an advantage.” He continued, “We awarded the original contract in 2001. We’ve been at this for 12-plus years, and we should be a lot further on in the program and in our relationship than where we are in 12 years.”
So, now we are 14 years along and key dates continue to be pushed out. The political process that keeps the F-35 airborne has never stalled. The program was designed to spread money so far and so wide—at last count, among some 1,400 separate subcontractors, strategically dispersed among key congressional districts—that no matter how many cost overruns, blown deadlines, or serious design flaws, it would be immune to termination. It was, as bureaucrats say, “politically engineered.” And then there is the L-M spin advertising game and lobbyist campaigns.
Perhaps some of Bogdan's observations and resolve has begun to sink into the upstairs deadheads in the Hunkey-Dory floor of the Pentagon, all is not well and realists have known that for sometime.
BTW, don't compare Lockheed of old (Kelly's Skunk Works) to today's Lockheed Martin, they are by far two different entities.
Sorry if you don't like the Marine's dogged determination to retain a Harrier follow on in the mix. (My personal opinions on Harrier and jets in that family are decidedly mixed).
Without that focus, the B probably wouldn't exist, which leaves the various allies, like the Italians who also fly such jets off of amphibs ... doing what?
I've no idea.
This thing has necked down to the "only game in town" for a variety of reasons, to include the problem of maintaining the defense industrial base. That is a contributor to what Turbine D mentioned here.
Perhaps not the core contributor, but a factor nonetheless.
Without that focus, the B probably wouldn't exist, which leaves the various allies, like the Italians who also fly such jets off of amphibs ... doing what?
I've no idea.
This thing has necked down to the "only game in town" for a variety of reasons, to include the problem of maintaining the defense industrial base. That is a contributor to what Turbine D mentioned here.
So, now we are 14 years along and key dates continue to be pushed out. The political process that keeps the F-35 airborne has never stalled. The program was designed to spread money so far and so wide—at last count, among some 1,400 separate subcontractors, strategically dispersed among key congressional districts—that no matter how many cost overruns, blown deadlines, or serious design flaws, it would be immune to termination. It was, as bureaucrats say, “politically engineered.” And then there is the L-M spin advertising game and lobbyist campaigns.
I'm no apologist for the programme but some of what's listed in the report doesn't strike me as particularly surprising for things encountered in early shipboard trials. The issue seems to be trying to force a declaration of IOC with what's currently to hand.
Anyway, as luck would have it we've got three to four years for USMC to iron out a lot of this stuff before UK shipboard trials get under way. Quite propitious really
Anyway, as luck would have it we've got three to four years for USMC to iron out a lot of this stuff before UK shipboard trials get under way. Quite propitious really
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frost, it's just local sport here, to see who can slag it the most. 
How the plane is responsible for the US procurement maze is a strange thing. The USMC wanted to go early with IOC. It is what it is, till it's finished and in 3F and passes OT&E come 2017-8?
How the plane is responsible for the US procurement maze is a strange thing. The USMC wanted to go early with IOC. It is what it is, till it's finished and in 3F and passes OT&E come 2017-8?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frost, it's just local sport here, to see who can slag it the most.
Realism vs "Mickey tries to keep a precious bottle safe after everything around him threatens to break it."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Home alone
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I couldn't find the other article that I first read it, but here is another link, same quotes from the same officer though...
http://news.investors.com/business/0...ants-speed.htm
http://news.investors.com/business/0...ants-speed.htm
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Marines seem happy enough with May, OT-1
F-35 tests fell short, Pentagon report says - CNNPolitics.com
The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the D-OT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.
"During OT-1, we wanted to prove that non-test F-35B aircraft could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship. We successfully did that. The two weeks of operational testing assessed the aircraft's integration with the U.S. Navy ship and crew, operating a wide array of flight and deck operations."
The Marine Cops also said that the extensive testing done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials.
"At IOC, the F-35B targeted in real time, talked to forward air controllers over the radio and data-link, and put weapons on target. The F-35B can provide close air support in threat environments where our current platforms would not survive, and the synthetic aperture radar gives us a through-the-weather targeting capability where the majority of our legacy targeting systems are simply ineffective.
Data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers now that the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015,"
F-35 tests fell short, Pentagon report says - CNNPolitics.com
The Marine Corps said it does not agree with all of the conclusions and opinions outlined by the D-OT&E in the POGO report, due to what it called a lack of context and qualifying information, according to a statement provided to CNN.
"During OT-1, we wanted to prove that non-test F-35B aircraft could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship. We successfully did that. The two weeks of operational testing assessed the aircraft's integration with the U.S. Navy ship and crew, operating a wide array of flight and deck operations."
The Marine Cops also said that the extensive testing done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials.
"At IOC, the F-35B targeted in real time, talked to forward air controllers over the radio and data-link, and put weapons on target. The F-35B can provide close air support in threat environments where our current platforms would not survive, and the synthetic aperture radar gives us a through-the-weather targeting capability where the majority of our legacy targeting systems are simply ineffective.
Data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers now that the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015,"
Hogwash.
It was called an Operational Test. After its "successful" conclusion, the aircraft was declared operational.
The Marines also were careful not to say that the engine and fan R&I "demonstrations" didn't actually involve removing so much as single bolt from the airplane. They also publicly claimed every T/O and landing as a sortie, even when the jets simply circled the carrier and did touch-downs and take-offs. The real sortie rates were so low as to be completely unrepresentative of any kind of military operation.
Until the Super Guppy arrived, the USN set a world standard for qualifying combat aircraft through the Opeval - an extended trial, with set pass/fail criteria, conducted by a squadron of operational pilots who were expected to find faults and demand corrective actions that would be a condition for a pass. That's now been thrown out of the window.
It was called an Operational Test. After its "successful" conclusion, the aircraft was declared operational.
The Marines also were careful not to say that the engine and fan R&I "demonstrations" didn't actually involve removing so much as single bolt from the airplane. They also publicly claimed every T/O and landing as a sortie, even when the jets simply circled the carrier and did touch-downs and take-offs. The real sortie rates were so low as to be completely unrepresentative of any kind of military operation.
Until the Super Guppy arrived, the USN set a world standard for qualifying combat aircraft through the Opeval - an extended trial, with set pass/fail criteria, conducted by a squadron of operational pilots who were expected to find faults and demand corrective actions that would be a condition for a pass. That's now been thrown out of the window.
LO, I was about to mention that OT1 (the non-operational Operational Test 
) and the weeks Gen Dunford spent assessing for IOC declaration were two separate events, but the wording in the IOC declaration and that of the DOD report are clearly at odds.
"I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees. VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
Re-reading the two reports brought memories of the F2's introduction to service flooding back (and I'm not just talking about the famous "radar" fiasco) in the sense that decisions were taken to press ahead with delivery despite the obvious shortfalls. As I said before the F-35 IOC declaration, it would have taken a very brave man to refuse the declaration under a lot of political pressure.
Maybe it's some sort of pseudo-IOC, only to be used if there is nothing sustainable around to do the job? I wonder when the first deployment will come? I understand that Gilmore would like to keep the pressure on the JPO and LM by releasing his report, but it doesn't change the sortie (sorry, flight) accounts recorded.
I was starting to imagine a glimmer of light in the tunnel...
) and the weeks Gen Dunford spent assessing for IOC declaration were two separate events, but the wording in the IOC declaration and that of the DOD report are clearly at odds."I am pleased to announce that VMFA-121 has achieved initial operational capability in the F-35B, as defined by requirements outlined in the June 2014 Joint Report to Congressional Defense Committees. VMFA-121 has ten aircraft in the Block 2B configuration with the requisite performance envelope and weapons clearances, to include the training, sustainment capabilities, and infrastructure to deploy to an austere site or a ship. It is capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."
Re-reading the two reports brought memories of the F2's introduction to service flooding back (and I'm not just talking about the famous "radar" fiasco) in the sense that decisions were taken to press ahead with delivery despite the obvious shortfalls. As I said before the F-35 IOC declaration, it would have taken a very brave man to refuse the declaration under a lot of political pressure.
Maybe it's some sort of pseudo-IOC, only to be used if there is nothing sustainable around to do the job? I wonder when the first deployment will come? I understand that Gilmore would like to keep the pressure on the JPO and LM by releasing his report, but it doesn't change the sortie (sorry, flight) accounts recorded.
I was starting to imagine a glimmer of light in the tunnel...
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: aus
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LO seems to have a thing for anything Marine?
As the Marine statement said, it's a start not a finish
"Data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers now that the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015,"
As the Marine statement said, it's a start not a finish
"Data collected and lessons learned during OT-1 will lay the groundwork for F-35B deployments aboard U.S. Navy amphibious carriers now that the U.S. Marine Corps' F-35B Lightning II aircraft reached initial operational capability (IOC) on July 31, 2015,"