F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[Bevo]

Well H. Harry there are different types of testing with different missions.

DoD employs three formal types of T&E (directed by statute) in the acquisition of systems administered by OSD: Developmental Test & Evaluation (DT&E), Operational Test & Evaluation (OT&E) and Live Fire Test and Evaluation (LFT&E). DT&E verifies that the system’s design is satisfactory and that all technical specifications and contract requirements have been met. Sometimes called Technical Testing, DT&E is sponsored by the program office and can be conducted by the government, by the contractor, or may be a mix of both. Most early DT&E in a program will likely be done at the contractor’s facilities under controlled, laboratory conditions. Later in the program DT&E is often conducted at government test facilities by government or combined government and contractor test teams. OT&E follows DT&E and validates that the system under test can effectively execute its mission in a realistic operational environment when operated by typical operators against representative threats. The difference between DT&E and OT&E is that DT&E verifies that the system is built correctly in accordance with the specification and contract, and OT&E validates that the system can successfully accomplish its mission is a realistic operational environment. LFT&E combines with both DT&E and OT&E to assess the vulnerability and/or lethality of a system before it is approved for full-rate production.

Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35. I sure don't see much "bought and paid for" in that test report.

[KenV]

Hence the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) report contained a lot of not so flattering things to say about the F-35.

And when that happens it is not because the DT&E folks are bought off stooges of the manufacturer. It happens because the contract requirements that the manufacturer designed and built the aircraft to were flawed and did not meet real world operational needs. If that is true of the F-35 (a big IF at this point), there's a lot of nations to blame for providing flawed requirements.

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by KenV

It happens because the contract requirements that the manufacturer designed and built the aircraft to were flawed and did not meet real world operational needs. If that is true of the F-35 (a big IF at this point), there's a lot of nations to blame for providing flawed requirements.

Ken, pardon my ignorance if I have misunderstood your quote but, are you actually saying that the reason the F-35 is so flawed, is actually down to the customer/'s who issued the contract and specs, rather than LM for failing to meet them, or saying they couldn't actually be met?

-RP

[ORAC]

DT&E+ Oat&E = Verification & Validation, the classic testing V.

Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.

Validation: Did we build the right thing.......

[KenV]

Ken, pardon my ignorance if I have misunderstood your quote but, are you actually saying that the reason the F-35 is so flawed, is actually down to the customer/'s who issued the contract and specs, rather than LM for failing to meet them, or saying they couldn't actually be met?

Is LM failing to meet the requirements? With very few exceptions, no. Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes. LM cannot change the requirements. The governments running the program can. And have.

And finally "so flawed?". What makes you believe it is "so flawed?"

[KenV]

T&E+ Oat&E = Verification & Validation, the classic testing V.
Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build.
Validation: Did we build the right thing.......

You get absolutely no argument from me. However, allow me to add a bit.

Verification : Did we build what we contracted to build. ("we" is the contractor. In other words did the CONTRACTOR meet the stated requirements?)

Validation: Did we build the right thing....... ("we" is the government. In other words, did the GOVERNMENT (or in the case of the JSF, several GOVERNMENTS) set the right requirements?)

I believe LM is doing a very creditable job with the former.
According to post #8959 the governments did a lousy job with the latter. I'm not convinced that's really true.

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by KenV

Have the requirements shifted nearly constantly? Yes. LM cannot change the requirements. The governments running the program can. And have.

To the best of my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the F-35's final design and specs were laid down in the early 00's, what 'requirements' have 'The governments running the program' constantly changed? If anything, it seems some (performance) specs and capabilities have been revised downwards because it currently can't (possibly never?) meet them. And as to your question to why I think it's flawed, there are enough reports, media stories, official and otherwise to wrap that one up (DOT&E 2015 exec summary being just one), but let me turn the question around if you'll permit me. What aspects of the customer/'s contract/specs are flawed? And if they are flawed, why didn't or hasn't LM said so, either at the time they were set down and requested, or since?

-RP

[KenV]

And as to your question to why I think it's flawed, there are enough reports, media stories, official and otherwise to wrap that one up (DOT&E 2015 exec summary being just one)

May I politely suggest that the above is self contradictory? The DOT&E report does not slam LM's failure to meet the requirements, it slams the governments' failure to make their requirements meet real world operational needs. Can you provide flight test data showing LM is failing to meet the customers' requirements?

What aspects of the customer/'s contract/specs are flawed?

You'll have to ask the DOT&E director about that. He's making the claim, not me. And as I already said twice, I have my doubts about that.

And if they are flawed, why didn't or hasn't LM said so, either at the time they were set down and requested, or since?

May I politely point out that the above statement is indicative of ignorance and/or naivete. A contractor's job is NOT to question a customer's requirements, but to design and build a product that meets those requirements.

Please allow me to provide several examples. When the customer wanted a mach 3 bomber, the contractor provided one. It was called the B-70. Other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a mach 3 interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-12. Again, other than the prototypes, none were built because the requirements were flawed, even though the airplane itself was brilliant. When the customer wanted a small, simple high speed interceptor, the contractor provided one. It was called the F-104. USAF bought only a few because, surprise, the requirements were flawed. The F-105 also brilliantly met its requirements, but as it turned out, the requirements were very flawed for the air war in Vietnam. The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s. And this does not just apply to military aircraft. When the customers wanted a supersonic airliner the contractor produced one. The resulting aircraft was brilliant, but the requirement was flawed and so only very few were built. And so it goes.

[Rhino power]

Originally Posted by KenV

Can you provide flight test data showing LM is failing to meet the customers' requirements?

You know very well I can't, neither can you or anybody else outside of the program, I made it quite clear my (admittedly limited) knowledge was based purely on open source information and assorted media reports.

Originally Posted by KenV

A contractor's job is NOT to question a customer's requirements, but to design and build a product that meets those requirements.

Really? Under no circumstances should a contractor question a customer's requirements, even if some or even large parts of it, look to be unachievable?

Originally Posted by KenV

The Lightning also brilliantly met its requirements for a high speed, high altitude, high climb rate interceptor. I'll let the reader decide if the requirements it was designed to in 1950 were flawed during the 60s and 70s

It met or surpassed the requirements it was required to in the 1950's, end of story, whether or not 20 years later the same requirements could at that time be considered flawed is irrelevant.

And again, I ask, what 'requirements' have 'The governments running the program' constantly changed?

-RP

[PhilipG]

KenV makes the point that certain older projects were curtailed/abandoned at prototype phase, for good reasons at the time.

The trouble with the F35 as I see it in this area is that as it is so complex that to be frank a fully functioning initial capability aircraft has yet to be built and or tested thus making an informed decision on the performance of the aircraft as specified not yet possible.

As yet, to my knowledge, no non test aircraft has flown with external stores, the software is not fully functional, i.e 3F is still in testing, the logistics / support system ALIS does not work as it should, making taking a view on maintenance costs difficult and there is also a requirement to respecify the alloys to be used in some structural components at least on the B.

Back in the day, when the broke UK could afford to develop 3 V bombers etc, the time from commissioning to prototype flight was so much shorter than it is today. Aircraft selection decisions are now far more complex and with far greater ramifications than in earlier times.

Let us hope that the F35 can be made to deliver on the promises that the some $50 billion development part of the project has / will deliver.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by PhilipG

Let us hope that the F35 can be made to deliver on the promises that the some $50 billion development part of the project has / will deliver.

I'd like to make a point about the LO requirement. A variety of risk is taken on jointly by the contractor and the government when a new thing is being put together. In the case of the A-12, it ended in tears. There isn't an A-12. In the case of the F-35, there's a flyable aircraft but the question becomes "is it what the forces need?" Since it has to cover a number of mission areas, the answer is probably a mixed bag.


That last bit, "is it what the forces need?" has been a bugger for requirements writing against the forecasting ability balanced with risk and cost. Regardless of what the forces want or need, and here I only speak for the US forces, Congress typically redefines the requirement around a whole host of constraints. The one size fits all constraint is one such.


When you go back to the A/B/C issue, I remain unimpressed: the A isn't Joint. It can't land on a carrier. The program has had this problem for around 20 years, I'll leave the "do we really need a Harrier follow on" to some other thread. (My position has been for some time that we don't, but I realize some of my USMC friends would whack me for that opinion).


Ken's point on "ya get what ya ask for" is mostly true, with the caveat that during the development of a new system, some of the risks and design (we can get there!) predictions come true in forms different from expected.
The one that most surprised me was how long it took the tail hook issue to surface and then get resolved. It got resolved, but I doubt they expected it to be such a bugger initially.

[KenV]

You know very well I can't, neither can you or anybody else outside of the program

I'm not talking about classified test data. I'm talking about open source test data that justifies your conclusion that the F-35 is "so flawed." The tail hook debacle was one. LM solved that. The engine turbine problem was another. P&W solved that. The helmet was another. VSI solved that. These are all reasons why a test program exists. What other tests has LM failed that make the airplane "so flawed."

Really? Under no circumstances should a contractor question a customer's requirements, even if some or even large parts of it, look to be unachievable?

Almost none. At least none I can think of. And certainly "unachievable" is a miserable yard stick. Was a moon ship achievable in 1960 when JFK committed the US to building one? Was an 8 engine jet bomber achievable when USAF committed to building the B-52? Was a mach 3 bomber achievable when USAF committed to building the XB-70? Was a mach 3 ISR aircraft achievable when the CIA committed to the Oxcart project? Was a reusable space plane achievable when NASA committed to building the Shuttle? Was a single stage to orbit rocket achievable when NASA committed to building the Venture Star? Was a carrier based stealth attack aircraft achievable when USN committed to building the A-12? In the case of the 1st five they were all accomplished, but the B-70 was never put in production. In the case of the last two, neither were accomplished. The name of the game in aerospace is pushing the envelope and pushing the technology. Often it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Was it Boeing's, McDonnell Douglas's, Lockheed's job to question the wisdom of once again trying to make a one-size-fits all tactical aircraft after the numerous previous disasters trying to accomplish that? No. Their job was to do their best to accomplish what the customers (both US and non-US) insisted they needed. Now that it's built, is it the contractors' fault that the requirements (allegedly) don't meet the need? Nope.

It (the Lightning) met or surpassed the requirements it was required to in the 1950's, end of story.

End of story? You wish!! And you just confirmed my point. Military aircraft fly for decades. If the requirements are very narrow and ambitious, brilliant designs like the Lightning and Starfighter are almost inevitable. But the requirements were flawed because the aircraft that resulted were point designs that could not evolve effectively with the threat. Is the contractor responsible for that? Nope. IF as you and others claim the F-35 is operationally defective, that's not the contractor's fault. It is the fault of the various governments that set those requirements. And in no way was it LM's job to question those requirements.

[glad rag]

Ken, could you provide a source for your engine and helmet "solutions" preferably from something related to planet earth....

[KenV]

When you go back to the A/B/C issue, I remain unimpressed: the A isn't Joint. It can't land on a carrier.

True enough. But on the other hand no other aircraft, even aircraft that started out as USN aircraft like the A-1, F-4, and A-7 were "joint" by this definition. The USAF version of those USN aircraft could not land on a carrier either. Although technically, the B would be joint by this definition as it can land on a carrier. So while I agree with your point, I'm having trouble seeing its utility. Help me out here shipmate.

[KenV]

Ken, could you provide a source for your engine and helmet "solutions" preferably from something related to planet earth....

I'm VERY confident that the following links are Earth based.

F-35 Test Jets to Undergo ?Burn In? for F135 Engine Fix | Defense content from Aviation Week

Lockheed Is Finally Getting The F-35's Amazing New Helmet | The Daily Caller

[SpazSinbad]

A Future Little F/CMDR Air on CVF being interviewed as Exchange Hornet Pilot USN CVN:
RN LCDR Phillips Hornet Pilot Interview Mar 2016 USN Xchng

You Tube

[glad rag]

Laughable.

Was directed at KenV's input but hey Spaz [nice to see you back btw, you'll get on just fine withA1_ Bill] since you jumped in there it would be churlish not to share.........

[APG63]

An interview with one of many exchange pilots. Not sure how relevant it is to the F-35 thread. RN and RAF pilots flying Harrier and the guys currently on F-35 would bring back equally useful craniums.

Have things got tough over in your preferred haunt, Spaz? I didn't think you liked us over here very much, judging by some of your posts.

[Mach Two]

Ah, the standard exchange party lines being trotted out. He'll be buying a few rounds at the Exchange Officers' Conference this year for that load of old tosh.

Very humorous.

Do we have to look forward to more daily doses of web clippings again?

[West Coast]

What do you expect him to say?

It may have been boilerplate, but he came across as genuine for the viewer which is the goal.