The Ship Model Forum

Will fewer tests give a better product?

Lockheed Wants Fewer F-35 Tests
Washington Post
August 30, 2007
Pg. D4

Lockheed Martin, which is over budget on the first phase of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, wants to save money by cutting back on testing.

Lockheed is seeking Defense Department approval to cut the number of test aircraft and personnel, and hundreds of test flights.

No, but it will yield one of the standard mechanisms for success in this industry.

• If the product is compromised, deliver it with insufficient testing and saddle the services with incremental "upgrades" at extra cost which will make the system meet the initial criteria.

Meanwhile, the service in question will spend the better part of a decade with a "hangar queen" which is not combat worthy, and in some cases unflyable.

See the B-1 for an example of this.

If I were the RN, I'd seriously be examining "Plan B" right now, else they have a useless aircraft for 1/4 to 1/3 the life of their new carriers.

The US defense industry is like Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz' friends: they should all be shot and a new bunch acquired.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

From my past experiences in the military whenever I hear 'we need fewer tests' the alarms go off.
No system benefits from less testing.
The ideal of the full testing regime is to subject the unit to a wide range of operation related situations to determine if the system is really ready for entry into service.
Contractors do not necessarily have the best track record with new projects - look at all the issues with the Osprey V-22 or the 1st unit of the San Antinio class LSD.
More is better. It is better to incur costs up front (when they are only money) than to wait until the cost is payed in lives lost

Prior to this latest request, there was already to be little testing before the respective governments were hopelessly committed financially:

One can only conclude from Lockheed's "reluctance" to be measured by aircraft tests, even the prior schedule, that the aircraft falls far short of the performance targets and will be a hopeless "white elephant".

The failure makes sense when you see they are hoping to get nearly F-22 performance out of a single-engine hybrid airframe. Instead of putting all the eggs into this one basket, they ought to be procuring five or six different, lower cost, dedicated mission airframes. This would get aircraft into service more quickly and at lower cost and risk.

Typically, "stage two" of a purchase like this will be a series of extra-cost upgrades and retrofits which may allow the aircraft to meet it's specification, but only after Lockheed gets to "go to the well" many more times and return with buckets of taxpayer cash.

Lockheed nearly went out of business because Reagan put the P-3 bomber on a "firm fixed-bid" track. The last run of aircraft were delivered substantially below Lockheed's cost because of the rate of inflation leftover from the Carter years.

Lockheed and the other vendors need to shoulder more of the development risk and cost. If some of them go out of business, perhaps the industry will have room for new entrants. Currently, those bureaucrats who buy the aircraft system owe their jobs to the system, and they all too frequently move from an oversight position directly into the contractor's employ to serve as an advocate for the system to buddies in the service and foreign agencies. This should stop.

It is all too obvious there is no "free market" in military procurement, but a cartel which is directed by and for the benefit of the senior management at the vendor companies. This should be crushed, even if we have to buy systems abroad for some time until new players can enter the game.

If the Navy has any brains, they would be taking a census of restorable A-7 and A-6 airframes, so light and medium attack aircraft can reach the fleet at any time in the next two decades. The existing F/A-18A/B and C/D need to be refit with life extending upgrades and more efficient engines, and the buy of F/A-18E/F needs to be extended. I don't know what to do for the Marines except perhaps order up some conventionally powered aircraft carriers in the 60,000 tonne range which can provide LHA functionality and a flight deck for CTOL aircraft. This should be done now. An A-6E carried more bombs than an F/A-18A with three times the range before buddy fueling was required. The proposed plastic replacement wing could easily be implemented for a few months' budget from the F-35. New engines could greatly improve fuel economy and performance with no weight penalty. The engines mounted in the Gulfstream V executive jet could be installed and would nearly double the available thrust, range and fuel economy.

One way or another, the siphon of funds to the Iraq war will end in two or three years. It is time to look beyond this chapter of history and tend to the repair of US military systems, which have been badly depleted and run down.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

Gives the RN a ready-made excuse for the inevitable delay in the carriers. I did hear that the first one will go into service equipped with RAF Harriers.

Cheers,

Rob

_________________
IPMS Fine Waterline Special Interest Group

You apparently have no experience working in the defense sector. Programs always go way over budget because of unrealistic schedules imposed by the government using immature technologies and the contractors are screwed because if they don't bid low they don't get contracts. Then once the contracts are in place the requirements inevitably change and compromise the entire program.

And it is all on the government side of the house: every two years or so a new green or blue suit comes in and takes over and has no clue what has been going on and gums the whole thing up for a good six months. Then about the time he gets up to speed and the project is moving forward again he leaves and the cycle starts anew. I've seen projects crash and burn because of rudderless leadership on the government side of the house, giving contractors conflicting requirements and unrealistic deadlines and then reassigning key personnel on a whim. The last program I worked on we were TWO YEARS late getting our requrements finalized for software we were designing for a helicopter that changed so often and so radically we ended up scrapping two years worth of work, the entire project team was reassigned and a new team brought in to start from scratch.

And the project I am working on now is caught in a funding struggle between two project offices who are both trying to convince the new green suit that they need all the money we both currently split. Whatever the outcome a lot of money is going to be wasted and a lot of jobs lost.

Reducing the amount of testing for a program is not unusual as long as the program milestones have been met or exceeded by testing already conducted. Tests can cost tens of millions of dollars to conduct and if needed data can be collected earlier in the testing cycle then later scheduled tests may become unnecessary.

The Saturn V program was supposed to have at least a half-dozen more test flights before the first manned launch but the first six flights were so successful that they met all their objectives early. Likewise the space shuttle was supposed to have about twice as many glide tests as were conducted but they were cut short because the early tests were successful enough for NASA to have complete confidence in the orbiter's ability to land.

I really get tired of people blaming contractors for everything that is wrong with government weapons development when the government has no one to blame but themselves. Yes there are companies that are out to screw the government and make a buck, but the vast majority of defense contractors are made up of honest and hardworking engineers and technicians who are completely at the whim of the green and blue suits who oversee the program.

Contractors can avoid these risks if they take more of the initiative on themselves. Aircraft manufacturers, for example, could design an aircraft on speculation, rather than waiting for the current bloated process to work up specifications and pay vendors to develop alternatives at zero cost and risk to themselves.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I maintain my position that the F-18 is going to be the last airframe the Blue Angels fly.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

What they need to do is have meetings where the warriors and engineers meet, and leave the accountants at home.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

Is that possible
Dave Wooley

Boyd managed to pull it off for the Air Force.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

Part of this is the way the US pushes new technology. Using current technology in many cases would be simpler and get the job done.
How many millions to develope an ink pen to work in space?
Old Soviet Union pulled technology and stole technology to get it done.
They used a pencil.....

Graphite is an electrical conductor. Ink does not create dust the way pencils do. The fear with pencils is that the graphite dust might cause a short or arc.

While I agree in theory... sometimes there is a reason.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

There may be a reason. But judging from the absence of graphite induced shorts on Russian manned space craft over all these years, it was not a good reason.

Also the Russians may not give a whit about spreading graphite dust, but they took care to reinforce their spacecraft to accommodate a normally constituted atmosphere rather than try to skimp on weight and fill their craft with pure oxygen like NASA did. So graphite pencils not withstanding, their space craft didn't burn. Ours, with all its fire proof ink, did on the launch pad.

I've been informed that the F-35 is a very poor aircraft to have around in a dog-fight.

When/If the RN actually buys the JSF (either the F-35B STOVL or the F-35C CV variants) they will have to largely rely on its ability for beyond visual range (BVR) engagements.
If it tangles with any of the latest migs they will make it minchmeat up close and personal as its manoeuvrability is poor.
This being largely a design trade-off when making the JSF airframe and systems more stealthy and thus some capabilty has had to be sacrificed for this.

Can anyone add to or comment on this further please?

The latest Warship World magazine confirmed that Queen Elizabeth CVF will have to operate an airwing of 10 Harrier GR9's (with an ability to increase to 18 if needed), 4 Sea King AsaC7 and 6 Merlins for 3 years until the JSF enters service in 2017!!!

No trouble parking, then.

Seriously, I think the actual F-35 performance is a well kept secret right now.

_________________
If an unfriendly power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.

-- "A Nation at Risk" (1983)

I guess those fires on MIR were made up then?

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

A minor smoke alarm incident, quickly put out, never necessitating evacuation, and is nothing compared to the lethal conflagration that consumed the Apollo 1.

I understand there was a fire on International Space Station's oxygen generator not long ago. When the international space station has been up there for 15 years and largely devoid of support for 10, we'll see whether it would be more fire proof than the Mir.

My point remains. The Russians are not Gods in space with the true vision of how to do things right.

_________________
Tracy White -Researcher@Large

"Let the evidence guide the research. Do not have a preconceived agenda which will only distort the result."
-Barbara Tuchman

No, but they have accumulated a respectable list of hits where we've missed.