"Double 0" POGO and the F-35: Update

POGO's operative in South Korea. MIA or asleep at the wheel?

Posted Earlier:

So While POGO’s Freeman is claiming the Defense Industry is employing ‘Guerilla Tactics”, I’ve noticed a marked uptick in the foreign blog and online alternative newspapers containing references to POGO’s pet ‘expert’ commentators. POGO ‘special operators/fellow travelers’ seem to be most active in F-35 Partner nations where economic conditions are tightest and in countries that represent existing or emerging markets for F-35 Foreign Military Sales (FMS). What a surprise (Not!). The most recent one to catch my eye was an English-version of a Korean ‘alternative’ paper article by one delightfully named ‘Stuart Smallwood’ who also mirrored most of his piece at his own blog....

...

Smallwood’s entire post reads like a POGO press release, and it is quite obvious from his phrasing and the conclusions surrounding his commentary that Mr. Smallwood (a ‘grad student’ in "Asian Studies" out of Canada now mucking around in other people’s cultures, Eh?) that he hasn’t a freakin’ clue as to what he is writing about. In the comments thread of his ‘blog’ last night I posted a challenge...

(see thread graphic below)

The first and last lesson provided to POGO's Man-In-South-Korea, Stuart Smallwood, was provided 2 days ago, but has not yet been posted in his thread.  Whether he has not had time to review the comment, is formulating his response prior to posting, or awaiting further guidance from CINC POGO, I have no idea (or really care). If POGO/Reformer modus operandi holds in this case, expect either no response or emphatic misdirection or mischaracterization on some related point.
I provided Mr. Smallwood with the following, as I believe it was the second-lowest hanging fruit and I'm rather pressed for time these days. I believe the only changes are those that allow me to format and link differently in a post vs. a thread elsewhere. If I DO eventually 'fisk' the total drivel POGO spoon-fed him, I will probably do so in the larger context of the battle of ideas and as battlefield prep for deflating future POGO spewings.  The remainder of this post is what I commented on at Smallwood's blog.

Note: I am somewhat curious as to how South Korea views foreign nationals trying to influence South Korean policy decisions while they are guests within South Korea. While not a big deal in the US (Apart from 'shut up--you stupid foreigner!' criticisms), in many countries that kind of activity is taboo (Mexico comes to mind).

RE: “ Wheeler says the complex radar systems and stealth coating on the aircraft make it too heavy to be a close-up fighter airplane.”
First– some background since you are new to the subject.
WW has been peddling this ‘too heavy’ trope ever since the Fighter Mafia failed to keep more advanced systems off the F-16. If the Mafia had their way, the F-16 would still be a one-trick-pony-day-fighter. WW and Co. habitually frame air combat as either BVR or ‘close-in’, magically moving past that period of initial closure where “who detects and targets who first” is paramount.

Actual Debunking:
We don’t even have to get to the parts WW/POGO never talk about here. Let’s debunk the ‘too heavy’ notion up front.

 ONCE you are in a furball, the ability to maneuver and sustain energy (see Boyd’s Energy-Maneuvering theory) is important. It’s importance varies by the relative ability to place weapons (point at) on the target while maneuvering among other things. Let us note here that the F-35 can fire missiles at aircraft that are behind it, but ignore this for the ‘maneuvering’ discussion.  The F-35A is planned to replace the F-16, and it is designed to have equal or better kinematics in a combat configuration than an F-16. The public is beginning to be told this by sources other than Lockheed Martin or 'Test Pilots' (link):

The veteran F-16 operational tester and Weapons School grad shared some of his impressions the F-35. The jet is powerful, stable and easy to fly… 

...A combat-configured F-16 is encumbered with weapons, external fuel tanks, and electronic countermeasures pods that sap the jet’s performance. “You put all that on, I’ll take the F-35 as far as handling characteristic and performance, that’s not to mention the tactical capabilities and advancements in stealth,” he says. “It’s of course way beyond what the F-16 has currently.” 

The F-35′s acceleration is “very comparable” to a Block 50 F-16. “Again, if you cleaned off an F-16 and wanted to turn and maintain Gs and [turn] rates, then I think a clean F-16 would certainly outperform a loaded F-35,” Kloos says. “But if you compared them at combat loadings, the F-35 I think would probably outperform it.”

The F-16, Kloos says, is a very capable aircraft in a within visual range engagement–especially in the lightly loaded air-to-air configuration used during training sorties at home station. “It’s really good at performing in that kind of configuration,” Kloos says. “But that’s not a configuration that I’ve ever–I’ve been in a lot of different deployments–and those are the configurations I’ve never been in with weapons onboard.”

So there you have it. The first operational pilot to qualify on the F-35A, who is also a Weapons School grad, and has been an F-16 OT&E pilot... gives a big ‘thumbs up’ to what LM and the JSF program have been telling us all along.

Expect more glowing pilot reports. From this operational pilot we receive confirmation that the F-35 is only about as ‘bad’ as the aircraft it is replacing, which is exactly what it was designed to be, and OBTW means it is on par with an aircraft that is still one of the world’s premier dogfighters (F-16 is especially ‘hot’ below 20000 ft).

Now let me add just a little of my own aeronautical (BSc, MSc, Decades of flight test, etc.) knowledge for your ruminations. What LtCol Kloos didn’t mention (because he probably doesn’t know) is the true F-35 effective wing area and loading. Neither does WW, any other so-called ‘reformer’, or any outsider. Because the fuselage itself creates lift and adds to the effective wing area. Wing area is the 'denominator' in the wing-loading figure of merit. Outsiders can only make WAGs as to the wing loading and in turn the maneuvering capabilities of the F-35. They are even bigger WAGs if they don’t know the Lift/Drag ratio, total drag, or installed thrust of the engine at varying power settings and airspeeds. Also, because the F-35 will fight ‘clean’ without external pylons and weapons on ‘Day 1’ of a conflict, when it enters into a tight turn it will have a fraction of the parasitic drag of an F-16 or any other non-LO aircraft. In all likelihood, the F-35 will bleed off a lot less speed performing the same turn as an F-16.

It would have been a shorter lesson If I had just chosen to debunk the “It’s too fast to find targets or distinguish enemies from friends on the ground” canard (I can provide if desired). But the Fighter Mafia ‘simple is better’ talking point mindlessly parroted by a long-disenfranchised Congressional staffer with ZERO technical qualification always deserves a good smack-down.

I may just take down every-stinking ‘point’ the POGO boys fed you at my place later, but I’m getting bored with exploding their logical fallacies.
Sorry it took so long to respond. Work, family, and a Crankshaft Position Sensor took up the bulk of my time this week.
************************************END***************************************

The Robert F. Dorr F-35 Follies

Don’t Expect Insight

I believe Robert F. Dorr, long-in-tooth aviation ‘journalist’ and ersatz ‘historian’, reached new editorial and factual lows in September’s Combat Aircraft Monthly with his ‘editorial’ THE F-35 FOLLIES: DON'T EXPECT IMPROVEMENT. I already had a ‘getaroundtoit’ project on the back-burner to deconstruct one of his slightly earlier transgressions, but I found his latest output was such an over-the-top feral rant-job, that it just deserved to be exposed even more. Piece by piece. 
It ties in well with one other post I am working on, another re-look at the mythical Military-Industrial complex, and was helpfully, but unintentionally pointed out to me by an aviation enthusiast in the comments elsewhere.
After you’ve read what he wrote, ask yourself:  how much faith should one place in anything else he’s written? Try and avoid the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect when you next read something dribbling off the page written by Robert F. Dorr.

It begins: 

WAR IS FOUGHT in bad weather, amid noise, chaos and bad smells, with people trying to kill you. Yet even in sunny weather, in the calm of an airshow venue, the Pentagon was unable to get its F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter to show up and to show off.

Hmmm. Dorr opens his ‘editorial’ with a (perhaps ‘slight’?) mis-characterization of the F-35’s non-deployment and subsequent missing of its planned international airshow debut. It’s only a ‘slight’ mis-characterization, IF Dorr is criticizing the DoD and F-35 program partners for not bringing themselves to accept the risk of doing so while an investigation into the engine failure and subsequent near-immolation on 23 June was (and is) ongoing. 
But I doubt that is the case: certainly Dorr isn’t implying he would have advocated the circumvention of normal safety/accident investigation protocols just to meet an airshow deadline and, on the side, accomplish a minor F-35 ‘first’ (Trans-Atlantic, overseas deployment)?
This leaves us only two other possible reasons--that I can see anyway--for Dorr even bothering to bring this subject up. First, he might believe that the F-35 couldn’t actually physically accomplish the deployment if it had been allowed. But that meaning would fly in the face of all the evidence in hand, as the F-35 program was prepared to deploy right up until the Safety Mafia ruled it out completely (See here, and here). 
That leaves us with one last possible meaning. We can assume Dorr is just poking a stick in the F-35’s programmatic ‘eye’ because……because he can? We’ll use that reason for our working hypothesis, but we’ll keep an eye out for any real justification for his aspersion. I mean "justification" above and beyond his desire to merely poke at the program, the jet, or anything else.

The F-35 follies continue. 

This summer's on-again, off-again effort by British and American experts to display an F-35 at airshows at Fairford and Farnborough would have been laughable if it was not symptomatic of larger problems.

So now Dorr punctuates his first claim by broadening it: asserting in effect: ‘I say this was a BIG problem but there’s even BIGGER problems going on!’ Will he provide proper factual evidence and employ logical argumentation to back his accusations up.

It simply is no longer acceptable to make excuses for the F-35, as former British Defence Secretary Philip Hammond did. Hammond brushed off this summer's problems by arguing that the F-35 is 'still in its developmental stage'. Nor can the F-35’s problems be brushed under the rug with bombast, some of which accompanied US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's July 10 visit to Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.

No, he does more stick-poking. Perhaps Mr. Dorr will now also provide proper factual evidence and logical argumentation to support his assertion that Defence Secretary Philip Hammond’s truthful observation that the F-35 is “still in its developmental stage” is ‘brushing’ off the ‘problems’. Or perhaps he’ll expand on what he means about a “bombast” at Eglin? Okay Mr. Dorr. We get it. Dorr is, or is pretending to be, OUTRAGED! So then, will Dorr NOW provide some proper factual evidence and logical argumentation to justify his outrage? Or will he just keep ‘going’?

And least of all is it acceptable to shrug off F-35 woes with a platitude, as did Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, who told reporters , 'When you develop a system like this you're going to have hiccups.'

He. Kept. Going…
We should hold no hope of Dorr bothering to explain why he thinks that “when you develop a system like this you're going to have hiccups” is a “platitude”. He cannot truthfully name an advanced fighter aircraft that has been fielded in the last 50 years for which Hammond’s statement would not apply. (Nor could he do so for any endeavor where the descriptors ‘complex’ and ‘advanced technology’ can be rightfully employed.)
Feh, what the heck. We’ll probably just get more outrage without substance, but let’s ride along to the end…..

It's worse than that. If a dog were to bite you in the butt, that would not make headlines because journalism classes teach that 'dog bites man' isn't news. If you wanted to be the lead story on the BBC evening news, you would have to bite the dog. But there are no 'man bites dog' episodes in the F-35 story because all of it is all too familiar. We've now observed several generations of people who have bungled the F-35 program, lied about it and drawn their pensions, and they are not making news because there is absolutely nothing new in the twisted, terrible tale of the F-35: it's 'dog bites man '.

Aaaannnnd I was right. We got MORE unsupported ranting. This time it was a pointless ‘journalism’ cliché (AKA ‘dog bites man’) followed by….more aspersions: against people involved in the F-35 program. 
So then. Mr. Dorr. Tell us. Tell us who the people were in those “generations” of “bunglers” and ‘liars’? What were their ‘lies’? Why were they ‘lies’? How (through ‘mistaken error’ of course) might you be misrepresenting the true history? Make your freakin’ case…. IF you can.
Here we are, about one fourth of the way through Dorr’s ‘editorial’, before his complaints got to any specificity beyond ‘F-35 is bad!’ and he tells us… ‘somebody lied’? Will Dorr ever provide any information useful to the reader in assessing whether his assertions as being ‘true’, ‘false’, or heck--even ‘remotely plausible’? Or is he just going to keep spitting venom at us through the keyboard?

The F-35 costs too much. That's not news. By my math, a US Air Force squadron could operate five Eurofighter Typhoons - a fighter that impresses many US airmen - for the price of three F-35s. The latest figures are $184 million for a land-based F-35A and $208 million for the carrierborne F-35C… 

Ah! Finally! Something falsifiable.
Dorr’s math is getting a little better (as in closer to the truth than his previous ‘misses’), but he should keep his self-qualifier of having “dumb math” skills until he can gain some ‘smart math’ skills. I won’t guess what his cost number sources are for the Eurofighters, because it doesn’t matter. Per the latest Selective Acquisition Report, for F-35As bought this year and in 2014 “Then Year” Dollars, the F-35A ‘costs’ $181.3M ‘per copy’ ONLY if you include all the support and non-recurring costs. As I doubt the Eurofighter unit costs Mr. Dorr was working with contained the support and non-recurring costs, the idea you could buy more Eurofighters than F-35As is ludicrous. As the same SAR shows the Unit Recurrng Flyaway Costs at about 63% of the $181.3M, or $114.1M  in 2014 dollars for 2014 jets, and Eurofighter costs are not touted as 'low', I must conclude Dorr is playing as fast and loose with the 'present' as he seems to play with the 'past'. 
I'd do the definitive math if it was necessary, but again the SAR saves the day (pages 72 and 75) with the average unit costs of the F-35A (airframe and engine) equaling $77.7M in Base Year 2012 dollars over the life of the program. We will set aside the not so trivial point that a lot of the recurring costs that Dorr includes in his numbers are spent and in the past. this will avoid having to disabuse future commentary on the nuances of Sunk Cost and the Sunk Cost fallacy.

…Early in the program, the F-35 was touted as a low-cost alternative to the F-22 Raptor….

Hey! This is actually a truism….in the sense that it was ONE justification for the Joint Strike Fighter. But it was not the only one or even the primary one. It seems to be just a convenient way for Dorr to punch up the ‘cost’ message he’s trying to sell.
As to primary reasons for the F-35 instead of the F-22, why would anyone want to replace ALL the airplanes now performing a range of missions with a definite ‘strike’ emphasis with an F-22? Answer: they wouldn’t. In the spectrum of multi-role capabilities, the F-22 of course is clearly optimized more to fulfill the Air Dominance role than the Strike role, The Joint STRIKE Fighter is obviously optimized somewhat farther towards the Air-to-Mud end of the scale. So ‘cost’ of the TOTAL force capabilities was but one reason. Did it get overtaken by events? Dorr evidently assumes so:

….But the cost of rolling a single article out of the assembly plant door, to say nothing of lifetime operating expenses, has risen relentlessly until last year when it began to level off…

Dorr is mixing cost elements and cost impacts and presenting them as meaningful (to him --I guess), when without ‘context’ (the C in PACE) they are not meaningful. Actual unit production costs were increasing for delivered Low Rate Initial Production aircraft for a variety of reasons, not the least of which (and likely the ‘most of which’) were reduced size lot buys and in turn, lower production ramp-up rates and breaks in the learning curve. Blame Congress for stretching out the low-rate production effort all under the banner of avoiding modification costs by reducing production rates in fear of that bogeyman: ‘concurrency’.
This is but one of the unaccounted-for cost impacts of the ‘concurrency’ reduction scam being played out in the current budget environment. Dorr’s mention of the “lifetime operating expenses” fails to recognize that those expenses aren’t actual dollars…yet. They are only ‘estimates’, and the quality of the estimates have been horrendous. But the estimates are starting to get better. Therefore the estimate costs are also coming down. If Dorr and his fellow rant-boys were ever forced to acknowledge the fine print in the Selected Acquisition Reports, they would be doing their readers a service.
First, their readers would learn on Page 95 of the 2013 F-35 SAR that:

For the first time, in 2013, the CAPE O&S cost estimate incorporates actual information on component reliabilities obtained from the ongoing F-35 flight operations, including flight test and field operations. This program information is provided from the DoD test community, through the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation, and includes actual reliability information on many F-35 components based on data collected during approximately 8,500 hours of flight operations. 

The data include the F-35A and F-35B variants, and flight operations through October 2013. The reliability information has been compared to expected reliabilities for this stage of the program, for the A and B variants, based on reliability growth curves. The 2013 CAPE O&S estimate includes an increase of $15 billion (BY12 $) in DLR costs, relative to the 2012 Milestone B estimate, because component reliability information obtained from actual flight operations data is not consistent with expectations.

While this approach is generally to be commended, to attach any great value to the lifetime costs generated by these estimates this early in the fleet’s flight history is specious. “Approximately 8,500 fleet flight hours” is only about 4 ½% of the 200,000 fleet flight hours for all variants that has been identified as flight hour mark when the expected, designed, and required operational reliability is to be achieved and measured. To attach definitive meaning to reliability numbers at this time is statistical malpractice. To assert associated costs associated to those reliability numbers are worthy of consideration at this time is ludicrous.
The good news, also from Page 95 of the 2013 F-35 SAR, is:

CAPE will continue to work with the DoD operational test community to improve the processes and methods used to incorporate actual data and information on component reliabilities and removal rates, obtained from ongoing flight operations, into the CAPE life-cycle O&S cost estimate for the F-35 program. This information will be used, together with reliability improvement forecasts, to update the life cycle O&S cost estimates as the program proceeds to and beyond IOC.

So perhaps eventually, the support cost numbers will become meaningful. May we expect that the Bob Dorrs of this world will acknowledge this phenomenon when it emerges? Especially if the story ends with greatly reduced estimates? Or should we expect them to use any changes as factoids in order to continue their weaving of fabulous stories, perhaps promoting a repeat of past ‘conspiracy’ and ‘coverup’ memes in the face of positive developments?
Dorr closes out this paragraph with:

…Too many dollars have been poured into an aircraft that isn't worth this many greenbacks and no-one is being held to account….

This is just another unsupported allegation, whereby this time Dorr wrongly presumes he is qualified to make such a judgment for his readers. It is thrown out in the vein of a false ‘everybody knows’ argument. I note here, that this is the closest Dorr gets to discussing the concept of ‘value’ in regards to the F-35’s cost and performance, by simply declaring it isn’t worth the effort. Yet ‘buyers’ apparently do think the F-35 is worth the effort. Should it have occurred to Dorr that perhaps the ‘Customer’ actually does know what’s best for them?
Dorr flows into the next paragraph with a series of statements full of pointless indignation and storytelling. This time however, instead of avoiding providing a ‘context’ for his claims, he attempts to overlay a perversion of history: a fable to create a FALSE context for his readers to absorb:

The F-35 is behind schedule. That's not news. Never before in a defense program have so many examples been airworthy (102 , presumably minus the fire victim) without even one being ready to perform a mission. (In 1942, the first Bell XP-59A Airacomet was configured and equipped for combat on the day of its first flight.) Schedules have been re-written again and again as dates for delivery, the start of training, clearance for night and all-weather operation, and initial operating capability have moved to the right on the calendar. Remember that this summer, officials were not debating whether any F-35 is combat-ready because none is. They were debating whether a few airframes could find their way across the Atlantic to attend a couple of airshows. Too many delays have become embedded in the F-35 saga and no-one is being held to account.

First, even if it were ‘true’, the relevance of decrying that 102 F-35s were airworthy without “even one being ready to perform a mission” would be a ‘red herring’ argument employing misleading vividness: an over the top yet irrelevant argument against the worth or status of the F-35’s performance or program.

It is, however, hyperbolic nonsense on its own: a gross exaggeration. It extrapolates the fact that the F-35 has not yet been ‘cleared’ to do certain things nor been declared operational’ into the mistaken (or malicious) assertion that none of the F-35s could go out tomorrow and actually “perform a mission”. Dorr conveniently leaps past the fact that the administratively prohibited does not preclude the physically possible, and that a full capability yet to be reached does not preclude some capability already being extant in the current fleet. F-35’s are flying and launching weapons that are hitting their intended targets. If it were today’s wartime equivalent of 1942, when the XP-59 emerged, would there be any doubt that the F-35 would be pushed into combat and matured along the way? NO. Because the capability to deploy with reduced capability exists today with existing aircraft and software that exist today.
So as it turns out, the XP-59A analogy is a one of monumental overstatement and epic irrelevance. That is, it would be IF it were actually true. First let us observe that what it took to get a ‘first article’ to first flight in 1942 has little relationship to what it takes to field a modern weapon system, even ignoring the wartime urgency of the jet programs during WW2.
As to whether or not the XP-59A was truly “configured and equipped for combat” on the day of its first flight? Dorr is not even close to being right. Ever see any pictures or videos of the first XP-59A before or after it was modified to carry an open air ‘observer’ ahead of the pilot?

See any guns? 


Even Wikipedia knows guns were installed first in the later YP-59As. Unless Dorr can convincingly argue the XP-59’s ‘day one’ combat capability involved ramming relatively slow airplanes from behind, he is selling snake oil.
To drive home the point that even IF the XP-59A had been armed, it would not have been combat capable, consider how the later YP-59s versions were stomped by P-47s and P-38s in an air combat evaluation trial two years later (Wooldridge, pp13-15). The XP-59A would have been cannon-fodder in 1942. One would then have to ask what would have been the point to claim it was ‘combat ready’ when one knew it was also most likely ‘combat toast’? As the history played out, the limited run of P-59s were deemed unsuitable for combat (Wooldridge) and were relegated to the important, but far less challenging role of America’s first jet trainers.
Dorr now launches into a fairly standard litany of the anti-JSF crowd’s pet ‘stories’: 

The F-35 doesn't work. That's not news. The stealth coating is finicky and requires ground crews to perform labor-intensive maintenance with toxic materials. 

Doesn’t ‘work’? He needs to define what he means by ‘work’. Does he mean it isn’t finished with its development or that it can't or won’t work when its development is done? Next he needs to identify in what ways the F-35 doesn’t ‘work’. If it doesn’t work in some way now, why is that a problem now, before development is complete? Specify. Specify. Specify. Dorr never does.
Evidence of the “stealth coating” being “finicky”? We see none. In fact we’ve seen quite the opposite.
As to “toxic materials”, would that be significantly more toxic than most high quality paint used on high-performance aircraft? Too toxic to use safely? Hardly. Is Dorr trying to get Greenpeace in on his side? Even if the F-35 coatings are like other aircraft coatings, Dorr obviously isn’t aware of what the F-35 program is now working on to bring to fruition, and how structural fiber mat is already used to reduce the LO coating stack-up now.

Also, wouldn’t total environmental impact be more important than just focusing on coatings? Does Dorr give the F-35 any credit for being the 'greenest’ jet possible?
 
What next Mr. Dorr?

The helmet-mounted cueing system has been pronounced cured of its teething troubles not once but twice, and pilots say they still get vibration in certain flight regimes.

The helmet mounted display system is a man-machine interface far more complex than anything that I can remember, made more complex by the fact it has to work over a wide range of light and acoustic environments. This is a capability that is an advanced development of what has been pursued since at least the F-15 program’s early days. Did Dorr expect one of the most advanced features in the F-35 to be ‘easy’? Does he realize everything will “get vibration in certain flight regimes”? 
 The real question is: Is there a problem when and where it does happen? The program says ‘not really’ and Dorr offers no counter. He apparently assumes the worst and expects his readers to take his word for it at face value. I note here that the Gen 3 helmet (the ‘twice’ in Dorr’s ‘fixed twice’) development, in the normal course of its development, is just now being introduced. Dorr therefore can’t provide any answers –only old complaints about old problems. 
Personally, I think there will be more tweaks to the helmet simply because it involves ‘pilots’ and ‘vision’ and relearning how to operate and best use the new capability. Note my statement is as an opinion versus absolute fact: something one would have thought Dorr would have learned how to do a long time ago.

The cannon is not yet cleared for operation and may need to be replaced.

Having a cannon ’cleared for operation’ has everything to do with integrating weapons to a schedule and sequence, and even after anything is 'final' as in 'baseline' it ‘may be replaced’. We know having a gun can be important, if only to keep someone from maneuvering inside your other weapon minimums, but that is about it (Read the “Red Baron” report on the early Air War in SEA). We don’t know how important the gun’s performance will be in the overall scheme of things for the F-35’s overall weapon system effectiveness. 
Dorr’s point here is pretty pointless. IMHO, using a gun to strafe ground targets is a technique with diminishing returns as the battlefield threat situation evolves and increases over time. For that purpose, I think the gun will soon seem to only be there as a ‘just in case’ weapon.

The carrier-based F-35C may or may not have a working tailhook, after years of trial and error.

Pretty condescending dismissal of the C model development, but of course Dorr is wrong again.  
A. It is not trial and error. It is Find–Fix–Fly. A little thing we do within another thing we call ‘development’.
B. Dorr must not have been at Tailhook ’13 where it came out the Navy Customer gave the contractor a faulty wire model the first time around. The contractor needed a good one to develop a viable arresting system design in the first place. Does Dorr assert that is a problem with the F-35 Program or plane instead?
C. Dorr of course also ignores the successes the F-35C has had in catching the wire on land as the graduation to pending sea trials. He also ‘appears’ unaware that there should be further tweaks until development is complete.

The short take-off/vertical landing F-35B emits too much downward jet blast for routine operation aboard assault ships.

Dorr is alluding to changes being made to SOME ships in order to ensure the F-35Bs CAN operate routinely from their decks. BTW: It’s not actually ‘blast’ (‘X’ air mass at a ‘Y’ velocity) per se, so much as it is localized heat with the ‘blast’. My NAVAIR friends find this unremarkable: All new aircraft generate new ship requirements when they are first brought into the fleet.
Hint: The ships are there for the airplanes and the airplanes are the ships’ weapon systems-- not vice versa. Requirements writers make the planes as complementary to carrier designs as they can within the design trade space and change/modify the ship’s design no more than neccessary. Again…so what?

The Pentagon and industry conspired to continue building an aircraft that doesn’t function and no-one is being held to account.

Oooooh! Dorr thinks he can now claim a ‘conspiracy’ is afoot because he’s managed to ‘harrumph’ and ‘humbug’ his way through two thirds of a lame editorial? ‘Doesn’t function’? Get back to us when the F-35 is fielded in baseline Block 3F configuration, or even if it doesn’t look like it WILL get to block 3F. Until then, and again, so what?

What’s left for Dorr to rant about? Oh…apparently LOTS of things.He does go on....

The F-35 has 'an issue with the engine'. That's not news. It dates back to at least 2006, maybe earlier. Decades in development, the F-35 has a long history of problems with its Pratt & Whitney F135 turbofan engine that resulted in two groundings in recent years. Now, investigators are eyeing a further engine problem that occurred in the June 23 engine fire at Eglin on take-off and inflicted major damage to an F-35A (serial 10-5015, c/n AF-27). The pilot successfully shut down the aircraft and escaped unharmed. Even Lorraine Martin, Lockheed Martin's anointed apologist for the F-35, acknowledges that the fire is linked to 'an issue with the engine'. Years ago, for purely political reasons, the Pentagon nixed plans for an alternate engine, the more advanced and innovative General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136. Planning and installation of propulsion for the F-35 has been badly mismanaged and no-one is being held to account.

If Dorr was half the aviation writer he pretends to be, he’d have to acknowledge the F135’s development has been rather pedestrian all things considered and as compared with others in the long history of jet engine development. If this stuff was easy, everybody would be building them in their back yard. The only difference between the F135 engine and prior generations of effort is that the predecessors didn’t have a microscope and video cameras on them while they tried to do the little things that people who produce advanced technology call ‘development’.

Even the ‘groundings’ have been fairly few, usually precautionary, and short in comparison to a lot of others. I’d say that’s not too bad, considering the program is developing the biggest most powerful jet fighter turbofan ever, with the most raucous peanut gallery booing them ever. I would also assert these kinds of things occur far more often with mature, fielded jet engine technology than Dorr would be willing to let on, if he knew about them that is. Even civilian jet airliner engines have safety restrictions, stand downs for inspections, etc. from time to time. Example? 
How about the CFM56? One of the most widely used and successful engines in the world. Just the ‘active’ Airworthiness Directives open on the CFM56s can be found here. Continuous safety concern and monitoring is a fact of life, and Dorr should appreciate the value in that concern and monitoring.
If Dorr had also paid closer attention before the F136 engine was cancelled,  he would have also known that ‘Cost’ was the driver that overrode the ‘Risk’ of going to a single engine type. If he knew but still insisted on typing what he did….well, draw your own conclusions.
And of course, there simply had to be SOME politics in play at time. It was a Congressional topic of interest wasn’t it? 
From Dorr’s wilda** claim about a “more advanced and innovative General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136” I’d say politics (or marketing) was STILL in play. The F136 had the same kinds of difficulties the F135 had at a similar stage of development, but was rightfully considered immature compared to the F135 at the time of cancellation. In the spring of 2010, the F136 was only 700 hours into a 10,000 hour test program and had not been flight tested. No one knows what problems it would have encountered had it been fully developed. But in its cancellation, the F136 has become the mythical 'success-that-could-have-been-but-never-was' to the proverbial ‘some’ in the backbenches.

Dorr Goes 'All In'

Now, no matter how outrageous you might have found Dorr’s rant so far, in closing he’s about to go all ‘fundamentalist preacher’ on us. He’s casting his gaze beyond the F-35 program to identify what he apparently sees as the font of all defense acquisition ills. (Say Halleluiah!).

The F-35 is now the biggest, costliest aircraft program in history, yet its vicissitudes are only an emblem for a larger issue. In this capital on my side of the Atlantic, from the Air Staff (in the Pentagon Building) to K Street (where lobbyists hang their hats), the feeling is growing that the entire system for acquisition of military equipment has broken down
One former Pentagon analyst said, 'Industry now produces overpriced junk for our men and women in uniform and' - guess what? - 'no-one is being held to account'….

Ahhhh. The ubiquitous unnamed ‘former Pentagon analyst ‘. Was it Chuck Spinney or Pierre Sprey? Or was it someone else in the Faux-Reform Old Guard? Whoever it was, why not name them—unless the name itself would open the statement to doubt and dismissal? I’m looking for the source of this quote, but have been unable to find it so far. I’ll keep it in mind for a later revisit. Oh, and 'So What?

Critics often quote a January 17, 1961 speech by Dwight D. Eisenhower in which the 34th US President - one of history's great military commanders - warned of the dangers of a 'military industrial complex'. 'Ike' had intended to sound the alarm about a 'Congressional military industrial complex' but, in a rare lapse of judgment, deleted the first word before delivering the speech.

Here Dorr begins an argumentative ‘run home to Mama’ in the form of the mythical Military-Industrial Complex, but he once again creates a false context, an overreach, by simply getting the history ‘wrong’. 
IMHO the major problem with ‘Pop Historians’ like Dorr (or worse, as professional post-modern revisionist historians do) is that they tend to glom on to anything that supports their narrative and nothing that doesn’t. By doing so, they tend to propagate lies, half-truths, and rumors along with only carefully selected facts. Here Dorr promotes the discredited story that there was a draft of Eisenhower’s farewell speech with the word ‘Congressional’ linked to the MI terminology. As James Ledbetter has clearly observed and cogently summarized, there is no real evidence such a draft EVER existed. 
Again, even Wikipedia gets this one right, so one has to wonder how much of a ‘Pop Historian’ Dorr really is if he goes 0-2 up against Wikipedia within the confines one little ol' editorial.

But as they say on TV 'wait! there's more!'... 

Not even Eisenhower could have foreseen a Washington that could spend billions without successfully building a Littoral Combat Ship, an Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, or a Joint Strike Fighter. Just to cite one example, look at the way industry has suborned the Connecticut congressional delegation: the engine issue for the F-35 is small stuff compared to a single helicopter manufacturer's iron grip, without bidding or competing, on the next presidential helicopter and the US Air Force's combat rescue helicopter. There was no competition for any of these items because competition cuts costs and brings innovation, and no-one in Washington wants that - but that isn't news, either.

Wow. 
Dorr whipped up a real grab bag of misdirection and obfuscation. He rehashes the unsupported claim that the F-35 is ‘unsuccessful’ and expands the claim against the LCS (a still-ongoing Navy experiment with new strategies and new technical solutions) and the EFV (a cost vs. capability conundrum if there was one and still being sorted out). He then claims somebody (Pratt and Whitney I presume) has ‘suborned’ the Congresscritters of Connecticut without evidence, nor any mention of the activities of Congressional counterparts who pushed for the F136 (selective outrage much?). 
At least Dorr goes off the Peacenick-Leftist ‘Reformer’ reservation on this one. Perhaps he failed to get the memo that cancelling the F136 was a good thing?
 
Someone should also inform Mr. Dorr that competition takes many forms, as in the two LCS types with different technical approaches, winnowed down from many COMPETING solutions to compete for larger (and at one time possibly exclusive) future buys. He is also apparently unaware that sometimes competition isn’t advisable or possible (as when only one manufacturer bids on a small program like the Presidential helicopter program), or there isn’t enough money in the pot for developing a viable new alternative to an established helicopter design in meeting an existing mission shortfall (such as the AF Combat Rescue helicopter which was also stymied by requirements changes).
 
Dorr Drones On

If the world made sense, someone would pull the plug on the F-35 follies, squadrons waiting for a new fighter would receive other types instead, and bigwigs would be castigated, if not thrown into prison. But that's not news because – guess what? - no-one is being held to account.

No Mr. Dorr...
If the world made sense, people would stick to concerning themselves with things they actually know and understand, retire before they can no longer grasp the concepts needed to understand the world as it moves beyond their ken. In such a world, those that still insisted on making popping sounds about that which they know not, or have accused others of malfeasance without viable proof would be pointed at and continuously mocked into the oblivion they deserve. But that’s not happening because – guess what? – people who possess inconsequential knowledge constantly attempt to apply their inconsequential knowledge to consequential things to ill effect in this world and yet, are NEVER held to account.

Print Ref: The P-80 Shooting Star: Evolution of a Jet Fighter; E.T. Wooldridge; Smithsonian Institution Press; Washington DC; 1979

Update 1 November:

Recent comments in this post's thread have lead me to drop the veil a little on a post I've been working on for some time. It won't be a particularly long post, in fact it will be short compared to most that have taken this much time to prepare in the past. It is just this one requires more careful attention to the level of detail and scope to be covered, The working title of the upcoming post is

The draft of the opening paragraph of the post now reads:

How Faux Military Reform Machine works: Past and Present

This post is mostly for the folks who aren't old enough (or weren't paying attention), to have caught the 'Military Reform' crowd's act the first time the circus came to town. There's nothing really different about their 'message' this time ("complexity bad!", "costs too high!") but the machine itself has been retooled over the years in reaction to political, technical, and societal developments. To understand how the machine got to the way it is wired up now, we'll first discuss how the machine was kluged together in the first place. I won't go into great lists of who the players and the played 'were', or even 'are' . If it comes up at all it will be in context of the how the shaping of the machine itself was affected.

FYI: 
Mr Dorr will be shown to a "Loyal Babbler".  

Loyal Babblers play a major role

 in the Faux Military Reform Machine.

Strange Silence on GAO F-35 June 2012 ‘Report’

F-35A USAF Photo

There’s evidence the report is either a blatant political hack job or there are absolutely NO experts on Reliability at the GAO. Take your pick – either reason is equally damning.

Has anyone else noticed the comparative ‘silence’ over the last F-35 GAO report compared to the previous releases? Other than the rather strange and rambling “F-35 by the Numbers” at DoD Buzz and the usual unattributed fear-mongering about “Costs!” at AOLPOGO Defense , this time around there hasn’t been much caterwauling coming out from under the usual rocks. My first thought was perhaps the POGO et al crowd was winding up to deliver another integrated PR attack against the program across a broad far-left front.

I decided to take the time to actually read the report itself in hopes of perhaps getting a preview of the latest Doomsayer topic du jour. Imagine my surprise when I found……not much: no blockbuster surprises, and surprisingly little hard information. There’s no ‘there’ there. It is “Same Sh*t. Different Day” in GAO-land.

There is a lot of unmitigated puffery and bull-hooey in this latest edition from the GAO. A good portion of it hinges on understanding the little ‘something’ within (as well as the missing associated bits) the report that strikes this experienced eye as more than a trifle ‘odd’. It is bizarre to the point it raises my suspicions that the F-35 program may either progressing better than ‘some’ would have us believe, or at least NOT doing as poorly as those same ‘some’ WISH we would believe.

If the GAO’s failings in this report are due to incompetence and inexperience, as is always my first instinct, I think that speaks of an even more unfortunate situation. We can overcome intrigue with the light from facts, figures and reason. But institutionalized incompetence? That can be a much tougher nut to crack. It was the part of the report that I found dubious. Quite frankly, it makes me wonder what it is doing in this report at all, unless its entire purpose is to prop up the rest of the report:

According to program office data, the CTOL and STOVL variants are behind expected reliability growth plans at this point in the program. Figure 9 depicts progress of each variant in demonstrating mean flying hours between failures as reported by the program office in October 2011 and compares them to 2010 rates, the expectation at this point in time, and the ultimate goal at maturity.  

As of October 2011, reliability growth plans called for the STOVL to have achieved at least 2.2 flying hours between failures and the CTOL at least 3.7 hours by this point in the program. The STOVL is significantly behind plans, achieving about 0.5 hours between failures, or less than 25 percent of the plan. CTOL variant has demonstrated 2.6 hours between failures, about 70 percent of the rate expected at this point in time. The carrier variant is slightly ahead of its plan; however, it has flown many fewer flights and hours than the other variants.

JSF officials said that reliability rates are tracking below expectations primarily because identified fixes to correct deficiencies are not being implemented and tested in a timely manner. Officials also said the growth rate is difficult to track and to confidently project expected performance at maturity because of insufficient data from the relatively small number of flight hours flown. Based on the initial low reliability demonstrated thus far, the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation reported that the JSF has a significant challenge ahead to provide sufficient reliability growth to meet the operational requirement. 

The explicit characterization “the CTOL and STOVL variants are behind expected reliability growth plans at this point in the program” can only spring from willful distortion and misrepresentation of the facts in hand OR -- more likely-- from a pack of feral accountants and auditors nobly working around a gaping chasm in their own consequential knowledge as to how aircraft reliability programs actually ‘work’. Only someone who had no idea of the true relevance of the data they had in their unprepared little hands would make such a statement. In demonstrating how aircraft reliability programs proceed, measurements are made, and performance is evaluated and graded, we will reveal the ludicrous, unintentional and laughable silliness of the GAO report excerpt above. That there apparently was no one in the Program Office that could have disabused them of this ignorance is even more disconcerting. 

For future reference then, I offer an introductory tutorial on how aircraft 'reliability' programs work, I’ll focus mostly on the F-35A numbers, but what is true for the F-35A is even truer for the F-35B and C as they have even fewer flight hours.

Aircraft Reliability Isn’t Graded in the Cradle

 Let’s begin by noting that by the end of October 2011, the timeframe given above, only approximately 2000 total flight hours had beenflown by all three F-35 variants. Given the F-35A had been flying more and in larger numbers than the other variants through to that timeframe, we can safely assume the F-35A flight hours make up at least half of the 2000 hour total (~1000-1200 hours?). The failure rates shown for the CTOL version include those flown by AA-1, the de facto F-35 prototype which was markedly different from later aircraft (and is now retired from flight and undergoing live fire testing). Given that the typical operating hours accumulated before aircraft type designs are considered ‘mature’ enough to evaluate and grade system reliability is 100,000 fleet flight hours (RAND TR-763Summary, Pg xiii), just mentioning an F-35A reliability metric at the ~1% mark is pointless. Assigning any meaning to the same value and framing a narrative around it demonstrates profound stupidity and/or a hostile agenda.
As there are three major variants of the F-35, and the chart above shows values for all three variants, I would assume there was cause for the program to take some composite approach to benchmarking the F-35, whereby a value lower than 100,000 hours for each variant may have been selected due to commonality and overlap between systems (100000 hours for each variant, while more statistically pure for benchmarking performance would have probably seemed as overgenerous and overkill to non-R&Mers… especially ‘bean counters’). Unless the program is supremely confident in the parts of the F-35 that are unique to each variant, they should keep the 100,000 hour benchmark at least for those unique variant aspects, but given the complexity of tracking partial and full system reliability, I doubt any program would view such an approach to reliability as workable. This means that when they get to a point late in the maturation process, that if the unique systems and features of the variants aren’t measured against a 100,000 hours benchmark, they had better be ‘ahead of the curve’ for what normally would be expected in their reliability performance.

How Programs Track Reliability Growth

One may ask: How programs achieve target reliability benchmarks in their maturity if they aren’t being ‘graded’ on their progress as they go forward? The answer is they ARE evaluated; it is just that they are evaluated in terms of trends for discovering and eliminating root causes, as well as in relation to other metrics to arrive at what the performance ‘means’ as part of the process of achieving required system reliability . Depending upon how far along the program is in maturing the system; the reliability performance at the time will mean different things and require different corrective or reinforcing actions. To illustrate what is evaluated, how a system is ‘matured’, and why it is impossible for a system to be ‘mature’ when it is first fielded, it is helpful to employ a typical reliability chart format with notional data for further reference and discussion. The following chart plots out a hypothetical weapon system’s Mean Time Between Critical Failure (MTBCF) performance, as I suspect the GAO report incorrectly refers to as ‘Mean Time Between Failure’, though all the observations we are about to make concerning same are true in either case. ‘Conveniently’ for our purposes, the hypothetical weapon system in this chart has the identical 2.60 hours MTBCF at 2000 hours, with the ultimate goal of 6 Hours MTBCF at 100000 flight hours, the same as noted in the GAO report for the F-35A.

Notional MTBCF Plot: Copyright 2012 Elements of Power

The reader should immediately note that the chart above is plotted in a ‘Log-Log’ format: both chart axes are plotted using a logarithmic scale. This has the effect of allowing the clear display of early values, where wider variations in data are to be expected and of showing trends (and deviations from same) more accurately. As more statistically relevant data is accumulated, on through to where the system maturity point is selected for determination as to whether or not the system meets the reliability requirement, the deviation from the mean value should lessen (more about that later). The reader should also observe that there are three values logged after the notional 2.60 ‘measurement’.

These values illustrate that the ‘current’ value evaluated at any point in time is usually a few measurements behind the latest measurements because the latest values will have to be “adjudicated” to ensure they are error free. Adjudication can be a daunting, time-consuming process (voice of experience) that often requires iterative communications between the Reliability and Maintainability group and units in the field before the data is purged of errors.

Some actual examples come to mind that illustrate how errors are introduced. On one of my past programs, there was an episode where there appeared to be a sudden increase in failures and subsequent removal and replacement of a cockpit component. It was only through careful review and correlation of several months’ worth of event data that impossible crew sizes (you can’t get 20+ people in a cockpit at one time) were revealed, which led to R&M eventually finding out that the maintainer organizations were running a series of training events and incorrectly logging them against the aircraft.

The adjudication process itself may also contribute to the eventual improvement of the weapon system’s reliability score. One category of maintenance logged against an aircraft is ‘For Other Maintenance’ (FOM). “Once upon a time” a certain weapon system was showing excessive low observable “Red X” events which flagged a certain area of the plane as experiencing frequent Low Observable outer-mold line (surface) failures (this also generated an inordinate amount of aircraft ‘downtime’ affecting another metric). Through inaccurate logging of the ‘How Malfunctioned’ (How Mal) code, the data masked the fact that the LO maintenance was driven by the need to restore the surface treatments to complete the removal and replacement (R&R) of a component located behind the surface that required restoration. This incorrect data not only pointed the program R&M efforts in a wrong direction, it helped mask the impact, and delayed the ‘fixing’, of what was considered prior to this discovery to be a low priority “nuisance” software glitch. Priority was then given to fixing the ‘glitch’ and along with a change to tech data, a maintenance and reliability ‘high-driver’ was completely eliminated.

The values shown at individual points on the chart above are not the cumulative value from current and all previous data points. They represent a value arrived at from a regression analysis of the last 3-6 data points (usually taken monthly) and the latest snapshot trends are used for further evaluation in conjunction with other performance data to determine true progress and problem trends. I’ve placed markers at various flight hour totals to illustrate points where the possible half-way and full reliability flight hour measurement periods might be for our hypothetical program to illustrate just how far away 1000-1200 flight hours are from any likely MTBCF ‘grading’ point. 

Dominant Factors When Experience is Low

‘Failures’ logged and tracked fall into three broad categories: Inherent or Design-Driven, Induced, or No Fault Found/Cannot Duplicate (NFF/CND) aka ‘false alarm’. When the flight hours of a new weapon system are few, the data tends to be more representative of operator and program learning curves than actual aircraft reliability, to the point that ‘No Fault Found’ and ‘Induced’ often represent one half to two-thirds of the total ‘failures’ so it is entirely within the realm of the possible that this is true at this time for the F-35. If the F-35 failure rate was driven by design problems we would expect to also see the GAO warning of undesirable ‘mission readiness rates’, ‘maintenance man-hours per flying hours’ or other negative performance measures. Without these kinds of details, any standalone MTBCF number is meaningless. Given there is no mention in the (GAO) report what we would expect to see if the F-35’s ‘failures’ to-date were dominated by design problems, I suspect the design reliability might be seen as ‘pretty good’ at this point in time by the R&Mers (Program Managers will always want ‘more’-and ‘sooner’-- so one will ever claim ‘good enough’ until all the reliability measurement hours are adjudicated).

US Navy Photo

STOVL Sidebar

The GAO report notes the STOVL ‘reliability’ figure as being even farther below the ‘expected’ value. As the first production F-35Bs were delivered in January of 2012 after the period ‘graded’, and the total hours flown must be far less than even the ‘A’ model’s paltry ~1000-1200 flight hours, the GAO even showing the numbers, much asserting that the “STOVL is significantly behind plans” is pitiable ignorant, but still useful for two reasons I’m certain the GAO didn’t intend.
First, the GAO’s statements clearly tie the numbers presented to a ‘plan’, Whether this ‘plan’ they refer to is the calendar schedule (which I suspect is true) or they are referring to planned flight hours through October 2011, both are inappropriate to use for MTB(C)F. The ACTUAL hours are what are relevant to the metric, and we’ve already covered how limited experience means less meaningful data.
Second, the STOVL observations help highlight something I’ve dealt with previously in managing small fleet performance improvements: something I call “The Tyranny of Small Numbers”. The very limited number of aircraft evaluated means that even a single ‘early’ failure event for one aircraft carries larger penalties than for a larger fleet. May we expect many more years of ‘behind plan’ reports from the GAO as a result of the ‘concurrency’ bogeyman used as an excuse to stretch the program?
At the end of the period covered in the GAO report was when the B models were getting some pretty important part number rollovers implemented.  Besides also highlighting the fact GAO is always way behind in reporting compared to the current status and thus always out of date, perhaps this was the source of the “because identified fixes to correct deficiencies are not being implemented and tested in a timely manner” cheap shot in the GAO report? (More about that below.) 

How Programs Manage Reliability Growth to Maturity

In viewing the chart above, the reader will see three dashed lines. The ‘red line’ is established at a level where the program sets a value where the program has decided any time the metric moves below the red line will trigger extra attention as to determining root causes, evaluating corrective actions in work and/or possibly decide additional actions are warranted. The ‘blue line’ represents the level of desired or expected reliability performance at every point along the timeline. As the program proceeds the values recorded should cluster progressively tighter at or above the blue line. Both the red and the blue line may be straight lines as shown, or curved. They may also incorporate ‘steps’ to reflect intermediate thresholds that the program office is expecting to meet. If the system performance moves much above the ‘green line’ representing the weapon system’s specified reliability requirement, believe it or not the program may review the weapon system to eliminate the ‘extra’ reliability if the extra reliability is achieved by incurring associated higher costs. 

Value and Tradeoffs

It must be remembered that every performance specification requirement is arrived at during the requirements process by making tradeoffs between performance values and the costs to achieve those values to meet mission requirements. If any single performance metric, such as MTBCF fails to achieve the specified levels, the real impact of same is not understood by just looking at the metric as a standalone. MTBCF is one of the more interesting metrics in that once the MTBCF rises above the expected (and designed) sortie length, the relevance of the metric begins shifting more towards its implications for and impacts to other metrics. By way of example, if our hypothetical program achieves 5.9 hours MTBCF, the probability of successfully completing the mission is reduced by an insignificant amount compared to the specified 6.0 hours. If the Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) is but a fraction of the allowable time and/or the Maintenance Man-Hours Per Flying Hour (MMH/FH) is lower than the maximum allowable, the program office would have to determine the value (cost vs. benefit) of pursuing that last 6 minutes between failures before deciding to ‘go after it’. By ‘value’ I mean if such metrics as the MTTR and MMH/FH are better than the predicted and required levels, the program will have to examine the impact of the increased material costs (if any) from that 6 minute 'shortfall' over the life of the program in balance against all the other factors.  
Since the GAO report fails to highlight the existence of poor MMH/FH and MTTR numbers, AND we know from the program announcements that flight test operations are ahead of current schedule for flights and test points, we can be almost certain that the internals of the performance data shine a better light on the program performance than the GAO is attempting to cast.
 
Of course even if all the data were known, this doesn’t mean a hypothetical POGO-like organization or sympathetic ‘news’ outlet wouldn’t, in their manifest ignorance and/or pursuit of a non-defense agenda, still bleat false claims of ‘cheating’ on the requirements. (Remember what I said earlier about institutionalized ignorance?).

Early in any program, there may be at any one time, one particular subsystem or component, or even false or induced failures that are standout ‘problems’ (Note: these days it is usually because systems do so well overall. Want to talk REAL maintenance burden? Pick something fielded before the 80s). In such instances the program may maintain and report two or more reliability number sets and plots showing trends for the overall system and the impacts of the offending parts or induced failure events on the overall performance as part of developing a corrective action. These contingencies very often need no more attention other than monitoring and are eventually cleared up through carrying out previously planned part number ‘rollovers’, completing the training of personnel, or updating technical data. The point again, is: mere snapshots of reliability performance without knowing trends and the ‘internals’ of the data are useless.  
The GAO comment above stating “JSF officials said that reliability rates are tracking below expectations primarily because identified fixes to correct deficiencies are not being implemented and tested in a timely manner” is “priceless”--for two reasons. First, given that early MTBCF data is tenuous at best, this may again highlight GAO (and possibly F-35 Program) naiveté on the subject. Reacting prematurely with very little data to implement fixes to things that may not be a problem is a recipe for wasting money. Second, if the ‘fixes’ haven’t been implemented ‘yet’ it is probably due to the F-35 Program Office priorities in having them implemented: planes fielded to-date are needed for other program requirements and this would prevent ‘instant’ fixes.

I seriously doubt the Program Office can’t get the contractor to do anything that it wants them to do given the budgets allocated and number of aircraft available. My experience tells me otherwise. If the GAO citation is correct, then shame on the Program Office for foisting the blame on the contractor.
Competent evaluation of program performance and sober observations resulting from such observations hardly drive web traffic, bring donors, or sell periodicals these days. (Just sayin') So while there are seeds above for quite a few questions that a curious ‘reformer’ or journalist (if either  even exist) might use these seeds to ask the GAO some pretty hard questions if they were interested in understanding and reporting what might be really going on within the F-35 program. 

Given the record of many of those so-called ‘reformers’, commercial websites and periodicals, we probably shouldn’t expect any sober observations. Given their demonstrated willful ignorance on the topic to-date, whether or not we could believe the answers reported is another question in itself.  

F-35A, USAF Photo

Personal Note: My apologies for not posting more lately, but my personal priorities place family needs and work ahead of play, and the need for attending to my family and work have been fairly high the last week or so, and I anticipate the situation to persist for at least a month.