tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-218949082024-03-07T22:29:40.393-06:00Elements Of PowerCommentary and discussion on world events from the perspective that all goings-on can be related to one of the six elements of National Power: Military, Economic, Cultural, Demographic, Organizational, & Geographical. All Elements are interrelated and rarely can one be discussed without also discussing its impact on the othersSMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.comBlogger676125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-71582114462503335922018-03-18T11:21:00.000-05:002018-03-18T11:21:10.427-05:00Again With the Space Force? aka: Dorky-Pants Solution RevisitedA shout out to all the politicos who've given enough thought about a particular unfortunate set of circumstances but not a fraction more than passing thought as to the <strong><a href="http://dilbert.com/strip/1994-07-18" target="_blank">dorky-pants solutions</a></strong> they are trying to float to make things better: A "Space Force" or "Space Corps". <br />
<br />
Now contrary to what anyone just tuning in on the subject might think, the idea of a Space Force or Space Corps didn't spring up in President Trump's brain spontaneously, you now have to wade through pages of MSM click-bait articles in Google on "Trump" to find where starting last year, the idea for a 'Space Force' or more specifically a 'Space Corps' was being pushed in public by <a href="https://www.npr.org/2017/06/25/534286469/congressman-proposes-a-military-space-corps" target="_blank">Alabama Congressman Mike Rogers</a>.<br />
<h3>
Why a separate Space Force, or Semi-separate Space Corps is a Dorky-Pants Solution. </h3>
<strong>Problem:</strong> The problem we have in Space is the same problem we've always had: too many agencies with too many cooks stirring the pot. The problem, like most with DoD, is born on Congressional failure: Congress has failed to consolidate authority with the service responsible training and equipping forces for space in general (the USAF), instead Congress has chosen to preserve individual service interests in the service infrastructures and then lament the parochial attitudes.<br />
<br />
Whereas simply moving authority and resources to the service <u>responsible</u> for oversight of space interests, where it should already be (that's right, the Air Force) is the proper move, the Dorky-Pants solution would create ANOTHER new entity entirely and move (more likely unsuccessfully) all of the Space authority and responsibility from the existing services into that brand new entity. If the headquarters for that new service somehow elevated the prospects for Redstone Army Arsenal, the Army's missile mecca and Alabama's largest employer, I'm <em>sure</em> we could put that down to serendipity.<br />
<br />
To summarize:<br />
<blockquote>
<strong>Congressional Dorky-Pants Solution:</strong> create more institutional overhead and consolidate authority and responsibility in one place </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong>Common Sense Solution:</strong> Consolidate authority where Congress already put the responsibility. This is easily determined by which service gets to spend the most time in front of bloviators explaining why something isn't like they want it to be. Hint: this would be the Air Force. </blockquote>
So this is not really a new post, but I wanted to keep the 2006 original where it was instead of bumping it and just add more introductory materiel that will tie it to current events. The 2006 version has held up quite well I think, and if time permitted I would expand it with more detail and historical references. But I don't. So here is the <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2006/02/space-force.html" target="_blank">original </a>:</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
**************************</div>
<strong><em>Feb 2006...</em></strong><br />
<br />
Every now and then I want to unload with a more substantial topic than the 'Outrage of the Day'. So here goes...<br />
<br />
<strong>Separate Space Force? Someday</strong><br />
A lot of 'futurists out there want a Space Force now.<br />
and yeah, I've been thinking about this for a while.....<br />
<br />
<strong>Introduction</strong><br />
<br />
The discussion surrounding a possible separate military service responsible for "Space" has been heating up for years. Critics of the current system that has the Army, Air Force and Navy participating as components of a joint Strategic Command (an arrangement that has existed since 2002) feel the current system, like the system before it where individual service components reported to a unified U.S. Space Command, does not offer real advocacy for "Space".<br />
<br />
The usual criticism is that the system merely perpetuates the relative apportionment of the "space pie". Whether or not the criticism is valid is not germane to the question of a need for a separate space service. What must be done is to use the principles and rationales that were behind the creation of the existing services, and overlay them on the current question of a separate space force. Using this methodology it will become obvious that there is no valid reason for creating a separate Space Force at this time.<br />
<br />
<strong>Core Problem </strong><br />
<br />
The main difficulty in addressing the problem is that the individual service branches and the parent Department of Defense (DoD), as institutions, do not fully understand the reasons for the continued division in their responsibilities. They fail to understand the reasons because they do not recognize them. This failure comes about largely because the two most senior of the three independent services, the Army and the Navy have their conceptual roots in ancient history, and so the issue has not been thoroughly examined, or even greatly reflected upon, for centuries. It is also due to the fact that the third service, the Air Force, is still so new that some still believe it should be part of the other two services, and that the Air Force's own self-perception as an institution is still evolving(1).<br />
<br />
Service self-perceptions have been further muddied in light of the Goldwater-Nichols (2) Act which, among other changes, made the nine unified combatant commands' Commanders (formerly called CINCs) directly responsible to the President through the Secretary of Defense. These Commanders are America's "warlords", who command organizations that have "broad, continuing missions" and are "composed of forces from two or more military departments (3).” Thus, the chain of command above the actual combatant commands now circumvents individual service chains of command and cultures. The individual services are no longer directly connected to, much less responsible for, the conduct of war.<br />
<br />
Dilettantes and partisans assert that we have unnecessary overlap in the Roles and Missions of the different Services. Some have so grossly oversimplified the Service structures as to assert the US has ‘four air forces’ (4) or ‘two armies’(5). Setting aside resolving this issue for a moment, let us examine the specifics of the individual Service’s approach to the exploitation of the Space milieu.<br />
<br />
<strong>Service Views on the Stewardship of Space</strong><br />
<br />
There was not even an American Air Force when the first military use of space occurred: the Nazi's V-2 rocket entered space on its sub-orbital hops from mainland Europe to England. At the end of the war, the Army and Navy vigorously pursued their own space programs using captured German technology as a seed for their own programs. The Army and Navy orbited the first and second United States military satellites respectively. The Air Force, as a new service in its own right, began immediately investigating military uses of space.<br />
<br />
The Army and Navy saw (and still see) space as critical to performing their mission, and all services acknowledge that the Space dimension of warfare is going to grow even more important. This relevance to all the services drives their concern for space.<br />
<br />
The Army and Navy stake some claim related to their role on land and sea, but only the Air Force has laid definitive doctrinal claim to space as a service-specific area of responsibility. All see space as part of a "continuum"(6) in which they operate, but the Navy and Army see it as part of a continuum of different environments through which they project force. Only the Air Force views space not as an extension into a different environment but as part of a continuous environment that is one of air AND space:<br />
<br />
“Our Service views the flight domain of air and space as a seamless operational medium. The environmental differences between air and space do not separate employment of aerospace power within them.”(7).<br />
<br />
It is this concept of the medium, central to the Air Force view, which caused Air Force General Larry D. White to coin the term “aerospace,” in 1954, and also later led to the Air Force being assigned the land based leg of the strategic "Triad"; ICBMs.<br />
<br />
So all the Services find “Space” a critical element to their mission. When will Space warrant it’s own separate Service?<br />
<br />
<strong>Looking Back To The Origins of the Existing Services</strong><br />
<br />
As mentioned earlier, the key to justifying the origin of a separate Space Force is found in the origins of the existing services.<br />
<br />
The concept of an "Army" precedes recorded history, or at the very least has existed since history began. An army's purpose was (and is) to advance or defend some social construct. Since warfare only occurred on land, ancient armies were responsible for the total defense needs of a society.<br />
<br />
In ancient times, a state’s ‘navy’ was the sum total of all it’s sea-going fleet of merchant ships. Around 1200 BC, the first recorded sea battle occurred between the Egyptians and the Sea People. This first battle was between sea-borne infantry forces carried aboard small ships designed for other purposes. If the nature of man has not changed too much over the centuries, there can be little doubt this battle on the ocean set off the first calls for an independent combat Navy: But for centuries that followed, the Navy's sole combat purpose was to transport the Army to far shores for use in land battles. While occasionally sea combat occurred, it was always in context of supporting land-based objectives, by ramming the enemy and using foot soldiers engaged in close combat. Eventually, technologies were developed for sea-based combat, such as purpose built ships with catapults (the first naval artillery). Over time the growing importance of sea-borne trade to a society's survival also created a need to protect that trade. The focus then shifted to exploiting the sea medium as a means to directly support societal objectives, not exploiting the sea medium to support land-oriented combat. In short, control of the sea became an important objective in its own right.<br />
<br />
<strong>Roles and Missions Vs. Mediums and Methods</strong><br />
<br />
Modern discussions of the different services have focused on how their Roles and Missions are unique yet mutually supportive. But ‘Roles and Missions’ are the ‘what’ in how Service responsibilities differ and are merely products of the differences in ‘Mediums and Methods’.<br />
<br />
The ‘Mediums and Methods’ are the ‘<strong><em>why</em></strong>’ we have different Services.<br />
<br />
For centuries now, the purpose of the Army has been to exploit terrain and the Navy's has been to exploit the sea to support societal (now national) objectives. When man first began to fly, a new medium for conflict and exercising National Power became available. It’s an environment distinctly different from the others, in that it is a three-dimensional and global medium. Like the earliest naval combat example, it was originally viewed in the context of its usefulness to the other mediums, but over time has become important in its own right (non-withstanding the fact that there are those who would see the Air element as forever a supporting element.)<br />
<br />
The other services still use the air (now aerospace) as an environment in exploiting their primary mediums, as the Air Force also uses the land and sea in exploiting aerospace. The key to understanding the delineation among the services is to understand that while they all use the land, sea, and aerospace mediums, each one is only responsible for development of methods to exploit one of the mediums. Thus, instead of thinking of the services in terms of Roles and Missions, it is more appropriate to think of the delineation in terms of Mediums and Methods.<br />
<br />
The Goldwater-Nichols Act has driven home this concept, by completing the separation of the individual services from the direct responsibility to conduct warfare operations and explicitly tasking the individual services for providing the right forces, through training, research and development, and acquisition, to exploit their respective mediums under a joint service effort.<br />
<br />
<strong>Air and Space or Aerospace?</strong><br />
<br />
So at what point does Aerospace yield to "Space"? As stated earlier, the key to justifying the origin of a separate Space Force is found in the origins of the existing services. Each service is chartered to exploit a medium for national defense. The need for each service to become a separate entity came about when its medium and operation within that medium became important in its own right to a societal interest. At this time, all space operations (8) are important as a support element to or sub-part of operations in the other mediums, and clearly within the concept of Aerospace. As the 'space' portion of Aerospace becomes a more critical part of what would previously be considered pure "air" operations, it would probably be appropriate for the Air Force to become the Aerospace Force.<br />
<br />
<strong>Conclusion</strong><br />
<br />
Space will become an important medium in its own right when stand-alone activity in space becomes important to national interests. When space becomes an important medium in its own right, separate from its support function to operations in other mediums, space will warrant a separate service charter to exploit and develop the medium of Space sans "Aero." This will likely occur after we are living and working permanently in deep space, executing non-earth-centric operations and then only after we are out there with a more significant investment in resources and personnel. Examples of this kind of environment includes permanent self-sustaining space-borne activities, such as Lunar or Lagrangian-based large scale manufacturing concerns, that cannot be effectively protected or developed by Aerospace forces. Eventually, as extra-terrestrial colonization is established, a Space Force will be necessary to ensure free trade and movement among far-flung interests.<br />
<br />
<strong>References:</strong><br />
(1) See <em>The Masks of War </em>and <em>The Icarus Syndrome </em>by the late Carl Builder for excellent analyses and summaries of the service branchs' self-perception.<br />
(2) See Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 at http://www.ndu.edu/library/pubs/gol-nich.html for a complete summary.<br />
(3) Ibid<br />
(4) Senator Sam Nunn on the Senate Floor, 1992. http://www.cdi.org/adm/617/<br />
(5) Richard D. Hooker, America’s 2 Armies, http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/jfq0806.pdf<br />
(6) An excellent example of this is found in <em>Space is an Ocean</em>, a briefing on the Naval Strategic Vision for Space by the Strategy and Policy Division (N51), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, retrieved 1 March 2002 from http://www.hq.navy.mil/n3n5/Topsight/space/spaceTP3/tsld001.htm<br />
(7)United States Air Force, The Aerospace Force (Washington D.C., 2000), i. See also, United States Air<br />
Force, America’s Air Force Vision 2020: Global Vigilance, Reach, and Power, (Washington D.C., 2000), page 3.<br />
(8) See <em>The Transformation of American Air Power</em> by Benjamin S. Lambeth. “A functional or operational, as opposed to a systems, approach to thinking about space power application should make the differences between orbital and atmospheric operations irrelevant.” Page 258 (Cornell University Press, 2000)<br />
<br />SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-53480038684684564502017-08-17T20:01:00.000-05:002017-08-17T20:01:27.747-05:00Why the Gypsy Woman Laughs at DOT&E<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFsyw-c_4dIdI0cFIwHa_5hnlPKpPpDWGhVmUwxCVjgKXaWmyw9PLCkxYQgASMvXV9UnPC8zOO79T6fwjrcBC020zhyphenhyphenSU7HTgojF44ikouuDwQhHXQDXsKFFK2bt_rpYLqlYbVfQ/s1600/2017+weapons+surge.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1067" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFsyw-c_4dIdI0cFIwHa_5hnlPKpPpDWGhVmUwxCVjgKXaWmyw9PLCkxYQgASMvXV9UnPC8zOO79T6fwjrcBC020zhyphenhyphenSU7HTgojF44ikouuDwQhHXQDXsKFFK2bt_rpYLqlYbVfQ/s320/2017+weapons+surge.JPG" width="213" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">(Photo by Darrin Russel/Lockheed Martin)</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<h3>
<br /></h3>
<h3>
<a href="file:///C:/Users/SMSgt/Downloads/2015f35jsf%20reviewed%20(4).pdf" target="_blank">DOT&E FY15 Doomsaying…</a></h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>- Full Block 3F mission systems development and testing cannot be completed by May 2017, the date reflected in the most recent Program Office schedule, which is seven months later than the date planned after the 2012 restructure of the program. Although the program has recently acknowledged some schedule pressure and began referencing July 31, 2017, as the end of SDD flight test, that date is unrealistic as well. Instead, the program will likely not finish Block 3F development and flight testing prior to January 2018,..</i>.</blockquote>
<h3>
<a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2016/11/pentagon-top-tester-tests-nothing-but.html" target="_blank">DOT&E FY16 Doomsaying….</a> </h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>• Insufficient time and resources to conduct all required weapons delivery accuracy (WDA) events. The program completed a surge of weapons test events in August and is analyzing the results. While some of the events appear to have been successful, several WDAs unsurprisingly had significant issues that either required control room intervention or the employment of the weapon was likely unsuccessful. Despite making some progress, the program still has not completed the full set of planned test events for Block 3F weapons in the TEMP, with 13 WDAs remaining, excluding the multiple gun scoring events, which must also be completed. Due to the limited time and funding remaining in SDD, the program has prioritized completing testing of new and deficient Block 3F mission systems capabilities over completing the remaining WDAs. While completion of Block 3F mission systems is necessary, the WDAs are also an integral part of successfully completing required development and adequate testing of full Block 3F capabilities. Each of the planned WDA events is an essential end-to-end test of the full fire-control chain. Conducting all of the WDAs is the only way to discover problems that otherwise will be realized in operational test and/or combat. For example, one of the recent AIM-120 missile WDA events required control room intervention to direct the pilot when to launch, as there were no shoot cues or launch zone indications displayed to the pilot due to an outdated AIM-120 missile attack model within the mission systems software. Due to their importance and the distinct differences among them, all of the planned WDA events must be completed during DT; otherwise, these events will have to be completed before or during IOT &E, which will delay discovery of deficiencies and the completion of IOT&E while adding to its cost.</i></blockquote>
<h3>
<span style="font-size: large;">Today:</span> <a href="http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article/1281725/f-35-developmental-testers-surge-toward-ioc/" target="_blank">“F-35 developmental testers surge toward [F-35 3F] IOC”</a></h3>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“This was kind of a cleanup, or a closeout, of (System Development and Demonstration). It’s the closeout of JSF developmental test for Block 3F, which is a big deal because it’s for Air Force IOC, and Navy IOC,” he said…. </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>…“I like to think of these as the last for Developmental Test,” he said. “This is like our graduation exercise before we hand the aircraft off to the operational test organizations so they can go prove it’s ready for combat. That’s very significant for us.”… </i></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>…There is a single WDA event remaining for 3F, which marks the completion for all three variants and will pave the way to the declaration of IOC for all F-35s.</i></blockquote>
Now, If you are a journalist and EVER cited DOT&E as if they knew WTF they were talking about, then take a large mallet and apply it forcefully to your forehead in penance. Ye shall be known by thy flat face.<br />
<br />
What's the lesson here? There is a reason this quote was displayed in the entryway to ASD HQ at Wright Patterson back in the 80s-Early 90s.<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8P4dnswxUD1Uxi_fVkyCQlRAd0IfAqVXsVIc1Q2bbovUc3L-1TF886J4em5JF_ndTKW_XalX2C70N6P4GX7NYvfhyphenhyphenyPie-o-HI5AVFLKFgu9VKTchuDj0XZ82Y34mQw5GUpytKQ/s1600/man+in+arena+via+Linkedin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="800" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8P4dnswxUD1Uxi_fVkyCQlRAd0IfAqVXsVIc1Q2bbovUc3L-1TF886J4em5JF_ndTKW_XalX2C70N6P4GX7NYvfhyphenhyphenyPie-o-HI5AVFLKFgu9VKTchuDj0XZ82Y34mQw5GUpytKQ/s640/man+in+arena+via+Linkedin.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAlTAAAAJGMzNmZmYzE5LTUyZTEtNDc4Yy1hOGNjLWZjOWZlOGM5ZTczMQ.jpg" target="_blank">(Image Source)</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br /><br />
<div>
<br /></div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-28018779042557273192017-06-29T21:23:00.001-05:002017-06-29T21:23:29.858-05:00A Survey: What does State of the Art Fighter Maneuverability Look Like?<br />
<h3 class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
How Would You "Score" Maneuverability Requirements Today? Part 1</h3>
Since maneuverability is a hot topic these days (especially here)....<br />
<br />
<br />
As I noted <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-backgrounder-on-energy-maneuverability.html" target="_blank">in a post ages ago</a></strong>, in the 1980's Skow, Hamilton and Taylor (Ref 1) observed:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“In the late 1940's and early 1950’s, with the advent of jet propulsion, radical new wing designs and greatly expanded flight envelopes, a corresponding need for more definitive measures of merit for aircraft performance comparisons was generated. When the "century series" fighters were developed and rear-aspect IR missiles became the principal air-to-air combat weapon, point performance comparisons were found to be inconclusive and insufficient to predict superiority. Out of this need, energy-maneuverability (E-M) concepts were formulated and developed. In the 1960's. E-M came into widespread use by aircraft designers and fighter pilots. E-M provided an analog picture of a fighter's performance capabilities over a range of velocities and altitudes. It gave quantifiable credit to measures of merit which allowed the advantages of speed (energy) and turning (maneuverability) to be balanced. These measures of merit were shown to be dominant in determining the outcome of an air battle at that time. </em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em> ...</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>But, as they say, time marches on, and in the past 10-12 years, several significant advancements have been made in the capabilities of fighter aircraft and air-to-air weapons. Three of these advancements; the all-aspect IR missile, greatly improved weapons delivery systems, and high thrust-to-weight engines have dramatically altered the character of the air battle, especially the close-in fight. The modern air battle is characterized by (1) time compression – shorter duration maneuvering required and (2) harder maneuvering - nose position at the expense of energy vs. nose position with energy conservation… </em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Air combat trends have expanded to ever increasing altitudes and speeds for beyond visual range (BVR) combat and conversely have tended to a lower and sometimes slower arena for close-in, within visual range (WVR) combat. … …This changing complexion of air combat, primarily due to the all-aspect IR missile, has altered the relative significance of the various performance characteristics with which we judge relative merit. Table 3 depicts the more common agility characteristics with some relative rankings.”</em> </blockquote>
Time does march on, and so fighter and threat technology have progressed since 1985. So....<br />
<h3>
What About Today?</h3>
Regular readers will recognize this table from that earlier post: <br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="height: 395px; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center; width: 653px;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx7P6rSqAJ1LjnlyoXCEDcTWWY5EH1TGkttWiQWNwxWL5NN_oFScP1jupfAhwu7YNN6_exi0R4NJ7lWVzy1RDIgdtcEp8pk47QojMKzGDAeJsBec3r7PTK5GjghoE016Hh_S0pBg/s1600/new-ranking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="345" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx7P6rSqAJ1LjnlyoXCEDcTWWY5EH1TGkttWiQWNwxWL5NN_oFScP1jupfAhwu7YNN6_exi0R4NJ7lWVzy1RDIgdtcEp8pk47QojMKzGDAeJsBec3r7PTK5GjghoE016Hh_S0pBg/s1600/new-ranking.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: small;"><strong>'Table 3' Reconstruction from “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Advanced Fighter Agility Metrics</i>”</strong></span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; text-align: center;">
</div>
</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
The authors of the original table and paper recognized the game changing aspects of being able to engage with missiles from 'all aspects' and those changes in their view re-jiggered the fighter maneuverability design priorities.<br />
<br />
As I see it, this would be a two part mental exercise. First we need to add columns on the right side of the table identifying any 'game-changing' developments that would cause further changes to the rankings shown. Stealth is an obvious development, but are there others like "very-high off-boresight missiles". <br />
<br />
Before I put too much grey matter onto the project, I thought I'd open the floor for ideas, and then decide (collectively if there is interest) first what order and perhaps grouping the header(s) should be populated from left to right. I THINK the columns should be added in order of chronological developments, but I don't KNOW yet: I try to keep an open mind until info is in hand. <br />
<br />
The end product of Phase 1/Question 1 would be the jumping off point for exploration of how these developments may change the relative rank ordering. I think I'm going to solicit inputs from F-16.net board members in a thread of its own, but I would welcome an even wider range of inputs and insights.<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Survey Question 1:</span></strong> <br />
<span style="font-size: large;">What has changed since 1985 that would affect the rank ordering scores that each 'Agility Characteristic' (as the term is used in the table) would receive? </span><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong>Reference:</strong><br />
ADVANCED FIGHTER AGILITY METRICS; Andrew M. Skow, William L. Hamilton, John H. Taylor; AIAA-A85-47027 <br />
<br />
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-46790356758471451982017-06-24T14:50:00.000-05:002017-06-24T15:00:09.031-05:00F-35 Was NOT Inferior to F-16 in a 2015 "Dogfight" <b> Why Any Inference that the F-35 2015 'Post-Stall Agility' Control Law (CLAW) Test As a 'Dogfight' is Bogus</b><br />
<br />
This is a rework of something I posted on twice in 2015. I'm doing the rework a a form of blog 'housekeeping'. When I wrote about it in 2015, the focus was on the echo-chamber, click-bait media claiming or inferring the CLAW test was a 'Dogfight' test. When I look back at that post, I now feel I buried the lede twice. The important bits were not how media tends to be F.O.S. for all their shenanigans (that's hardly 'news'), but the reasons <i>WHY</i> it was not a 'Dogfight' test, and that it can be clearly shown it was NOT a 'dogfight' test are.<br />
<br />
Nowadays that the 2015 'controversy' seems to be a perennial word-count filler: something for the lazy media to put in a piece to 'balance out' any positive information about the F-35 in any article or story that might appear to be otherwise 'favoring' the F-35. I want to be very specific in what I am claiming going forward.<br />
<br />
<b>Assertion: </b> The event in question was a post-stall agility test, testing for areas where it might be worthwhile to 'open up' the control laws (CLAWs) and was not a 'dogfight'.<br />
<br />
The 2015 Testing in Question was Described in 2014<br />
<br />
<b>Supporting Evidence:</b><br />
The JSFPO and Lockheed Martin at the time of this faux controversy asserted it was a CLAW test. The assertion was met with much snark and derision from the professional cynics and F-35 Haters, yet that is exactly what the test was about. and it was described in a published technical paper by an LM engineer who should certainly know WTF the test was going to be about at the time he wrote the paper.<br />
<br />
From the 2014 AIAA paper "F-35A High Angle-of-Attack Testing"<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span>, by Mr. Steve Baer, (Lockheed Martin "Aeronautical Engineer, Flying Qualities" at Edwards AFB), and presented to the Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference held 16-20 June 2014, in Atlanta, Georgia we find that F-35 High AoA testing was designed to follow in the following progression:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"The test objectives for high angle-of-attack testing are as follows:
1) Characterize the flyqualities [sic] at AoAs from 20° to the control law limit regime with operationally representative maneuvers.
2) Demonstrate the aircraft’s ability to recover from out of control flight and assess deep stall susceptibility
3) Evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of the automatic pitch rocker (APR)
4) Evaluate departure resistance at both positive and negative AoA with center of gravity (CG) positions up to the aft limit and with maximum lateral asymmetry.
5) Assess the handling qualities of the aircraft in the High AoA flight." </blockquote>
Let's observe here that from the paper itself we can tell it was written while Objective #4 testing was ongoing and published at about the time it concluded. This observation is supported by the paper's passage <b><i>[emphasis/brackets mine]</i></b>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
With intentional departure testing <b><i>[Objective #4]</i></b> wrapped up, the team will soon move into departure resistance <b><i>[Still Objective #4]</i></b> and plan to remove the SRC now that these systems have been verified. In this phase of testing, the jet will test the CLAW limiters with much higher energy and rates than previous testing, fleshing out and correcting areas that may be departure prone. Lastly, select operational maneuvers <i><b>[Objective #5]</b></i>, such as a slow down turn and a Split-S, will be used to gather handling qualities data on high AoA maneuvers. With the completion of this phase, the F-35 will be released for initial operational capability in the high AoA region. </blockquote>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">Note: 'SRC' is a 'Spin Recovery Chute'. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<br /></div>
Clearly the testing was not yet at step #5 at the time of writing but to emphasize same, the author followed the above paragraph with <b>[brackets/emphasis mine]</b>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
While the flight test team will explore legacy high AoA maneuvers for handling qualities, it will be the Operational Test and Evaluation team that will truly develop high AoA maneuvers for the F-35. In the operational world, a pilot should rarely be taking the F-35 into the high angle-of-attack regime, but the ability to do so could make the difference between being the victor or the victim in air-to-air combat.... </blockquote>
So with this paragraph, not only does the author expound on the exploring of "legacy high AoA maneuvers" that is to come, he specifically identifies Objective 5 test as having "Handling Qualities" objectives and explicitly states that the kind of testing that will "truly develop high AoA maneuvers for the F-35" to the testing Operational Testers will perform later and excluded from the Edwards AFB Developmental Test Team activities.<br />
<br />
In a nutshell, just within these two paragraphs that Baer wrote in early/mid 2014 is precisely what the JPO/LM stated in their official response to claims that the 2015 event involved some kind of 'dogfight'.
Therefore the "reasonable man" may logically and confidently conclude the LM/JSFPO response:<br />
<br />
1. WAS NOT simply something that was contrived in response to stories built around leaked program documents but...<br />
2. WAS accurately asserting the truth about what the testing purpose truly was.<br />
<br />
Now here we are two years later...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bpEWCOCC8Xs/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bpEWCOCC8Xs?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<br />
By next year and the roll out of '3F' software/capabilities I doubt if you will be able to <u>find</u> an F-16 pilot who has flown the F-35 that would not pick the F-35 over the F-16.<br />
<span style="font-size: xx-small;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: xx-small;">[1]</span> AIAA #2014-2057SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-8780132673767932242017-06-19T21:15:00.000-05:002017-06-19T21:16:08.020-05:00“Fighter Aircraft” Design: Driven by Operational Requirements (Part 3)With the world about to bear witness at the Paris Air Show (<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/pas17" target="_blank"><strong>#PAS17</strong></a>) this week that the F-35 is NOT the 'pig' aircraft that the propagandist critics (all of whom have NO material knowledge of the F-35) have claimed, I decided it was time to finally publish this post and close out the series. All the contrived elaborate and ignorant ‘stories’ assembled from twisted factoids that have surfaced over the years, are about to fall flat, and will trigger much denial, wailing and gnashing of teeth from those quarters. <br />
Now is also an especially good time for me to close out the series because it will be a handy reference for later smacking down a piece of anti-JSF Dezinformatsia that surfaced (as a metaphorical rotting dead cetacean) this week. <br />
<br />
<strong>Behold! O haters and doubters.....and weep.</strong><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/OFzCNdTeKDI/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/OFzCNdTeKDI?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Super-manueverability without Thrust Vectoring, Check...</span></div>
<h3>
And so we proceed…
</h3>
The entire point of this series has been and is to illustrate that fighter design isn’t driven by opinions, whim, or fashion; nor is the implementation of it either the least bit capricious.
To recap, <a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/08/fighter-aircraft-design-driven-by.html" target="_blank"><strong>Part 1</strong></a> of this series was just an initial outline of what I intended to cover/accomplish overall. <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/08/fighter-aircraft-design-part-2-driven.html" target="_blank"> Part 2</a></strong> was an extended ‘two-parts in one’ review of the evolution of fighter design requirements from the earliest days and up through the emergence of ‘supermaneuverability’. We reviewed the developments that influenced fighter designs up through to the ‘fourth-generation’ of fighters and we could even say included design trends that influenced the earliest aerodynamics of fifth generation design: the F-22. <br />
<br />
This brings us up to the starting point for Part 3, still somewhat in the past, but not so far as to prevent us from getting to the present from there.
In the introduction of this series, I had originally envisioned that in Part 3 we would: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>..."break down a 1 vs. 1 air combat scenario into a high-level conceptual model of constituent phases and associated combatant states. Then we will apprise the F-35’s potential advantages and disadvantages”...</em></blockquote>
As it turns out, we can leverage one and a half decades of expertise from professionals to accomplish the first objective and do so in fewer words than I had initially planned. We will also use the same for framing the discussion to meet the second objective: quickly ‘apprising’ the “F-35’s potential advantages and disadvantages”. It should shock only those with less than a passing interest in, and/or superficial knowledge of the subject, that by the time the first Part 3 objective is met, the second objective will become largely self-evident.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Aircraft Maneuverability” or “Agility” research probably reached its zenith (in the West anyway) with the extremely successful <strong><a href="https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-009-DFRC.html" target="_blank">X-31 Enhanced Fighter Maneuverability Demonstrator</a></strong> program. <br />
<br />
Before the X-31 even flew, it was already viewed as a key investigative tool for ‘applied agility’ research, and the only effort at the time to span all “applied” research areas of interest.
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0ryqaD6hDqciN9VAEFYleFEhpDtTH6UfU2QlEEHSRWlU3WBx6uOmV58-SVQ3DleqtW1XAyu5-ClRW6WFiVUF2I0QozGFpA8czG3Bx_sTEyzviF_U5nWhA6Z4LcK6pHWUmbeLEuA/s1600/Agility-Science-and-Opportunities.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="636" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi0ryqaD6hDqciN9VAEFYleFEhpDtTH6UfU2QlEEHSRWlU3WBx6uOmV58-SVQ3DleqtW1XAyu5-ClRW6WFiVUF2I0QozGFpA8czG3Bx_sTEyzviF_U5nWhA6Z4LcK6pHWUmbeLEuA/s1600/Agility-Science-and-Opportunities.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Figure 1</strong>. X-31 Spanned Applied Agility Research Interests</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
I was TDY to Edwards AFB for one program or another and we had just landed (it had to have been sometime in 1992 or January-ish 1993 at the latest) and while sitting on the ramp waiting for a crew van, we watched the X-31 return from a mission and work the pattern with its chase plane. The discussion, led by our own test pilots and flight test engineers, turned to wondering: Just how much any additional maneuverability that might come out of the X-31 program would actually translate into any REAL additional combat capability? This is a question of the same kind of ‘asymptotic limits’ that were addressed in Part 2. <br />
<br />
As it turns out, we still can’t quantify an answer to that question because nothing about that time on up through to the present day was, or is, “static”. Changes and developments in all the other fighter aircraft capabilities and technologies kept evolving long after we hit peak ‘supermaneuverability’ with the X-31. But from Part 2 and what we are about to review, we can answer the question in general: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
1) Maneuverability beyond the F-16/F-18 characteristics doesn’t really get you all that much more capability (effectiveness and survivability), and </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2) When costs involved are considered, there are cheaper/better ways to increase combat offensive capability and survivability than improving AoA, turn rates, or g-loads past the present state of the art.</blockquote>
We know these are the answers because those involved in fighter design and development have known them for a long time. From 1986 through <u>at least</u> 1995, the NATO member countries of France, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States collaborated on a major study<span style="font-size: xx-small;">1</span> to determine where future fighter design efforts should be targeted. <br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>Note:</strong> </span> </div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">While I’ve been too busy to engage in substantial posting for a lot of reasons, another reason this post was so long in coming is the open source data has been fickle. I first typed out about 4K words (longer than this post) I had put to electrons just to go over the gory details in the study we are about to discuss. But after all that work trying to do justice to the contents of the study I found a copy of the original without a paywall in place. I slashed what I had written to leverage the source without saving the earlier version. Then the source disappeared again. If access reappears, I'll link to it.</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
The study had two major objectives:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>• Through analysis and simulation, determine whether supermaneuverability is operationally useful in future air combat scenarios.
</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>• If operationally useful and technically feasible, determine the practical limits of supermaneuverability and full envelope agility.
</em></blockquote>
<br />
The context of the study was obviously about the benefits of supermaneuverability in WVR combat. The authors referred to it as “Close In Combat” (CIC), of which choosing to engage in a turning fight is only one possibility. After all there’s not much point in doing a <strong><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=uilFcZ3hlVEC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=Saburo+Sakai+danse+Macabre&source=bl&ots=1LwTrtOmfI&sig=WPd-JocSzUOudxpKrpsV4E5_vGo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjs4OGVmJ3TAhVlzlQKHW-nCDkQ6AEIWjAM#v=onepage&q=Saburo%20Sakai%20danse%20Macabre&f=false" target="_blank">Danse Macabre</a></strong> if there’s no opponent within visual range to ‘appreciate’ it.
<br />
<br />
The study participants used the following definitions:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“Supermaneuverability is defined as very high levels of maneuverability and agility throughout the flight envelope of a fighter aircraft, especially beyond maximum lift.” </em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>“Agility is defined as the ability to change states rapidly with precision.”
</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>
“Full envelope agility contains airframe, missile, and avionics attributes.”</em>
</blockquote>
It is important to observe here the recognition by the actual “experts” involved that the broadest definition of agility was important <i>going in</i> to the study. The definition of 'weapon system agility' has become a somewhat standard one:
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgifrJI3JSVL44Yls4CAaVH8wSH9Djp3viOW2VXq0hmxoP3s1AimrJThDmU2qVbv_0Afapc28nIErpyviKiPfId4jvaypy7LRLvlQMA3Fl6d8J3x9J_mOE6RMzinaXzJ9FknqHHDQ/s1600/Skow-System-Agility.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="511" data-original-width="614" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgifrJI3JSVL44Yls4CAaVH8wSH9Djp3viOW2VXq0hmxoP3s1AimrJThDmU2qVbv_0Afapc28nIErpyviKiPfId4jvaypy7LRLvlQMA3Fl6d8J3x9J_mOE6RMzinaXzJ9FknqHHDQ/s1600/Skow-System-Agility.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Figure 2.</strong> Weapon System Agility = Total Agility</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">(See also my backgrounder on modern <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-backgrounder-on-energy-maneuverability.html" target="_blank">Energy-Maneuverability</a></strong>,)</span></div>
<br />
<br />
The study’s ‘statement’ of purpose was:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>Previous analyses and manned simulations for close-in-combat (CIC), primarily emphasizing 1 v. 1, have indicated substantial improvements in air combat effectiveness when supermaneuverability (in particular, post-stall technology) was incorporated in advanced fighter designs. Recognizing that air combat scenarios are likely characterized by rapid transition from beyond-visual-range (BVR) to CIC involving multiple aircraft, the effect of supermaneuverability technologies on the outcome of this type of engagement needs to be determined.</em>
</blockquote>
This multi-national NATO-sponsored study began with manned simulation at Industrieanlagen-Betriebsgesellschaft (iABG), involving two piloted aircraft and three computer generated aircraft. Four pilots were trained on the baseline post-stall aircraft including avionics, weapons, and scenarios. After the training phase, the pilots jointly determined possible starting conditions (geometry, speed, weight, weapons load, number of runs, etc.).
<br />
The purpose of the manned simulation was to create a database to develop a digital pilot reaction model. The application of a batch model was necessary in order to generate the large number of computer runs needed to accomplish the project goals. The batch simulation strategy involved three different programs. First, the ‘Arena’ war simulation program was used to model a beyond-visual-range, many-on-many air battle and generate within-visual-range starting conditions. This was a valuable technique that got the study group past the ‘How do we set up realistic WVR combat starting points?’ question. Second, the Air-to-Air System Performance Evaluation Model (AASPEM) was used to model one-versus-one (1 v 1) engagements that were initialized under the Arena-derived starting conditions. Third, the Abductory Induction Mechanism (AIM™) was used to link AASPEM results to Arena as depicted in Fig. 3.
<br />
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEutPIyMG5mCSLMQtXsgvWFB8UGdWlYP2IWIKTCCTim_1vtyZid_Rb2zB7d8PpbykzdOahc5ygnSJ8PzaIS6hA5__C2T9r25vz6tCREg8034Mw2Z2J4mSLiWQfhtqq2SrkSo67rQ/s1600/ARENA-AASPM-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="432" data-original-width="576" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEutPIyMG5mCSLMQtXsgvWFB8UGdWlYP2IWIKTCCTim_1vtyZid_Rb2zB7d8PpbykzdOahc5ygnSJ8PzaIS6hA5__C2T9r25vz6tCREg8034Mw2Z2J4mSLiWQfhtqq2SrkSo67rQ/s1600/ARENA-AASPM-web.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Figure 3.</strong> Source: Practical Limits of Supermaneuverability and Full Envelope Agility</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
As you can see by the parsing of function among different models, it wasn’t easy to do complex scenario modeling back in the 80’s-90’s. The primary models had to be linked because neither one could answer the questions ask if used as standalone devices. An evolved MIL-ASSPEM II was part of the USAF’s standard analysis toolkit <strong><a href="http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA497516" target="_blank">as late as 2005</a></strong>. It might still be. <br />
<br />
The study identified and used probability of kill, probability of survival, and exchange ratio as “the key parameters” using two types of weapons: missiles and guns. For each weapon type they assigned a probability of a kill (P<span style="font-size: xx-small;">k</span>) given a ‘hit’. Under a ‘massive-number-of-trials’ modeling effort, they established an average P<span style="font-size: xx-small;">k</span> of a (AIM-9L ‘like’) missile of 0.8 for each simulated missile fly-out. The P<span style="font-size: xx-small;">k</span> (given a ‘hit’) of the missiles being held constant may have made some of the long-term study quantifiable results more conservative ‘offensively’ and more optimistic ‘defensively’ than optimum, given the lethality enhancements seen with AIM-9 and AIM-120 developments ongoing at the time and later. The advantage of using a constant Missile P<span style="font-size: xx-small;">k</span><span style="font-size: x-small;"> </span>value is that it prevents missile lethality from dominating the calculations and masking nuances in outcomes due to other variations in the aircraft/missile (as a system) combinations. ‘P<span style="font-size: xx-small;">k</span>’ for the gun was more complex, and was based upon a function of the maximum burst length for one firing and the time duration of the gun hits within that burst. <br />
<br />
The baseline “good-guys” (Blue aircraft) were assumed to have the ‘agility’ of the X-31, and the baseline “bad-guys” (Red aircraft) represented an “F-18 type aircraft”. Given the study timeframe we can probably assume the “F-18 type” aircraft comparisons were based upon the F-18C/D versions. <br />
<br />
The study group ran multiple excursions of the 'sort-of-a-metamodel' they created, exploring the relative impacts of increasing aircraft and weapons capabilities on the outcomes of air combat engagements. A recreation of the contents in the matrix of different test cases explored and as summarized in the study’s Table 8 is shown in Figure 4.
<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha1Pxpvtr81m-NIcfzCnVWAC7cXF9kTgk1cD3FBmSryRudD_CPYQtrcj7rStzKqWGuXcqnF5iRThcWg4svRsSVZCoUQFO7NwwdN4qd8QrVXnvJbduEST4fh5I2ZJoYJ3YS91cYQw/s1600/Table-8-test-cases.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="768" data-original-width="1022" height="480" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEha1Pxpvtr81m-NIcfzCnVWAC7cXF9kTgk1cD3FBmSryRudD_CPYQtrcj7rStzKqWGuXcqnF5iRThcWg4svRsSVZCoUQFO7NwwdN4qd8QrVXnvJbduEST4fh5I2ZJoYJ3YS91cYQw/s640/Table-8-test-cases.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Figure 4.</strong> Cases studied in "Practical Limits of Supermaneuverability and Full Envelope Agility"</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
The engagements were run under set conditions to control the number of variables. The following are the rules of engagement used for 1 v. 1 engagements:
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• 120 second duration
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• No kill removals
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• Each aircraft started with same fuel load
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• Each aircraft had 4 missiles and a gun
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• Conditions for gun firing:
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- Minimum range = 500 ft
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- Maximum range = 3500 ft
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- Tracking delay = 0.2 seconds
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
- Pipper size = 3.5 MIL (±2°) </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
All of these criteria were controls based upon expert analysis and historical records except the “No Kill Removals”. The ability to count wins and losses in a test run without ‘kills’ that would remove the killed aircraft from the equation allowed for many more engagements (trials) to add up within each computer simulation run. This approach in modeling was akin to the process of re-spawning adversary aircraft in Red Flag or similar exercises, though with a somewhat different purpose. Today, we would run more trials with actual removals because computer time is cheaper and the runs are faster. <br />
<br />
<h3>
What was learned </h3>
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD_wXRHkmUDSKuuJnNwjgHOj5gPRV8g8TRjGt7Fe8v8m9MOIxGxX2FHH8Y1Spnqhd1tYRyTtPtk3kJTlXpeDeNPYCDqgdqdqzgB96MX8xgt_DI0NlcUuhwr-3951Ul3bBO1rb2tw/s1600/strange-game.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" data-original-height="251" data-original-width="386" height="208" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiD_wXRHkmUDSKuuJnNwjgHOj5gPRV8g8TRjGt7Fe8v8m9MOIxGxX2FHH8Y1Spnqhd1tYRyTtPtk3kJTlXpeDeNPYCDqgdqdqzgB96MX8xgt_DI0NlcUuhwr-3951Ul3bBO1rb2tw/s320/strange-game.jpg" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><strong>Figure 5.</strong> The Bottom Line of Modern WVR Combat</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In trying all the various combinations of possible enhancements (and degradations) the authors produced many relevant ‘findings’ associated with each of the design changes and combinations thereof. </div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>1. Aircraft Agility Changes:</strong> Blue’s losses were serious, but Red Losses were even worse.
Blue losses were seen as high (around 45%) for the baseline case; aircraft agility increased the red losses by 20%, while blue losses increased slightly. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>2. Enhanced Missile Capability:</strong> Blue’s losses were still serious, but Red Losses were even more severe.
Blue losses were high (around 45%). However, red losses increased drastically to near 70% against the most capable missile option. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>3. Enhanced Avionics:</strong> Just improving avionics didn’t help Blue’s effectiveness or survivability.
Overall, there was virtually no effect on exchange ratio or losses (which, once again, were around 45%) for the Blue Force. </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>4. Combined Short-Range Missile (SRM) and Avionics Enhancements.</strong>
Blue losses are again high (40-45%). Red losses were slightly lower than that for the same missile using baseline avionics, but still significant approaching 70%.
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>5. Aircraft Agility with SRM Enhancements.</strong>
Losses remained high (up to 52% for blue and up to 66% for red).
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>6. Aircraft Agility with Avionics Enhancements.</strong>
Red losses were again higher than blue losses (20% higher), but both remained high (above 45%).
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong>7. Combined Enhancements.</strong>
Again, blue losses were high (48% for the "best" system). Red losses increased to beyond 70%.
</blockquote>
The biggest benefit of EFM that could be drawn from the study was that EFM pays off significantly <strong><em>IF</em></strong> the A2A fight STARTS very ‘close in’ under 1 v. 1 situations <strong><em>AND</em></strong> inside the minimum range (Rmin) of the ‘then-era’ of Short Range Missiles with limited OBC (Off-Boresight Capability up to 30°), <strong><em>AND IF</em></strong> no further aircraft enter the combat (remains a 1 vs 1 engagement). Within the study, EFM largely enhanced gun firing opportunities that come well after the initial ‘long-game’ has been played and those outcomes settled. That advantage is now questionable with SRMs that have very high OBS capability. No one has to actually point anywhere near the opponent in WVR combat anymore to be able to take offensive action against that opponent. <br />
<br />
And for the readers who just skimmed the WVR engagement outcomes above and didn't see Figure 5, let us now explicitly state that the WVR ‘short game’ IF it comes at all, during the course of this study was determined to be an unsustainable “loser’s game” between comparable opponents. This has now been known for decades, and findings such as these had to have influenced the definition of the F-35’s requirements.
<br />
<br />
Given that 1) ‘modern’ low observability predates this study significantly-- at least in the U.S.—and 2) low observability makes a foe far more lethal to 4th generation and earlier aircraft as well as more dangerous surface to air systems, it should speak volumes to any reasonable person as to why the design thrust of the F-22 and F-35 (and now others) emphasizes the reduction of susceptibility to being targeted in the first place, while (as in the case of the F-35) also emphasizes the ability to sense, discern, and assist the pilot in dealing with external threats as effectively and efficiently as possible. <br />
<br />
We can be certain that the responsible agencies involved conducted manifold similar studies involving the effects and limits of low observability in combination with all other design drivers to produce the latest fighter designs. I can’t imagine what kind of thinking is required by the uninvolved to imagine the professionals make these kinds of analyses and force structure decisions without due diligence. <br />
<br />
How many more pilots, planes, and support assets would ‘blue’ forces need to win a war of attrition if only WVR-capable “day fighters” and/or non-‘stealth’ aircraft are involved? This is an important question. After all, simple ‘less capable’ fighters are what all those earnest and/or Faux Reform critics advocate to varying degree when they are insisting the actual experts are doing fighter acquisition “wrong”. Advocates of less capable systems are advocates for a strategy of Wars of Attrition.<br />
<br />
The frequency--how often WVR conditions would occur between aircraft (again, they were all non-LO aircraft) -- was to be a subject of the Arena runs of the future. I’ve not found the results of this effort in unclassified sources, but given what we’ve learned from all air combat that has occurred since that time, and experiences in major exercises such as in <strong><a href="https://www.f35.com/news/detail/f-35a-records-20-to-1-kill-ratio-at-red-flag-exercise" target="_blank">recent Red Flags</a></strong>, I would suspect WVR encounters, and certainly 'extended turning' fights, will become even more of a rarity. <br />
<br />
Given the improved min-range performance of short-range missiles and future non-kinetic weapon solutions on the horizon, extended maneuvering fights might become extinct. At the very least, they could become ‘black-swan’ encounters not worthy of driving aircraft design in the future nearly as much as in the past, that is, at least for the foreseeable future. <br />
<br />
How potential enemies see the future is indicated in how hard they work to either follow the US lead in design trends or in attempting to devise ways to mitigate the advantages sought by the U.S. and its allies. “Advantages” such as those that come from the capabilities of the Fifth Generation fighters.
<br />
<br />
The entirety of EFM-AASPEM work performed during the study was devoted to within-visual-range 1 v. 1 combat. Comparisons were made based on firing opportunities, exchange ratio, and losses. One really needs to read the study to understand the nuances of the findings, but by way of introduction to the findings, let us observe what key conclusions were drawn. [ My comments in brackets]:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• <em>The most significant contribution to operational effectiveness was increased OBC coupled with enhanced avionics (mainly due to helmet mounted displays). Further improvements were possible when Rmin </em>[Minimum Range]<em> was reduced.</em> [Missile Rmins have been getting smaller, and off boresight capabilities have expanded wildly beyond any assumptions in the study since the report was published. The utility of an advanced HMD has been recognized as far back as the earliest F-15 requirements list. It’s good to see technology has finally advanced enough for the concept to have come of age in the F-35.]
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• <em>Missile and avionics enhancements have to be harmonized to fully make use of the improvement potential. It should be noted that missile/avionics OBC enhancements will provide even higher impacts in the many-on-many environment.</em> [And the F-35’s integrated avionics/sensor fusion are now the epitome of this idea made real.] </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• <em>Aircraft agility contributes to a certain extent, although not as significantly as missile/avionics enhancements. To make full use of agility, new aircraft designs might be required concerning aircraft kinematics and aerodynamics.</em> [‘Agility’ as defined by the research pointed to just the kind of design philosophy used for the F-35.]
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• <em>Conventional aircraft performance enhancements do not improve system effectiveness. If envisaged, they would also require new aircraft designs.</em> [Asymptotic limits of maneuverability have been reached. Perhaps it is a plateau for the current technology available, but I would suspect there will have to be a breakthrough no one has yet identified as needing to happen first.]
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• <em>Degraded aircraft performance </em>[Aero efficiency and Thrust to Weight for the most part] <em>can hardly be compensated by enhanced agility. The degradation decreases the conventional turn capability which is a "defensive" potential. A decrease of this potential enables the opponent to generate increased firing opportunities.</em> [In a WVR world fighters will still need to be able to turn and burn. Think of it as the lower limit of maneuverability isn’t going away just because the practical upper limit has been reached.] </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
• <em>Degraded aircraft performance might be compensated by suitable missile/avionics enhancements. Although the same degradation concerning "defensive" potential applies, more firing opportunities can be generated earlier.</em> [This is actually not a new thought. If <strong><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Engineering-F-4-Phantom-II-Systems/dp/1557500894" target="_blank">Glenn Bugos’ history of the F-4</a></strong> is to be believed (and I believe most of it is quite on target), much of the F-4 Phantom design was philosophical: driven by how best to divide the ‘capability’ between the missiles carried and the aircraft carrying missiles and to a lesser extent fleet radar support.] </blockquote>
<br />
Some of the last findings in the study report can be said to have become even MORE true since it was written [Brackets still mine]: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>During the last 10-12 years, </em>[and now two decades since the study report]<em> there has been significant improvement in missile technology. Next generation missiles </em>[ASRAAM, AIM-9X, etc.]<em> have better seekers and more sophisticated fly-out capabilities to make successful use of better thrust vector control, thereby improving missile agility in the close-in environment as well as endgame performance. </em>[The missile performance realized in today’s generation of missiles exceed that ever envisioned in the study].<em> In addition, [aircraft] avionics have improved to make use of high OBC. </em>[And of what the study authors would have considered impossibly-high OBC.]<em>
These developments </em>[through and past 1995 and that were and are ongoing]<em> make the new generation SRM/avionics attractive; however, the high mutual loss rates </em>[expected to increase further]<em> with all type of enhancements will "stress" the recommendation to urgently improve situational awareness as well as beyond-visual-range effectiveness to avoid WVR/CIC. </em>[And unsurprisingly has been incorporated into the F-35 design.] </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<h3>
“Fighter Aircraft” Design as Always is STILL Driven by Operational Requirements </h3>
<b>(Bumped)</b><br />
<br />
Operational requirements have evolved continuously since the first fighters flew. It would be as large a folly to insist that a fleet of 4th generation fighters could meet the needs of current and foreseeable operational requirements as to insist a WWI aircraft could meet the requirements of a WWII operational environment. <br />
<br />
Compare what we know now about ‘where’ air-to-air combat is going with the kinds of capabilities built into fighters like the F-35 and F-22, and what potential ‘near-peers’ are trying to build. Given the study findings, 5th generation fighter capabilities, and actual air combat history, WVR combat is now something to be even avoided more; something any A2A combatant would seek to avoid if at all possible and only to be endured if unavoidable. <br />
<br />
Defense planning and foresight informed by experience and research, such as that embodied in the study we just reviewed, produces the requirements for future weapon systems that resulted in the F-35. I marvel at how much hybris the uninformed must possess to shamelessly assert alternate realities while second guessing legions of actual subject matter experts who have done the work day-in and day-out for decades to deliver viable solutions to defense requirements, and who have access to the kind of data and history needed to actually carry out such responsibilities. <br />
<br />
The future of fighter design and design requirements will change as the operational environment changes. This is why as soon as one ‘generation’ of fighters is being fielded, work begins to define what will be needed in the next generation. Work on what became the F-15 began as soon as the AF got the F-4. The F-22 is descended from the first efforts to define what would be needed after the F-15 as the first F-15s were in development. Yes, we can envision some of these future changes (lasers anyone?) and can imagine how strategists and designers will cope with them. But the entire battlespace will continue to be reshaped beyond any analyst’s imagination and prevent them from peering too far into the future just as it always has been. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><strong>NOTE:</strong>
</span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Nowhere in this series of posts, or in any other posts the reader will find here, is the assertion made that ‘maneuverability’ (however one defines it) is "unimportant"-- in the past, modern day or immediate future. This must be stated unambiguously up front because I've seen the tiresome broad-brush accusation of same made too often when anyone dares challenge some closely held belief as to maneuverability’s relative importance to fighter design, or dares challenge the vague reasons why many of the uninitiated think “maneuverability” is important.
</span></blockquote>
<br />
<br />
<strong>A Request in Closing:</strong> If history repeats itself, when this post is referenced on a ‘board’ or comment thread somewhere, some yahoo is probably going to contest what I have written as “SMSgt Mac is wrong…”. As if their disagreement is with ‘me’-- when they’re really expressing their disagreement with…y’know…the ACTUAL experts I cited. I usually trip over these weak statements. while looking for something else, ages (sometimes years) after the mischaracterization of what I typed is displayed: long after the disinformation damage is done and everyone has since moved on to other topics. Soooo…If one finds this happening somewhere after this post, it would be much appreciated if a reader or two would reply in response that “SMSgt Mac said you would try that B.S. deflection”. Feel free to use the direct quote.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
1. Practical Limits of Supermaneuverability and Full Envelope Agility; B.A. Kish, D.R. Mittlestead, G. Wunderlich, J.M. Tokar, T. Hooper, R. Hare, H. Duchatelle, P. Le Blaye; Proceedings from the AIAA Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, San Diego, CA, July 29-31, 1996; PP 177-187; AIAA Paper 96-3493.
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-35550057075632727182017-06-18T12:57:00.002-05:002017-06-18T13:03:49.155-05:00Happy Father's Day 2017Dads, you are terribly missed. But you live on in our hearts.<br />
<br />
(Pics in Chronological Order)<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpq1k8Tv8HFDgl91D7w0lWc8-RQlE2PilB5ZHs3VV2FwmmokGBioVoiahUYVIWhc6e7jOkhkmS0gqPxpiOF3pgzjO-YF6dV72apzo5y-o4ylpJ2BWouKDQBdrcLVUzA2bFPHeokQ/s1600/Grandad-Langley-1924-cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="521" data-original-width="700" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjpq1k8Tv8HFDgl91D7w0lWc8-RQlE2PilB5ZHs3VV2FwmmokGBioVoiahUYVIWhc6e7jOkhkmS0gqPxpiOF3pgzjO-YF6dV72apzo5y-o4ylpJ2BWouKDQBdrcLVUzA2bFPHeokQ/s1600/Grandad-Langley-1924-cropped.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Granddad (Left) Enroute to San Diego on the USS Langley's 1st deployment to the Pacific Fleet 1924.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzlI9GrmldsHQ-yr_daqVlfcl3Y9MhToIjty-AprX5uXYQqZPD7Y4UNH0KFtu7aPyBEbNMPFxvKudy14N_RKszx9xwAxReiICeYTRFOl97OV7QiQSlvUlrczvN077aga83d8cQxA/s1600/Granddad-Circa-1929.jpg" imageanchor="1"><img border="0" data-original-height="687" data-original-width="432" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhzlI9GrmldsHQ-yr_daqVlfcl3Y9MhToIjty-AprX5uXYQqZPD7Y4UNH0KFtu7aPyBEbNMPFxvKudy14N_RKszx9xwAxReiICeYTRFOl97OV7QiQSlvUlrczvN077aga83d8cQxA/s1600/Granddad-Circa-1929.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Granddad riding with his buddy in SoCal Circa 1929-30 </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBt3V4_qEqSaeKz23mdB5Lhr67D99tJOXA7TYvjBSQBYFCXU4daSM0-vn-Ag95ajuX8vlYi2X9i-eG49K4EDanhzXcnmHEqltwa84DqLn5JLCXDs8jD38lxzcf9HEsciMX-Z9FYw/s1600/Dad-Circa-1952.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="383" data-original-width="648" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhBt3V4_qEqSaeKz23mdB5Lhr67D99tJOXA7TYvjBSQBYFCXU4daSM0-vn-Ag95ajuX8vlYi2X9i-eG49K4EDanhzXcnmHEqltwa84DqLn5JLCXDs8jD38lxzcf9HEsciMX-Z9FYw/s1600/Dad-Circa-1952.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Dad in 1952-3 Corpus Christi NAS, Texas</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMsz9oU9fg5iT3FgTl-Tfocc5jiWO0qHxmSn_dhGjR7W6j9OBXODBxjD5OH4b25STwhzouM_tTUzZc8wSisU_wrDu5VJxBDTfh4IHmJ6NXB0T9qy75vH50iZySueQshgBAfLXbWQ/s1600/Dad-Vung-Tau-VN-Apr66-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="720" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMsz9oU9fg5iT3FgTl-Tfocc5jiWO0qHxmSn_dhGjR7W6j9OBXODBxjD5OH4b25STwhzouM_tTUzZc8wSisU_wrDu5VJxBDTfh4IHmJ6NXB0T9qy75vH50iZySueQshgBAfLXbWQ/s1600/Dad-Vung-Tau-VN-Apr66-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Dad hamming it up, Vung Tau SVN April 1966, A <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/aodcurator/sets/72157621420730681/" target="_blank">'<strong>happening place'</strong></a>.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLLLILQaxR6uZiZnaw9s7lIXAf9YDt9ZRJzzblOvAhWftBlYY0IWwKYHAUDPSfUjMA4wpAIurVLp-R5LMQ-ojcvKk0D82q9OEOt2qShEuo13lttcix-uuMbBrbYE2vlk_3y7KjBw/s1600/FatherInLaw-DaNang69-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="497" data-original-width="504" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLLLILQaxR6uZiZnaw9s7lIXAf9YDt9ZRJzzblOvAhWftBlYY0IWwKYHAUDPSfUjMA4wpAIurVLp-R5LMQ-ojcvKk0D82q9OEOt2qShEuo13lttcix-uuMbBrbYE2vlk_3y7KjBw/s1600/FatherInLaw-DaNang69-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
My late Father-in-law "Rusty" Wall, Da Nang SVN with the First F-4Es: 1969, 4th Fighter Sq, 366th Fighter Wing. </div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-39517036529655174182017-05-06T23:00:00.000-05:002017-05-06T23:00:08.070-05:00We Can't let an F-35 Myth Die! <h3>
The "Phone it in Edition"</h3>
The only thing worse than 'phoning it in'.... is doing so with incredibly poor timing.<br />
<br />
<strong>28 April 2017</strong> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“For me, it’s my first time dogfighting against an F-15”….“Dogfighting is a test of pilot skill, but it’s also constrained by the aircraft’s capabilities and I’ve been really impressed by the flight control and maneuverability of the F-35.”
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
--<a href="http://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1165913/f-35a-f-15-train-together-during-lakenheath-deployment/" target="_blank">Maj. (Lt Col Sel.) Luke Harris, F-35A instructor and former F-16 pilot</a>
</div>
<br />
<strong>4 May 2017 click-bait regurgitation of an article first written in <u>2015</u></strong> <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
“Close in, the JSF does not have the maneuverability of the Raptor––or even a F-16 or F/A-18.”
</blockquote>
<br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<a href="http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/what-if-russias-su-35-went-war-americas-f-35-stealth-fighter-20483" target="_blank">--Dave Majumdar, a journalist who rode in the back seat of a trainer someplace.</a></div>
<br />
When Majumdar first started at FlightGlobal he showed promise. Alas, unrealized to date.SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-47712786130089749142017-04-21T23:47:00.001-05:002017-04-21T23:47:07.324-05:00Eats, Shoots, and Leaves: F-35 Edition.<strong>Punctuation: It's important.</strong><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHJi8fm36UMuCxupFYLEs3O9D62VuaVQxCfmiXVOxRcFjQ0eExRx1Qe19ObrGmgPmCcVALBnjUidbHjlvANA2JykijkSywY6DpQH9E1yJ6j8BHvTUCLNce4d2nXeNiVTIrDTTv8w/s1600/F35-Panda.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="315" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHJi8fm36UMuCxupFYLEs3O9D62VuaVQxCfmiXVOxRcFjQ0eExRx1Qe19ObrGmgPmCcVALBnjUidbHjlvANA2JykijkSywY6DpQH9E1yJ6j8BHvTUCLNce4d2nXeNiVTIrDTTv8w/s320/F35-Panda.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1843961" target="_blank"><strong><span style="font-size: xx-small;">Reference in Title Explained</span></strong></a> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div align="center">
</div>
There was a <strong><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/f-35-vs-f-16-15-18-lost-beaten-flatley-comeback-2017-4" target="_blank">poor article published at Business Insider</a></strong> (as if that is a surprise) on 18 April where the author did a mashup of an interview of a retired USMC Major and F-35 pilot with a bunch of factoids, a few facts, and...well, let's just call it a lot of 'other than facts', such as repeating the lie about the 2015 CLAW test being a 'dogfight' and claims like.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUYJV-broTg_nwNtwYEVBCHocwn3HkNgu2gCxdieqKjlt7lO8hesATO45hfGYDLZsvSJzqLBtX70aKvSsppv1Cql4igeISwpxRX4-y2Emao0GOrGncIy4dzoPDlVnebxDJssb3NQ/s1600/inferior-thrust-weight-pfft.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUYJV-broTg_nwNtwYEVBCHocwn3HkNgu2gCxdieqKjlt7lO8hesATO45hfGYDLZsvSJzqLBtX70aKvSsppv1Cql4igeISwpxRX4-y2Emao0GOrGncIy4dzoPDlVnebxDJssb3NQ/s1600/inferior-thrust-weight-pfft.jpg" /></a></div>
The F-35A's mid-mission T/W ratio is better than 1 to 1, good enough to have pilots saying that at typical WVR speeds it can out accelerate an F-16. The F-35A's wing reference area is greater than an F-16 so one presumes he was talking about 'wing loading' -- which isn't a big deal if you've got the thrust to overcome it. I would still dearly love it if some enterprising journalist ever asked how many thousand pounds heavier the early production F-35A (AF-2) with instrumentation is than the first production spec weight target aircraft that was built several LRIPs later. Because <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html" target="_blank">weight matters</a></strong>.<br />
<br />
What the pilot, Dan Flatley had to say was pretty good and consistent with all the other feedback from the people who fly the F-35 are saying. I think it should have been made clear that his views as a syllabus developer were in no way relevant to the JSF program process and pace in opening up the control laws (the <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/09/dave-majumdars-f-35-punk-journalismagain.html" target="_blank">very purpose of that 2015 exercise</a></strong> and publically known a year in advance), but the BI author seems to tie the two together more than the pilot does. <br />
<br />
Everyone in the test program knew the control laws start out conservative for safety's sake and over time as the envelope is tested, the control laws get loosened to get all the 'safe' performance out of a jet that possible. I'd also want some clarifications, but that need comes from the author's mashup. One has to read very carefully to keep from mixing up what the author asserts and the correlations he draws on his own with the interview: what was actually quoted as coming from the Major. The author doesn't have the technical chops to draw the correlations he does make (see thrust/weight ratio), and to me, unless you already knew what was going on, the article just muddies the waters.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Poor Writing Causes Even Poorer Writing</h3>
So as if that's not bad enough, we now have a sterling example of how perverted 'copypasta' will take a poorly written article and turn it into a misquoted source. Compare the BI excerpt with an excerpt from a blogger posting opinions on the subject. Who the blogger is isn't important, what's important is what gets changed in the original story.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLS9FAvoYCRSVwPPhCRB8V38cokDsw8ZTPkbq9E0h1I3_-fyUf16CRzp_3S7fNxy3qhYU-H27VXRVa9NRxLrqCsJotFo32CNqmpJb2zgJOpCTkgNDrVYfQ-LRr4rcqZm7W_nkxfg/s1600/Flately-in-BI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiLS9FAvoYCRSVwPPhCRB8V38cokDsw8ZTPkbq9E0h1I3_-fyUf16CRzp_3S7fNxy3qhYU-H27VXRVa9NRxLrqCsJotFo32CNqmpJb2zgJOpCTkgNDrVYfQ-LRr4rcqZm7W_nkxfg/s1600/Flately-in-BI.jpg" /></a></div>
Now here's the copypasta:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlo0UvadBYJG9V28dN0leXxholb9RbRlMBfh5_pHs3K6GhipA1XLTn7QBXT6e_yyVrygbJ5b6wOputf959EANYM6TztYjaEIXk7Aj-cNxoD96Qdlsxh9AUe5p5vmFiexODARTsLA/s1600/FUed-copypaste.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjlo0UvadBYJG9V28dN0leXxholb9RbRlMBfh5_pHs3K6GhipA1XLTn7QBXT6e_yyVrygbJ5b6wOputf959EANYM6TztYjaEIXk7Aj-cNxoD96Qdlsxh9AUe5p5vmFiexODARTsLA/s1600/FUed-copypaste.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
Ignoring the highlights in the second graphic, do you see what was changed and how the entire meaning of the passage was changed with it?<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
(intermission)<br />
.<br />
.<br />
.<br />
In the original, Major Flatley states:<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">"If you try to fly it like the fighter it isn't, you're going to have terrible results."</span><br />
<br />
In the copypasta, the blogger quotes Flately as stating:<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"> "If you try to fly it like the fighter<span style="color: red;">,</span> it isn't<strong><span style="color: red;">.</span></strong> You're going to have terrible results."</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
I hope there's no need to explain how, why, and what meaning has been lost in the translation there. <br />
<br />
The blogger then builds a whole rant based on a misquote he made in the transcription. I do not believe this was intentional, at least I hope it wasn't. BI doesn't allow simple copy/paste using at least some browsers, including mine, so the transcription was probably manual and prone to human error. But I have to believe preconceived notions caused the mistranslation from one site to the next. Why?<br />
To make that kind of error, it seems you would have to want it to be as you perceived it <u>to even want to post</u> about it in the first place.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Too good to check</h3>
The saddest thing is, I checked the comments (69 at the time) and <u><em>not one person</em></u> called the blogger out on the error. Almost certainly for most it was because the error reaffirmed their own world view, and the rest seemed to just take it at face value that the quote was legit and correct, whether they agreed or disagreed. <strong>This is how B.S. thrives on the web.</strong><br />
<br />
Note: I found the blog post with a search engine while looking for the BI article. It was at a site I used to frequent and my curiosity was piqued. Considering the time of night, I shouldn't have bothered in retrospect.SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-25636030130597580312017-02-06T22:17:00.000-06:002017-02-06T22:19:32.609-06:00President Trump & The F-35: He's Done the Impossible! <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhDQuUBpegpFuT4tLukEVXhdD_VXw5j6bLwdXdYaJP91MosXCWppAjOqZvK_tQOaKdYLmketNDpPkpCW6aECK-_nG0zCjuJxFH7uV9qhdKc4DyZEasSDlYrXvo9yw-Mcx6tnWeYA/s1600/971343_10152636231673538_870086295_n.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="496" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhDQuUBpegpFuT4tLukEVXhdD_VXw5j6bLwdXdYaJP91MosXCWppAjOqZvK_tQOaKdYLmketNDpPkpCW6aECK-_nG0zCjuJxFH7uV9qhdKc4DyZEasSDlYrXvo9yw-Mcx6tnWeYA/s640/971343_10152636231673538_870086295_n.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">F-35 Costs coming down as expected. Deal with it.</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
President Trump set wheels in motion that have turned the long-standing 'F-35 is unaffordable' deception inside out. The whole world now knows the F-35 unit costs are coming down <u>exactly</u> as planned and for -- as any honest person who's been paying attention already knows -- the same reasons the program has been citing all along. <br />
<br />
How did Pres. Trump spread the word/change the narrative so quickly? <br />
He leveraged the mainstream media's 'narrative priorities' and the lockstep and unthinking pursuit of narrative to suit their priorities. <br />
<h3>
Kneejerk Media PWNED</h3>
Thanks to the media's rabid dislike/disapproval of President Trump and ANY of his actions, <br />
<br />
1. We now have outlets like the Washington Post shifting their <strong><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120300527_pf.html" target="_blank">'all negative' cost narrative found in past F-35 reporting</a></strong> to finding themselves having to not only acknowledge, but ASSERT the<strong> </strong><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/31/trumps-claim-taking-credit-for-cutting-600-million-from-the-f-35-program/?utm_term=.93b619724a0b" target="_blank"><strong>costs were coming down anyway</strong></a>, and AS PLANNED in an attempt to deny President Trump any credit for same.<br />
<br />
2. And when the media latched, again in lockstep, onto the "costs were already coming down" story, LM's CEO casually mentions 'but' the President DID help, if only by <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/lrip-10-f35-cost-2017-2" target="_blank"><strong>sharpening the negotiations' focus on 'Costs'</strong></a><strong>.</strong><br />
<br />
Heck, since this started we even got James Fallow's/Atlantic Media's quasi-serious <strong><a href="http://www.defenseone.com/business/2017/01/f-35s-price-has-been-falling-can-trump-lower-it-even-more/134919/" target="_blank">DefenseOne quoting ex-CAPE officials the week after they retired</a></strong> saying: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Over the past five to six years, the F-35 program “has performed pretty close to the [budget] estimates,” </blockquote>
<br />
<h3>
My take </h3>
President Trump's involvement/interest has helped topple an information blackout and for now a Faux Military Reform Industry meme. I'm reminded of the old quote: <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<strong><em>A man may do an immense deal of good, if he does not care who gets the credit for it.</em></strong> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">--<strong><a href="http://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/12/21/doing-good-selfless/" target="_blank">Diary of 'Father Strickland', 1863</a></strong></span> </div>
</blockquote>
I don't care what people think about 'why' the unit costs are coming down as planned. I'm happy just knowing that people know they ARE coming down. Driving the media crazy over it is just a Trump side-benefit.SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-64238193352951082122017-01-22T21:03:00.000-06:002017-01-22T21:03:26.427-06:00This Fighter Program's Problems are Outrageous!<h3>
Time for another round of Name That Program!</h3>
(Any of this seem familiar?)<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
XXXXXXXX noted that: </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(1) XXXXXXXX has revised the XXXXXXXX flight test program by decreasing the data collection requirements that were originally planned; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(2) program documents state that, although flight testing is behind schedule, program decisions to reduce test points will enable the XXXXXXXX to regain lost time and complete development testing in XXXXXXXX, as originally planned; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(3) XXXXXXXX program documents identified numerous deficiencies relative to the aircraft's operational performance; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(4) the most challenging technical issue is XXXXXXXX; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(5) until these issues are resolved through software or hardware changes that have been adequately tested, the cost, schedule, and operational performance impact of resolving these deficiencies cannot be determined; </blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(6) the XXXXXXXX remains confident that it can correct these deficiencies; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(7) in addition, XXXXXXXX that assesses risk areas in the XXXXXXXX program stated in XXXXXXXX, that operational testing may determine that the aircraft is not operationally effective or suitable; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(8) a XXXXXXXX preliminary operational assessment report, which is classified and based on limited data and analysis, identified 16 major deficiencies with the XXXXXXXX aircraft but concluded that the XXXXXXXX is potentially operationally effective and suitable; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(9) the XXXXXXXX has consistently stated that the XXXXXXXX will be developed and produced within the cost estimates established for the program; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(10) certain key assumptions on which the cost estimate was made have been overtaken by events; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(11) program documents state that the current development effort is funded based on the assumption that problems would not occur during testing; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(12) unanticipated aircraft deficiencies have occurred, and most of the program's management reserve has been depleted; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(13) since the flight test program has about 1 year remaining, it is probable that additional deficiencies will develop; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(14) correcting current and potential future deficiencies could result in the development effort exceeding the congressional cost cap; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(15) the XXXXXXXX unit procurement cost estimates are understated; </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(16) these cost estimates were based on what has become unrealistically high quantities of XXXXXXXX aircraft that will be bought; and </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
(17) more realistic assumptions indicate that, although the total procurement cost will decrease, the XXXXXXXX unit cost will be more than the XXXXXXXX currently estimates.</blockquote>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
Answer below the fold. Drumroll.....<br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><a name='more'></a><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This was the <strong><a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-61" target="_blank">F-18E/F program in 1998</a></strong>. </span><span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p>Good thing this was the GAO and not DOT&E reporting. Of course <a href="http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/pdf/navy/99fa18ef.pdf" target="_blank"><strong>even DOT&E was less of a micro-management focused bean-counter organization</strong></a> full of nay-saying morons during about the same timeframe. </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p>Its interesting how the F-18E was getting all the benefit of the doubt at the time, considering it couldn't carry stores without some self-destruction, had<strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-f-35-what-will-happen-while_15.html" target="_blank"> the mother of all wing drop problems</a></strong> and got a pass on the range spec before they fixed the store pylons to add more drag. </o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><o:p>And at the time of these reports the life cycle stress testing of the F-18E airframe was nowhere near where it would find the <strong><a href="https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-8709189.html" target="_blank">kinds of cracks everyone was making a big deal over for the F-35 years later in fielded F-18E/Fs</a></strong>. But unlike the F-35 program, the F-18 program did not find their problems through testing ground articles years earlier in the process. Some of the F-35's test success in this area is no doubt due in part to lessons learned for the F-18E/F. It would just be nice for the ahistorical mouth-breathers to remember that the history is there instead of making up stories about how uniquely 'bad' the F-35 is. While "those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it", when you add in J.R. Pierce's maxim:</o:p></span><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"></span><blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">"Novices in mathematics, science, or engineering are forever demanding infallible, universal, mechanical methods for solving problems"</span></blockquote>
<br />
...Then the rest of us are doomed to forever hearing how bad something is just because those 'Novices' don't know WTF they are talking about,<strong><a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-updated-f18-comparable-f35-advanced-super-hornet-2017-1" target="_blank"> or they're someone who wants to sell us their 'bill of goods' (aka B.S.).</a></strong></div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-42323501899160294882017-01-21T00:27:00.002-06:002017-01-21T00:27:48.694-06:00'Opti-Onics': Arrived in the Late 20th Century <br />
Via <b><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/" target="_blank">x-ray delta one</a></b> we find the visionaries at Bell & Howell understood Intelligence Strike & Reconnaissance (ISR) way back in the 1940s :<br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8XEY3IHVoAZ580Og2FcmRzSrM4HxySNCOw5V_HulJs101eofcjWlybCFT4LIuoXvTlTnruamKyGR3Zo2W0XDZB6RkvGf_xxfsVOslr9_X8QyiDn-3vie2_TVO3y9cBqXT5C2S0A/s1600/32054872500_2ea15bd70a_b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8XEY3IHVoAZ580Og2FcmRzSrM4HxySNCOw5V_HulJs101eofcjWlybCFT4LIuoXvTlTnruamKyGR3Zo2W0XDZB6RkvGf_xxfsVOslr9_X8QyiDn-3vie2_TVO3y9cBqXT5C2S0A/s640/32054872500_2ea15bd70a_b.jpg" width="477" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><b>Source:</b> <span style="font-size: xx-small;"><b style="text-align: start;"><a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/x-ray_delta_one/32054872500/in/photostream/" target="_blank">XRay Delta One</a></b><span style="text-align: start;"> (James Vaughan)</span></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Just envision that's a 'Predator' or 'Global Hawk' silhouette we see looking down on the battlefield.<br />
<br />
B&H is still with us--<b> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_%26_Howell" target="_blank">somewhat transmogrified</a>--</b>too.SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-13948373723437133442017-01-19T23:26:00.002-06:002017-01-20T19:14:41.175-06:00B-2's Bomb ISIS!<strong>H/T </strong><a href="http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=52717&p=360763#p360763" target="_blank"><strong>Edpop at F-16.net</strong></a> This is pretty much a repeat of what I posted at F-16.net<br />
<br />
It is <strong><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/politics/us-airstrikes-libya-isis/index.html" target="_blank">interesting that CNN focuses on the body count</a></strong>. <br />
<br />
It does gives proof to the old adage <em>"If it bleeds it leads</em>' but my, how 'Southeast Asia 1965' of them.<br />
<br />
What's more important: Were the <u><em>right</em></u> terrorists killed. This is pretty much a repeat of what I posted at F-16.net<br />
<br />
<strong>Q: Why use B-2s?</strong> <br />
<strong>A:</strong> So ISIS never saw us coming.
<br />
<br />
<strong>Q: Why 2 B-2s to drop 38 weapons when 1 can carry 80 500lb JDAMs</strong>? <br />
A: To bomb both locations at the same time, like probably down to the last second unless they wanted to cause a response in one first by bombing the other. And more than 38-40 would have probably been overkill.
<br />
<br />
<strong>Q:
Was this cost-effective?</strong> <br />
<strong>A:</strong> Aside from killing the terrorists who would have carried out attacks in Europe and probably elsewhere now and later (CNN and their<em> 'militants'</em>....F*! <em><u>both</u></em>.) it probably: <br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
a. flattened their training facilities, weapons building capability and stockpile and the trainers of future terrorists, </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
b. it will also make the survivors look up in the sky at night and loose their beauty sleep. </blockquote>
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">The immediate and later costs of letting any attacks happen probably far outweighed the cost of flying 2 B-2s and expending a few bombs.</span></strong> <br />
<br />
There are some less obvious positives about this, given the 'international' interest in the region, but I will not air them here. <br />
<br />
Now expect some slacker in the media to use the <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/01/loyal-babblers-pawns-fellow-travelers.html" target="_blank">'kitchen sink' definition of $/FH</a></strong> to rail against the strike as 'wasteful' in 5...4...3...2...<br />
<br />
<h3>
On a personal note...</h3>
I had a very small role in fielding the Smart Bomb Rack Assembly (Smart BRA: gotta' love it). I suppose since they dropped only 38 JDAMs they could have used the Rotary Launchers (RLAs) but that's OK too, since I also played a small role developing and testing the smart weapons interface that allowed GATS/GAM then JDAMs etc. to be dropped as well. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<strong><em><span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;">I feel pretty good about all that right now.</span></em></strong>
<br />
<strong><em><span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><br /></span></em></strong>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="color: red;"><b>Updated 20 Jan 17:</b></span> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Well now the <b><a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/isis-libya-terror-camps-sirte-us-air-strikes-bombing-pentagon-campaign-islamic-state-daesh-a7535341.html" target="_blank">reports coming in say 'over 100' JDAMs</a></b>, and some specifically assert 110 JDAMs were dropped in two camps. It appears by some accounts there were to be up to <i><u>four</u></i> camps targeted initially but the terrorists had consolidated as well as relocated between the time the missions were conceived and executed. I'm sure the AF still enjoys it when targets bunch up. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">It would have been hard to move assets around the Middle East to hit Libya like this without contrarian interests leaking it beforehand, I still remember Operation Allied Force and how ops departures out of Comiso seemed to be on TV in real time. The message here is: you won't see us coming unless we want you to. </span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "verdana" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">As it perhaps looked like a last tasking from Former President Obama to our enemies, I imagine they were just as surprised as some of the media appear to be <b><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/01/20/more-than-100-core-al-qaeda-fighters-killed-in-u-s-strike-in-syria.html" target="_blank">when a Buff and UAVs took out a few AlQaeda in Syria in followup</a></b>. </span></span></div>
</div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-8847142359594216332017-01-18T22:43:00.001-06:002017-01-19T23:29:57.819-06:00Not the 'Second Engine for the F-35' Cr*p Again! <h3>
Oh dear, if <em><u>only</u></em> the world was this simple.
</h3>
Breaking Defense has an advocacy piece up at Breaking Defense titled:<strong><a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/if-trump-wants-lower-f-35-costs-he-should-compete-f135-engine/" target="_blank"> "</a></strong><span style="color: #0066cc;"><span style="color: black;"><strong><a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2017/01/if-trump-wants-lower-f-35-costs-he-should-compete-f135-engine/" target="_blank">Trump Wants Lower F-35 Costs, He Should Compete F135 Engine"</a></strong></span> <span style="color: black;">from Retired USAF Colonel John Venable (who is now with the Heritage Center). In it, Venable tries to make a case for reviving a second engine effort for the F-35. But in typical AF 'advocacy style guide' fashion, elides right by many key factors to consider while throwing all possible arguments at the wall trying to make one stick. I wanted to just make a comment at BD, but since they've invoked the ads among the commenters in their comment threads their web page tends to crash on me for all but the shortest comments. Could be the times, could be my system (Adobe updater is always a suspect). In any case, here are my observations on the sales pitch Venable makes. Read the whole BD article first to see the targets of my counterpoints. </span></span><br />
<br />
<h3>
RE: Competition </h3>
‘Competition!’ is almost always a good thing in an open commercial and ‘free’ market, the kind of market most of us deal with every day. However, it is only a good idea sometimes, under certain conditions, in a monopsonistic (such as ‘defense’) market. At the risk of oversimplifying almost as much as the author, in a defense market a competition is generally ‘good’ for reducing risk and improving technical outcomes, but generally NOT good for reducing ‘cost’. <br />
The body of defense acquisition research is awash with the whys and wherefores of when and how a program should invoke competition. Though people like to point to the Great Engine War history in this instance, they tend to forget that most of that ‘narrative’ was written before the history had fully played out.<strong> </strong><a href="http://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/3145" target="_blank"><strong>Later views on the utility and relevance of that competition to the F-35</strong></a> are far more nuanced than simple invocation of the Great Engine War can convey.
<br />
Not to put too fine a point on it, there are certain requirements for a successful (cost lowering) competition (see <strong><a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP263.html" target="_blank">here</a> </strong>for starters) and one of the most important set of conditions has to do with the total volume of work competed AND the rate to which it is to be performed. Two operations running at reduced capacity are NOT cheaper than one running at full capacity. So if the author and Heritage want to advocate competition in this case, they need to caveat that advocacy with a requirement to ramp up the F-35 production rates sufficiently and far enough ahead of any doubling of the number of engine suppliers to ensure sufficient and worthwhile demand for same. <br />
<br />
Finally, given the program is looking to refresh F-35 engine technology, you better have the second engine supplier qualified and production ramped up yesterday if you don’t want it competing with the effort that now appears to be <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/articles/new-engines-for-f-35-mid-2020s-likely-says-bogdan" target="_blank"><strong>on the F-35's horizon</strong></a> (mid 2020s). How much so-called 'savings' can possibly accrue if there's only a couple of years production involved?<br />
<br />
<h3>
RE: F-35 Weight </h3>
Is the author aware that the F-35 variants are all at or below their target weights for the end of SDD? Is he aware that those target weights were set with an allowance for further weight growth already factored in? Is the author aware that weight growth in past aircraft (both the F-16 and F-18 spring immediately to mind) was driven primarily by scabbing kinds of needed systems (sensors, EW, etc.) onto them that are already integral to the F-35 design and already installed or have their weight already accounted for in the target weights? <br />
<br />
<h3>
RE: Thrust </h3>
Is the author aware that increased thrust <strong><a href="http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/08/27/pratt-ripostes-ges-thrust-parry/" target="_blank">has been available from the F135 for some time</a></strong> if is needed, but increased thrust will require changes/differences in the F-35B along with associated program cost increases to incorporate? <br />
<br />
While we’re on the subject of cost, no doubt the author also has a plan to add a couple of $B to the program in order to finish development of a second engine, to include getting everyone on board with the idea AND happy about the extra cost involved including the <strike>cheapskates</strike> <strong><a href="http://www.cftr.org/2011/02/congress-must-shut-off-alternative-engine-of-joint-strike-fighter/" target="_blank">budget conscious</a></strong> and the <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/04/military-ge-f136-jsf-engine" target="_blank"><strong>faux military reform industry</strong></a>. <br />
<br />
<h3>
RE: 'Transonic Acceleration' and 'Sustained G' KPPs </h3>
Is the author aware that the transonic acceleration and sustained turn KPPS are only factors in the trade space below Lethality and Survivability requirements, and that their values are only relevant as contributors to the overall requirements? If the program is not concerned, the author ought to first find out 'why' before engaging in public handwringing. I've examined these KPPs before (<a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/02/the-f-35-and-infamous-transonic.html" target="_blank"><strong>here</strong></a> and <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-f-35-and-infamous-sustained-g-spec.html" target="_blank">here</a></strong>) so I get why the program isn't too concerned. As the KPP values were established with a mid-mission weight and payload involved, and assuming some degraded engine performance towards end of life, perhaps some of the author's concerns will be allayed knowing that similarly equipped F-16s in most cases couldn't do any better?<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWKXuue_BPqoHCOMadvQiNVopZsDTjxyquBpwwT6eGgLP2hvEojGW1R05w1Edn7zoHgb-djrbPpVk2gxhxAPY2IPuP1lEn_HvzdHvq-qejFVZdUapraOeOCMYb6O76IHCUgsMNWA/s1600/F-16-transonic-accel-vs-F-35A-KPP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="184" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWKXuue_BPqoHCOMadvQiNVopZsDTjxyquBpwwT6eGgLP2hvEojGW1R05w1Edn7zoHgb-djrbPpVk2gxhxAPY2IPuP1lEn_HvzdHvq-qejFVZdUapraOeOCMYb6O76IHCUgsMNWA/s640/F-16-transonic-accel-vs-F-35A-KPP.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
Since the author is a recognized top fighter pilot and ‘patch wearer’ who came of age in the aftermath of all-aspect short-range IR missiles, he surely must be cognizant of the fact that these <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-backgrounder-on-energy-maneuverability.html" target="_blank">two parameters have taken a backseat to instantaneous turn rate, time to corner speed, and low speed nose pointing</a></strong>: three measures of agility that from what the pilots are saying are where the F-35 excels. <br />
<br />
<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgstBROQ0b4eomHqOZM3fxlKSzTsVjpVFqCBspSwj9vf-1r4yXCsgU7MkDBz3vZI40XGdWJ-vmdFqDd2dMrdXEwZVcDik3cGJRkj-mLt48W___wHRF3X7em2M6hSKR1lO8AAJgEpw/s1600/new-ranking.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="347" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgstBROQ0b4eomHqOZM3fxlKSzTsVjpVFqCBspSwj9vf-1r4yXCsgU7MkDBz3vZI40XGdWJ-vmdFqDd2dMrdXEwZVcDik3cGJRkj-mLt48W___wHRF3X7em2M6hSKR1lO8AAJgEpw/s640/new-ranking.jpg" width="640" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;"><strong>Table 3 Reconstruction from “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Advanced Fighter Agility Metrics</i>”</strong></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;">Andrew M. Skow, Willlam L. Hamilton, John H. Taylor; AIAA-A85-47027</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;">10 = most important </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
We won’t go into it here, but even these measures of agility may have been rendered less important with higher off-boresight and 'shorter minimum' range missiles (<em>that's probably going to come in the next part or part after of my </em><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/08/fighter-aircraft-design-part-2-driven.html" target="_blank"><strong><em>fighter design</em></strong></a><em> series by the way--still working on it</em>).<br />
<br />
In any case, advocating more thrust to improve these metrics is pretty hapless if one thinks about the speed regions involved. It's probably more important that the F-35 variants are meeting/beating their weight targets.<br />
<br />
So all the arguments for adding the second engine into the F-35, at least for the factors above, seem to be rather unconvincing. As to the decision to stop the GE engine effort, which was very immature, it made sense. How immature? As I<strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/search?q=Bob+Dorr" target="_blank"> observed in 2014</a></strong>:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
In the spring of 2010, the F136 was only <b><a href="http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/97070.pdf" target="_blank">700 hours into a 10,000 hour test program and had not been flight tested</a></b>. 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.</blockquote>
Let's keep the F136 the mythical success it is, at least as far as the F-35 is concerned.<br />
<br />SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-58647512141544466662017-01-12T22:50:00.000-06:002017-01-12T22:50:00.172-06:00Drone Swarm TestingThe applications and ramifications are numerous, mind-boggling. For the paranoid, it probably has the added bonus of being scary as h*ll.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe width="320" height="266" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XKiUtruQiY/0.jpg" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/3XKiUtruQiY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></div>
Sleep well.SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-87332812236606846152016-11-26T23:20:00.000-06:002016-11-26T23:25:13.788-06:00The Cuban Communist Despot Has Died<a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/world/americas/cuba/article117201053.html" target="_blank"><strong>Finally</strong></a><strong>.</strong> <br />
I join my Cuban friends in their celebration with a little something I've been saving just for this occasion: A fine American (Texan!) vodka that kicks the rest of the world's vodkas a**es. I've had this in the cabinet so long that a deposit 'ring' formed in the neck of the bottle and Tito's has since changed its label.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAfVkmTO0UwPTemkrW6I85tCpGrgPMol4-XjoWJc3d8gISmNA0yLETwYBMrcf26Dax1eAmLauCkNImYGGm9f7Q6VsVutpPeeeAyit1IVfduHXvpNiTKgWRLG1lj4f1zqsZKrVOwQ/s1600/Titos-At-Last.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAfVkmTO0UwPTemkrW6I85tCpGrgPMol4-XjoWJc3d8gISmNA0yLETwYBMrcf26Dax1eAmLauCkNImYGGm9f7Q6VsVutpPeeeAyit1IVfduHXvpNiTKgWRLG1lj4f1zqsZKrVOwQ/s400/Titos-At-Last.jpg" width="225" /></a></div>
<br />
And so a final update is in order...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFylIj_FRBEPchavxoh1-YBB-WamPGLzWehFy3eBRAaLVrBN4exYQGW7v44otCfoRqac7H_PWQ6snoTPGUbGP0EfZThq5MWJTWi7l7xNuPvka3-L0YzAL4pZhY5mUIvrIY3rL7LA/s1600/fidelche2-2016-FINAL.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFylIj_FRBEPchavxoh1-YBB-WamPGLzWehFy3eBRAaLVrBN4exYQGW7v44otCfoRqac7H_PWQ6snoTPGUbGP0EfZThq5MWJTWi7l7xNuPvka3-L0YzAL4pZhY5mUIvrIY3rL7LA/s320/fidelche2-2016-FINAL.jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
<br />
I've been waiting too long, but nothing compared to how long those who he oppressed have had to wait. This isn't the end unfortunately, only the beginning of the end. I expect the era of the 'Commandantes' will now go out with a whimper without Fidel's 'cult of personality'. THEN the suffering will end once Raul and the last of his cronies pass into the 'dustbin of history'. <br />
<br />
Of course we should keep hurrying that day along 'some'.<br />
<br />
Selected samples of older versions of the above below the fold. They weren't always featured in a post, but they were in the heading/masthead from almost day one.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdrKDtCq77nScNL5t7XwLVDGEur_v9iU-yYtuLZjHUHTqx1nzHdNAiRqnaN4FQ06hbzJLZI2pVgLE7fP1cvxZui4BxslUkjqV6NvDfLhMzWqWxuSOWRGwnPJq49MIxnJXM-DnqBA/s1600/fidelche-2015.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdrKDtCq77nScNL5t7XwLVDGEur_v9iU-yYtuLZjHUHTqx1nzHdNAiRqnaN4FQ06hbzJLZI2pVgLE7fP1cvxZui4BxslUkjqV6NvDfLhMzWqWxuSOWRGwnPJq49MIxnJXM-DnqBA/s320/fidelche-2015.jpg" width="280" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXaMimnQR6tDxhEeX_o-28J4jbOKav7dbYFaEjsFNuS8cKHCiobiqFGUh8a_mPoKEaJS9LajagrrDtLatpx1RXzJiq52SZGUYby44BnNRWGc2-o9quJ8tGVM2oU-PcVtK61N1PLQ/s1600/fidel-che-2010.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhXaMimnQR6tDxhEeX_o-28J4jbOKav7dbYFaEjsFNuS8cKHCiobiqFGUh8a_mPoKEaJS9LajagrrDtLatpx1RXzJiq52SZGUYby44BnNRWGc2-o9quJ8tGVM2oU-PcVtK61N1PLQ/s320/fidel-che-2010.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlPg5JiF3egx5Qa_8Cd4PrUcFri7C_O4rhgt6Iz2ueHJA9dT2Ru3El4anSKBGAUcg32LLC-Yw2_N91DKSflKZHUTnnbbHpSDpGDLrfsplOJpWbv5HBq30XkXE5tst2MKPYcdUqZw/s1600/fidel-che-08.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="218" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhlPg5JiF3egx5Qa_8Cd4PrUcFri7C_O4rhgt6Iz2ueHJA9dT2Ru3El4anSKBGAUcg32LLC-Yw2_N91DKSflKZHUTnnbbHpSDpGDLrfsplOJpWbv5HBq30XkXE5tst2MKPYcdUqZw/s320/fidel-che-08.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2006/08/fidel-pinin-for-fjords.html"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivQbVYjkIwtMj-84TINaMUIi9nRcI-VyE-hCC8k-pRWT9VPLgt89m9RI4J96DjrjpNR2qOsgiC2zNXD9av7OhhWkYNaS4AodpYt_KR9Os11aI5QWTtZZCVbqWDMq9zYOnMjlyw_Q/s1600/Despot+Fidel+2006.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="219" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivQbVYjkIwtMj-84TINaMUIi9nRcI-VyE-hCC8k-pRWT9VPLgt89m9RI4J96DjrjpNR2qOsgiC2zNXD9av7OhhWkYNaS4AodpYt_KR9Os11aI5QWTtZZCVbqWDMq9zYOnMjlyw_Q/s320/Despot+Fidel+2006.jpg" width="320" /></a></a></div>
<br />
<br />SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-28021954889537420382016-11-18T22:28:00.000-06:002016-11-20T21:48:01.541-06:00"Pentagon Top Tester" Tests Nothing, But He Sure Can Whine<br />
<br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
It's as if his phony-baloney job depends on it</h3>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0nv8kuypdv1zbzjvvmm0Y9WIAlTZPEz_JXYbp9-x1Gpi-3B-jB9FOglumT0uQIbtb0WZ8Jx545czsfMVubch8yiTggX7l5Lvo_gJJUAgqV25MGQmfEfzdP2TtuQUULbyK7o-ylA/s1600/ad+inexplorata+large.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="196" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0nv8kuypdv1zbzjvvmm0Y9WIAlTZPEz_JXYbp9-x1Gpi-3B-jB9FOglumT0uQIbtb0WZ8Jx545czsfMVubch8yiTggX7l5Lvo_gJJUAgqV25MGQmfEfzdP2TtuQUULbyK7o-ylA/s200/ad+inexplorata+large.jpg" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Ah! The DOT&E memo <strong><a href="http://www.stripes.com/news/air-force/pentagon-tester-says-lockheed-s-f-35-still-falls-short-1.425347" target="_blank">leaked last month to Anthony “SlowTony” Cappacio</a></strong> by ‘someone’ has a follow-on. It is oozing out of the woodwork this
time <strong><a href="http://aviationweek.com/blog/pentagons-top-weapons-tester-f-35-still-challenged" target="_blank">via the keyboard of a budding “Slow Laura” Seligman</a></strong>. No doubt the rabble
will get their panties in a knot again, not realizing (or more likely: not
caring) that it is essentially the same knot they tied last month: Gilmore
doesn’t like the F-35 test program, doesn’t have the budget or technical knowledge
to conduct a test himself (he’s a nuke physicist that went down the management track
eons ago) and he just can’t shut up about his ‘concerns’ lest someone realize
he and his organization are largely superfluous. Let’s break this memo down
before the cycle repeats. It’s another hoot.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;">14 Oct 2016</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: "calibri";">MEMORANDUM FOR UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR ACQUISITION,</span><span style="font-family: "calibri";">TECHNOLOGY AND LOGISTICS</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">SUBJECT: Concerns Regarding
Progress and Readiness of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program for initial
Operational Test and Evaluation (lOT &E)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">‘Prophet
Gilmore’ he ain’t.<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">The Director of DOT&E has concerns? Who knew? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Seriously, if the DOT&E Director didn’t have ‘concerns’
and let the DoD command chain know-- he wouldn’t be doing his “job”. The
biggest problem with his ‘concerns’ as far as I am ‘concerned’ are: <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">1) The content of his reports and testimonies
go outside his consequential knowledge base in asserting beliefs as facts or
possibilities as inevitable, and/or </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">2) Presents his assertions on ‘risks’
and their consequences as if he were some soothsayer. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Whereas the above fairly summarize my objections to
Gilmore’s performance, the DOT&E apparatus itself is another thing
entirely. It is a political construct that was created for political purposes
by politicians AND it has been used consistently by SOME politicians as an
instrument for their own political machinations from day one, on down through
to today AND, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-22" target="_blank">contrary to another political construct’s superficial analysis</a></b>, can be shown to cost us taxpayers far
more than the value we get out of any benefit in return. And though I've pointed it out for quite some time, I know <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/cut-pure-overhead-navy-sec-mabus-says-dfas-dla-dote/" target="_blank">I’m not the only person to recognize this</a></b>.
</span><br />
<h3>
Bottom line: We shouldn’t have to worry about how bad Gilmore is in the first
place because his job shouldn’t even exist. <o:p></o:p></h3>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">IF Gilmore’s outfit was worth a spit, they wouldn’t have to
leak their reports and memos to the <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/01/loyal-babblers-pawns-fellow-travelers.html" target="_blank">Faux Military Reform machine</a></strong> before the
rest of us saw it. It’s the only way they keep their wall of illusion from
falling over whenever reality leans on it. (Think <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2013/03/pogos-propaganda-circus-f-35s-aft.html">P.A.C.E.</a></strong> )<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore continues… <o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">The purpose of this memorandum is
to document my continuing concerns regarding progress in the F-35 JSF program
as you prepare to conduct the upcoming Defense Acquisition Board review. In a
memorandum dated August 9, 2016, I identified concerns to you, the Secretary of
the Air Force and the Chief of Staff of the Air Force that, in spite of the
recent Initial Operational Capability (IOC) declaration by the U.S. Air Force,
achieving full Block 3F combat capability is actually at substantial risk. The
primary concerns were that the program appeared to be prematurely ending System
Development and Demonstration (SDD) and was not taking the necessary steps to
be ready for IOT&E, which will be conducted using realistic combat missions
fully consistent with our war plans and threat assessments. The <span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">program's limited progress since the memorandum continues to
indicate clearly</span></span> the program will not be able to deliver the full
Operational Requirements Document (ORD)-required combat capability within the
planned remaining SDD schedule….<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This is where Gilmore places his stake in the ground. But
since the program cannot by definition ‘complete SDD’ without delivering “the
full Operational Requirements Document (ORD)-required combat capability within
the planned remaining SDD schedule” will Gilmore’s reference to ‘prematurely
ending’ SDD rely on some false belief about the use and purpose of the ORD, how
‘planning’ or ‘testing’, or risk management is ‘done’, or involve the
presentation of transient situations as either insurmountable or permanent?
Perhaps we’ll see again see DOT&E’s persistent cloying-on to raw program
performance metrics as if the metrics equal program performance itself? Maybe
we’ll again see Gilmore driving off into the ‘non-DOT&E’ weeds? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">If past performance is an indication, I think we’ll find a
bit of everything. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
And so here it comes…<o:p></o:p></h3>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;">The reasons I have reached this
conclusion include the following:</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Continued schedule delays.</b> According to the program's baseline
mission systems software and capability release schedule, the planned release
to flight test of Block 3FR6 mission systems software has slipped from February
2016 to December 2016, 10 months later than originally planned. This delay was
caused in part by the need for multiple additional "Quick Reaction
Capability" (QRC) software builds of Block 3FR5 to enable weapons testing
to proceed and to reduce stability problems. However, since the program was
funded to the baseline schedule, this 10-month delay in Block 3FR6 software
indicates strongly that the program has shortfalls in funding and time to
complete the planned testing of the remaining set of full Block 3F capabilities
and necessary fixes. Moreover, releasing Block 3FR6 in December is another
3-month delay to the program's more recent estimate that this version of Block
3F software would be released to flight test in September.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Well, the program has asserted (and Slow Lara notes in her article)
that any extra testing will be coming out of existing program funds. In any
case, DOT&E’s charter is to ensure technical test sufficiency. Gilmore
was/is essentially complaining about funds that aren’t tithed to the DOT&E coffers
<u>yet</u> but he’s acting like that there will be no funds forthcoming. I
would expect he knew the situation before the JSFPO made the fact public, so
the question is why does he note only part of the circumstance? Was it because
“JSFPO is working to provide” or “JSFPO has committed” to filling any shortfall
in test dollars from other areas of the F-35 was too difficult to put in a
report? Or was that fact an inconvenient truth against the desired DOT&E
narrative? Active mitigation of risk is just as relevant as the ‘risk’. Unless,
apparently, you are DOT&E. Anyway, if there were no funds to ensure
DOT&Es pet testing could be done, his test report would be very short and
easy to write: “Test failed because test could not be performed.” Whew! Good
thing this is a non-problem.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">This next paragraph is built upon absolutes that are
conditional possibilities. IMHO it can be made MOSTLY correct with just a few
caveats (in <span style="color: red;">red</span>) added.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Need to complete all planned and agreed-to developmental testing (DT).</b>
The program’s continued cost and schedule-driven plan to truncate planned DT
points and <s><span style="color: red;">prematurely</span></s> close-out SDD <s><span style="color: red;">would</span></s> <span style="color: red;">could</span> shift
significant risk to OT and the warfighter. This <s><span style="color: red;">ill-advised</span></s><span style="color: red;"> </span>action <span style="color: red;">could</span> <s><span style="color: red;">would</span></s> also <s><span style="color: red;">discard</span></s>
<span style="color: red;">either create test gaps OR safely reduce test
requirements in </span>the carefully planned build-up test content in the Test
and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) <span style="color: red;">.The TEMP content </span>that
<span style="color: red;">might be removed </span>was not included as an optional
throwaway, but rather was content the Program Executive Officer formally agreed
was required when he signed the TEMP. The program’s plan to ‘·quarantine”
buildup test points that were in the Joint Test Plan (JTP) and planned to be
flown by the test centers, skip ahead to complex mission effectiveness test
points, and then delete the build-up test points as “no longer required” <s><span style="color: red;">will only</span></s><span style="color: red;"> could </span>delay
problem discoveries and increase the risk to IOT &E, as well as to the men
and women who will use the F- 35 in combat<span style="color: red;">, or might
have little or no effect on the end state capability</span>. Additionally, the
program will need to <span style="color: red;">continue to </span>allocate test
points not in its current plans for characterization, root cause
investigations, and correction of a large number of the open deficiencies and
technical debt described later in this memorandum. The completion of the
planned baseline test <s><span style="color: red;">points</span></s><span style="color: red;"> objectives </span>from the Block 3F JTP, along with
correction or mitigation of significant deficiencies, is necessary to ensure
full Block 3F capabilities are adequately tested and verified before
operational test and, more importantly, before they are fielded for use in
combat</span>. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Remember I wrote the above paragraph could be made MOSTLY
correct by adding caveats. It still has problems in that it is built upon a
presumption of ‘technical debt’ (clever soundbite there BTW). Unmodified, this
paragraph tries to sells an idea that the consequences of a ‘problem’ are
serious, without proving the ‘problem’ itself is even a serious problem.
Gilmore will now attempt to prove a problem in the crudest of fashion—using the
crudest of numbers. Let’ let him run a couple of paragraphs here while he builds
his straw man. As a ‘bonus’ fun exercise, try to find all the places where he
keeps talking in absolutes about what is merely possibilities or opinions, we
won’t belabor the point anymore, because now you can’t help but see them for
yourself.…<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Insufficient progress in F-35A, F-JSB and F-35C flight sciences
testing.</b> Although progress has been made in all variants, each is behind in
planned test point completion for the year, as shown in the table below (data
as of the end of September).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: currentColor; margin: auto auto auto 0.5in; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 623px;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Variant<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Planned Points<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thru Sep 30, 2016<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Points<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Accomplished<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Thru Sep 30.2016<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Planned Points for<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">CY16<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td></tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">F-35A<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1322<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1080<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1364<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td></tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">F-35B<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1593<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1580<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">2119<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td></tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">F-35C<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1441<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1354<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">1906<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-size: x-small;">• Insufficient progress in F-35
mission systems testing. As of the end of September, the program had only
accomplished 2,069 mission systems test points against the goal of 3, 189 and
the plan of 3,709 for the year. Despite falling farther behind and carrying a
significant number of open deficiencies, the program has decided to terminate
testing of Block 3F software as scheduled in CY 17 due to inadequate funding to
complete the planned testing in the JTP. As a result of this decision and ongoing
software delays, the program has deleted two full software releases from their
mission systems schedule, removing Block 3FR8 and replacing 3FR7 with additional
contingency QRC software builds of3FR6, which will now be the last full developmental
software release. The outcome of these decisions is that the remaining number
of software releases to complete Block 3F development is currently insufficient
to support adequate testing to identify and correct deficiencies prior to IOT&E
and use in combat. Although the 3FR6 release in late 2016 is planned to have
full Block 3F capabilities, some of those capabilities will be tested for the
first time in that release and will certainly not be mature enough to be
effective without additional testing and the necessary additional time and
resources. In particular, additional builds of software to characterize and
correct deficiencies, each of which will also require regression testing to
verify fixes, will be needed. These problems are exacerbated by the proposal to
quarantine test points described above. Despite these delays, and the fact that
some of the "full" Block 3F capabilities are just beginning flight
test or have not yet started (i.e., gun accuracy testing), the program still
plans to terminate flight testing as scheduled in early 2017 and finalize Block
3F.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gosh, the root cause of all the hooey Gilmore spouts in
those two paragraphs could be caused by anything, including any and all of the
following:</span><br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore presumes all test points are created
equal, vs. there being the ability to eliminate test points through the
analysis of other test points to reduce duplication.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore presumes all test points are mandatory
vs. there being some that are perceived as optional from the get-go: contingent
on upon the outcomes from predecessor test activity.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore has never heard of “replanning“, or “rethinking
a plan“ based upon knowledge gained since the last plan was issued.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore mentally equates more test cycles as
being good, when if your software is getting more stable, more test cycles will
just waste everybody’s time and money.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore thinks he understands the risks of test
compression more than the developers.</span></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: "symbol"; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">·<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore thinks he knows how to manage risk
better than those who are actually managing risks.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore proceeds…</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri"; font-size: x-small;">• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Insufficient time and resources to conduct all required weapons
delivery accuracy (WDA) events. </b>The program completed a surge of weapons
test events in August and is analyzing the results. While some of the events
appear to have been successful, several WDAs unsurprisingly had significant
issues that either required control room intervention or the employment of the
weapon was likely unsuccessful. Despite making some progress, the program still
has not completed the full set of planned test events for Block 3F weapons in
the TEMP, with 13 WDAs remaining, excluding the multiple gun scoring events,
which must also be completed. Due to the limited time and funding remaining in
SDD, the program has prioritized completing testing of new and deficient Block
3F mission systems capabilities over completing the remaining WDAs. While completion
of Block 3F mission systems is necessary, the WDAs are also an integral part of
successfully completing required development and adequate testing of full Block
3F capabilities. Each of the planned WDA events is an essential end-to-end test
of the full fire-control chain. Conducting all of the WDAs is the only way to
discover problems that otherwise will be realized in operational test and/or combat.
For example, one of the recent AIM-120 missile WDA events required control room
intervention to direct the pilot when to launch, as there were no shoot cues or
launch zone indications displayed to the pilot due to an outdated AIM-120 missile
attack model within the mission systems software. Due to their importance and
the distinct differences among them, all of the planned WDA events must be completed
during DT; otherwise, these events will have to be completed before or during
IOT &E, which will delay discovery of deficiencies and the completion of IOT&E
while adding to its cost.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">So. Gilmore <u>STILL</u> doesn’t like how the program prioritizes,
deals with unexpected events, or apparently conducts/eliminates as many test
points as possible in a test even when there’s a missing display element that
otherwise would have prevented the test from proceeding. Noted.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But hold on. Doesn’t that partial test count towards
‘building up’ to a fuller test later?--Something Gilmore advocates whenever he yaps about it? ---i.e. when it is convenient?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>And how important was it to get all the data that has been collected through August ‘analyzed’
first to ensure the remaining testing was not adversely impacted until the missing
display was ready? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">And let us observe that it takes more than a little chutzpah
to bring up future test needs when the actual need is not fully quantified
(except in ‘planned test points’ of course) when analysis of the last relevant testing
is still underway. The jet’s not done yet. OK. We get it. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">But isn’t it interesting how Gilmore glosses over the actual
progress made in August in completing the WDAs? If his audience was told that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.edwards.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/926978/f-35-surges-forward-with-record-breaking-weapons-tests">13 WDAs were completed in that one month</a>,</b>
might that indicate a far-less harrowing situation than Gilmore portrays with only
another 13 WDAs to go? Any bets that the remaining WDAs won't be easier to set up since those setting them up will be leveraging lessons learned from experience? </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">WDAs traditionally have taken a longer time because of what it takes to organize and set up test assets and conduct dry runs. If you blow up one target, you
need another one ready at another spot if you want to retest in anything less
than a month at best in my experience. Doing as many as the F-35 did in August required a lot of work orchestrating multiple ranges and test support organizations. The 30 or so weapons tests (13 of them WDAs)
the F-35 program accomplished in August is a sign of a program capability to
complete a very complex set of test challenges, and all Gilmore can do is play ‘kid
in the back seat'; whining about “why are we not there yet?”.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore is handwringing over a possible 1-2 month schedule hit at
most... unless it’s not <em>really</em> that important to the program then it might be nobody except Gilmore cares about how long it will take and where it will occur. Worst case, something
is missed in DT and gets cleaned up in OT (it better not be in combat AFTER OT
for Gilmore’s sake). He makes an absolute assertion that the WDAs are something
that MUST be done in development test, when in all actuality as far as the
warfighter is concerned, a miss in DT will only be a problem if the operational
testers actually miss it in OT as well. Things ARE more expensive to resolve
the later the problem is discovered. It all comes down to risk management and
finding as many big things as early as possible, <u>knowing</u> it is impossible to catch
<em>every</em> problem before it escapes to the next level of testing. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">Gilmore is at the least flicking boogers at the program's risk management approach. At the most, Gilmore is insisting ‘all must be known’ and ‘all
risk eliminated’ with WDA performance in an operational environment BEFORE the ‘operational
test’, then mustn’t one then wonder: What is the freaking purpose of that operational
test in the first place?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
Fear Really IS the Mind Killer<o:p></o:p></h3>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>About here is where Gilmore falls into the usual practice of
pointing out ‘deficiencies’ of the current, and interim, software/hardware configurations.
He’s been whining about the ‘gun test’ schedule since at least 2014, and does
so this time around. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Pentagon’s ‘Top
Bean Counter’ Wants to Count Beans His Way Dang It!<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>This next paragraph is a two-part whine by Gilmore. The
first 1/3 is a whine about the DT schedule, which is pretty much the same
schedule he’s never liked. He asserts it doesn’t look like the DT schedule will
support the OT schedule the way he WANTS the OT schedule to be run (more on
that in a minute). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
Remember: DOT&E is testing NOTHING. DOT&E vetted the
test requirements, now they’re just holding the camera.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Insufficient progress in gun testing.</b> Planned gun testing continues
to fall farther behind as the program works through design deficiencies, test
discoveries, and the resulting modifications to the test aircraft. Despite the
limited time remaining in SDD, the program still has not completed initial
flight sciences testing of the F-35B gun pod, started ground testing of the
F-35C gun pod, or attempted an aimed gunshot using the Helmet Mounted Display
System (HMDS) on any variant. Based on discoveries during F-35A flight sciences
gun testing, required changes to vehicle systems software are being added to Block
3FR6 to attempt to mitigate yaw induced by the gun firing in the F-35A, as well
as expected pitching moments when the gun pod is fired under the F-35B and
F-35C-this adds further to the substantial burden of problems 3FR6 is supposed
to correct. The first flight testing of a properly modified F-35A gun from a
mission systems aircraft with 3F software, aimed by the Gen III HMDS, was
planned to start in October but will likely not begin until 2017 due to continued
delays.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Gilmore spends the next 2/3 of the paragraph wringing his
hands over the program schedule risks from stuff left to test and having to fix
stuff found in earlier testing. He provides an opinion as to when a specific
configuration (as specific as possible given the vague and unquantifiable
‘properly modified’ caveat anyway), without indicating if and when in 2017
would test completion become a problem. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
This next paragraph is Gilmore ‘deficiency’
bread-and-butter:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Ineffective operational performance.</b> The performance of earlier
Block 3F versions during DT to date shows significant operational shortfalls.
An assessment, based on OT pilot observations of DT missions, of the
operational utility of Block 3FR5.03 software to support planned IOT &E
missions, including Close Air Support, Destruction/Suppression of Enemy Air
Defenses, Offensive and Defense Counter Air, Air Interdiction, and Surface
Warfare, rated each of the mission areas "red" and unacceptable
overall, with significant deficiencies in capabilities and/or performance shortfalls.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
Interim capabilities have deficiencies and operational
shortfalls. He left the ‘as expected and per the plan’ part out though.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Numerous remaining deficiencies and technical debt</b>. The program's
recent decision to eliminate two full software builds and delete TEMP- and
JTP-required testing due to software schedule slips and funding shortages is
inadequate to address the large number of significant open Deficiency Reports
(DRs) remaining in SDD. This plan assumes no further significant discoveries in
SDD; however, even in the unlikely event no additional discoveries are made,
the program is running out of time and budget to properly test and verify the
required fixes for the existing DRs. The program currently has 146 Category 1
and 1,033 Category 2 "active" open DRs, along with 16 new DRs, since
the last deficiency review board on September 26, 2016. Of the 1,179 DRs, there
are 528 that are being categorized as "Open Under Investigation"
(OUIN) and 385 categorized as "Open Awaiting Fix Verification" (OAFV).
All of the 385 OAFV DRs require flight test activity by the Integrated Test Force
(ITF), and a large percentage of the OUIN will need flight test points to
gather root cause data. None of these test points are currently allocated or
accounted for in the ITF flight test priority. The scope of unaccounted-for DRs
and the program's intention to terminate flight testing early demonstrate
clearly the need for additional resources to complete SDD.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
This is mostly more bean-counting without any indication as
to how important those various beans are. In the end it is more ‘test sausage’
that Gilmore manages to avoid explaining how any of it is ‘made’. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>How the DRs will be closed will vary by DR. If history is
any guide, the important ones will be addressed by priority and as efficiently
as possible. Some hits will be obviated by current planned Block 3F builds and
will simply go away. Some will even be determined to be immaterial, irrelevant,
or at worst ‘nuisance’ gripes that the Customer decides aren’t worth the
trouble/cost to get rid of. I would suspect a good many of them are matters of
the paperwork not catching up to reality, or (my favorite) simply unachievable
due to the tyranny of math and poorly conceived requirements. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>That last is my favorite because I was once on a program doing
a job that every year would give me a request for engineering disposition of a
DR against an allegedly “high ICAWS false alarm rate”. The problem wasn’t with
the failure system reporting performance, it actually reported false alarms per
flight hour at a rate an order of magnitude lower than legacy systems. The
problem was the system hardly ever failed and generated a real ICAWS event. Since
you can’t divide even a small number by zero and <u>not</u> get an infinitely high
false alarm rate, the superior system could never 'meet the spec'. The spec was a legacy spec that was meaningful—as long has
you had enough REAL failures to count. I don’t know if they ever got the
paperwork cleared up on that one: some accounting systems appear impregnable.
That one sure was for me at least.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Let’s take Gilmore’s ALIS b*tches in one swoop.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Shortfalls in the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS). </b>The
program continues to experience delays in the development and fielding of ALIS.
o The latest version of ALIS in development - version 2.0.2 - was planned to be
delivered by August 2016, as the Air Force had expected it to be fielded prior
to their declaration of Initial Operational Capability (IOC), but it has yet to
successfully complete testing and likely will not be fielded until early 2017.
The key additional capabilities in ALIS 2.0.2 include propulsion integration,
which will allow uniformed maintenance personnel to download and process engine
data with the rest of the aircraft data in ALIS following flight. Currently,
the propulsion data must be processed separately by Pratt & Whitney field
service representatives.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
•Delays in ALIS 2.0.2 development
have also delayed the development of ALIS 3.0, the planned final release of
ALIS software for SDD. Because of these cascading delays and additional
emerging service and partner requirements, including critical security
enhancements, the program adjusted development and fielding of remaining
capabilities and has moved content out of ALIS 3.0 into post-SDD releases. The
cumulative effect of these deferrals and unresolved deficiencies on suitability
will be evaluated during IOT&E.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
Big question here is what is the program impact of all the
ALIS schedule deviations? Is it a show-stopper for the warfighter? Will it
drive higher costs that will have to come outside the program? Is Gilmore being
shy about telling us if the answers to the first two questions were
troublesome? </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<em>Just kidding on that last question--</em> I’m certain if there
were real problems with the ALIS impacts Gilmore would have mentioned each one
two or three time by now. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Next stop for Gilmore is in an area I’m very interested in,
but his feigned (I hope) naiveté as to when and how ORDs are modified is not
very credible.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• Inconsistencies between contract
specifications and the ORD. The program has accepted numerous changes or
deferrals to contract specifications, while not receiving formal relief from,
or changes to, the associated requirements in the ORD. As an example, the
program office, in coordination with the Services, determined that the specification
requirements for gun accuracy could not be met with the new ammunition planned
to be used, the Frangible Armor Piercing (F AP) round for the F- 35A and the
Semi-Armor Piercing High Explosive Incendiary-Tracer (SAPHEI-T) round for the
F-35B and F-35C. The program office completed a specification change to the
contract to delete the old requirement for gun accuracy and lethality, but did
not add the new planned specification values nor complete any requirements changes
for the ORD. As a result, the program now apparently has no contract specifications
for either air-to-air or air-to-ground lethality and engagement performance;
however, the program still has approved air-to-ground ORD criteria that have
not been adjusted or changed, which are not possible to achieve due to the change
in ammunition. The JSF stakeholders, including the Services and Joint Staff, should
immediately conduct a requirements review of the ORD versus the contract specifications
to identify documentation or performance shortfalls as the program closes out
SOD.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Let’s put Happy’s perplexed mind at ease about the apparent
disconnect (as if he didn’t already know). All we have to do is talk a bit
about the nature of changing ORDs and Contract Requirements<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><strong></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<strong>C</strong><strong>hanging The ORD<o:p></o:p></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>The F-35 Program’s Joint ORD (JORD) is ‘owned’ by DOD’s
Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). Programs are loath to ask ORD
owners to modify ORDs up to and until a requirement is either seen as
unachievable or inadvisable. The JROC’s are loath to let any program off the
hook for a requirement until it is both necessary and justified. I know this
point doesn’t set well with the conspiracy theory types, so besides being true,
it’s often fun to point out to the mouth breathers. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><strong>Changing the Contract Requirements<o:p></o:p></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>The Customer is always loath to change a contract spec
beneath the contract requirement until it is known that the spec is truly
unachievable or unneeded. The contractor may recommend change or elimination
years before the Customer agrees or disagrees because each spec is a piece of a
larger picture, and that picture becomes better known the further the program
goes toward completion. In the F-35’s case the requirements are mostly about
‘W’ Lethality, ‘X’ Survivability, ‘Y’ Supportability, and ‘Z’ Affordability.
There is a trade space between those requirements and each requirement has
performance specs below them that also create a trade space below the requirements
to achieve the right balance of W, X,Y,Z requirements that comprise total
system capability.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><strong>Aligning ORD and Contract Requirements<o:p></o:p></strong></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Contract changes will be recommended. Those contract change
requests, if the ORD is affected, will generate requests for ORD changes. It
takes time to shake out the changes, and Gilmore can rest his punkin’ head knowing
the process is working and that eventually all his little requirement beans
will line up in neat rows and columns for him to count up and down, and side to
side to his heart’s content. And it won’t make one whit of difference to the
warfighter if DOT&E counts them now or come final judgement day.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
</div>
</span><br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Core F-35
DT Problem: Gilmore’s Attitude About OT Sucks<o:p></o:p></span></h3>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>All that has come before and all of which Gilmore is about
to dump in the next few paragraphs can be fixed with one simple attitude
adjustment by the DOT&E. Director Gilmore! Repeat after me:</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">I know it can. I know it can. OT <u>CAN</u> be done incrementally!<o:p></o:p></span></strong></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Inadequate preparations for DOT&E</b>. The program office and some
other JSF stakeholders have proposed a "phase-start" for IOT &E,
based on the assumption that the modification schedule for the fleet of OT
aircraft will provide some aircraft earlier with which testing could begin.
Besides the modifications to the OT aircraft being substantially late to need
to start IOT &E (see immediately below), the full Block 3F flight envelope
and weapons clearances, along with a verified Block 3F mission data file, will
not be available before May 2018, according to the program's most recent schedule
estimates. DOT&E will not approve a "phased start" for IOT&E
that violates the spin-up and test entrance criteria, as outlined in the TEMP
(list of criteria attached), which was signed and approved by the F-35
stakeholders, including the JSF Program Executive Officer. (Note that these
criteria include a detailed and definitive definition of the agreed composition
of full Block 3F combat capability.) This includes the requirement for all 18
U.S. OT aircraft and the US Partner OT aircraft to be in the Block 3F
production-representative configuration. The full fleet of OT aircraft, with
the full Block 3F capabilities including envelope and weapons, is required for
the efficient and effective execution of spin-up mission rehearsals and for successful
execution of the complex IOT &E plan, which includes four-ship and eight-ship
test trial missions. These are common-sense, long-agreed-to criteria that must
be satisfied to conduct a realistic and rigorous test of the Block 3F
capabilities that will actually be fielded so that our warfighters will know
what the aircraft truly can and cannot do in combat - the inviolate reason for
the test.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
•<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Late plans for modification of OT aircraft.</b> The TEMP requirement to
provide production-representative Block 3F OT aircraft for IOT &E has been
well known for more than seven years; however, the program has not adequately
planned nor contracted for the necessary modifications, including the Technical
Refresh 2 (TR2) processor upgrades. This failure to develop an adequate plan
for providing modified OT aircraft does not relieve the program of the IOT
&E spin-up and test entrance criteria. Late discovery of issues during
development - such as those requiring the extensive modifications to provide an
operational gun system or the ability to carry the AIM-9X missile throughout
the employment envelope on the F-35C - are continuing and should be expected
for a program as complicated as the JSF that is experiencing significant
development and testing delays. However, these issues must still be addressed
with modifications to the OT aircraft. Expecting DOT &E to allow IOT &E
to start without a full complement of fully production representative aircraft,
as agreed to and documented for years, is a recipe for a failed test,
especially in light of the aircraft availability issues mentioned later.
Failure to meet the TEMP entrance criteria means not only that the program is
unready for operational test - it means JSF is not ready for combat and,
therefore, certainly not ready for a Block (i.e., Multi-Year) Buy or full-rate production.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>I like the skillful misrepresentation of ‘Block Buys’ as
parenthetical ‘Multi-Year Buys’ there at the end, Gilmore. Let us also note here that the
Block Buy question is STILL none of your or DOT&E's business. <o:p></o:p></div>
</span><br />
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Speaking of
None of DOT&E’s Business</span></h3>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"></span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "calibri";"> </span></div>
<span style="font-family: "calibri";">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">•Inadequate aircraft availability (AVA).</b> Although AVA is not an
entrance criteria, if the program is only able to achieve and sustain its goal
of 60 percent AVA, the length and cost of IOT &E will increase
significantly because the expected combat-ready availability of 80 percent was
planned for in the TEMP and is needed to efficiently accomplish the open-air
mission trials with the number of aircraft planned for IOT &E. The fleet of
operational test aircraft, currently consisting of 8 F-35A and 7 F-35B
aircraft, averaged an AVA of approximately 50 percent over the last 6 months
(through the end of September), as shown in the table below. Although slightly
better than average AVA of all of the Lot 3 through Lot 5 aircraft - from which
the OT aircraft were produced - this is well short of the 60 percent objective
and not adequate to support the flight rate of test trials planned for
IOT&E. The table below also shows the maximum and minimum monthly average
AVA over the last 6 month period, for reference, and indicates the wider
variance in the OT fleet, as would be expected from a smaller sample size. Over
the same six-month period there has been no readily discernable trend of
increasing or decreasing availability for any of the groups of aircraft, supporting
the assertion that availability has flat-lined and will not improve
significantly prior to the start of IOT &E.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: currentColor; margin: auto auto auto 0.5in; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; width: 623px;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border: 1pt solid windowtext; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Aircraft<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Average<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Maximum<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: solid solid solid none; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt 0px; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Minimum<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td></tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
F-35A OT (8 A/C)<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
51.2%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
64.5%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
39.8%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td></tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
F-35B OT (7 A/C}<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
50.4%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
64.2%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
34.5%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td></tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0) windowtext windowtext; border-style: none solid solid; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
Lots 3 thru 5 (76 A/C}<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.85pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
44.5%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
49.0%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td><td style="background-color: transparent; border-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); border-style: none solid solid none; border-width: 0px 1pt 1pt 0px; padding: 0in 5.4pt; width: 116.9pt;" valign="top" width="156"><span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
40.8%<o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Two things about this paragraph bug me no end. The repeated
assertions of Gilmore’s beliefs as absolutes by this point are merely annoying<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore is clinging to a TEMP that is based upon
an 80% AVA and the program has always planned a 60% AVA rate as a goal? Why
hasn’t Gilmore fixed that disconnect yet? Is he setting the program up to now
be blamed for something he would be equally responsible for? <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore is attempting to tie past and present
availability rates to future availability rates without explaining WHY the AVA
cannot be higher in the future. Claiming current rates are relevant to future
rates without showing additional support for that assertion is highly suspect,
as that assertion can be shown to be a non-sequitur. Any maintenance or ops
puke can tell you the number one determinant in aircraft availability (given
adequate spares) is flying schedule and how other priorities stack up against
the flying schedule. It is a fine balance that is needed to get maximum AVA out
of a fleet. On the one hand, if you have a flying schedule that doesn’t let
maintenance touch the jets at the intervals they should, the AVA will drop
because maintenance cannot keep up with the breakdowns. On the other hand, if
you are not scheduling to fly the jets as much as they can, there is no impetus
to fix jets as soon as possible to make them available: maintenance/service
work is stretched or deferred and the AVA drops. My studies have found that the
MOST military <u>fleet</u> AVA you can ever get over a sustained period of time
is about 80-85% depending upon aircraft type. External operational
factors/decisions and budgets having nothing to do with aircraft capability can
and will limit the availability of even ‘perfect’ aircraft.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Then Gilmore goes back to more issues related to the aforementioned
attitude problem:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• Insufficient progress in
air-to-air range instrumentation (AARI). AARI has not yet been tested in the
F-35. In fact, the required DT of AARI has not yet been planned. Despite the
limited time remaining in SOD, the AARI OT must be completed in time to support
a fly-fix-fly correction cycle so this TEMP-required system is ready in time to
support and not delay IOT&E.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• Inadequate Fusion Simulation
Model (FSM). Corrections to this model, which is currently too unrealistic to
be used for IOT &E, are required and must be put on contract to ensure FSM
can support IOT &E requirements.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• Inadequate Virtual Threat
Insertion (VTI). The task of adding missing threats required for IOT &E to
the VTI-associated reference table must also be put on contract as soon as
possible. This will ensure threat messages from AARI for required threats can
be recognized and displayed by FSM on the F-35 cockpit displays during IOT
&E.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• Inadequate United States
Reprogramming Lab (USRL). Upgrading the USRL to the necessary Block 3F
configuration is late to need to enable the USRL to begin the development of
Block 3F mission data files (MDF); the latest projection is that the USRL will
not be able to start building basic Block 3F MDFs until February 2017. However,
because of the inadequate tools provided to the USRL and the complexity of the
MDFs, the USRL estimates that it will take approximately 15 months to create, optimize
and validate the MDF for IOT &E. Also, because the program failed to order
the required signal generators, the Block 3F MDFs will not be optimized against
several fielded threats of significant concern. The inadequately equipped USRL
increases the likelihood of failure in operational test, and, more importantly,
in combat.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
The following paragraph is just more Gilmore insinuating
himself into areas that are none of his business that he WANTS to make his
business. After the Block 3F configuration is tested DOT&E’s F-35 charter
is complete.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is just another sales pitch
by Gilmore, proffered to keep DOT&E’s Non-Value-Added A**es in their
feathered bureaucratic nests.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
Sadly, I’m certain ‘some’ will listen.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
• Substantial Risks to Follow On
Modernization (FoM). Despite the significant ongoing challenges with F-35
development listed above, including the certainty of additional problem
discoveries, the proposed modernization schedule is not executable. Even with
the significant ongoing SOD delays and problems delivering full Block 3F
capabilities, the program still plans to award contracts to start simultaneous
development of Blocks 4.1and4.2 in 2018, well prior to completion of IOT&E
(and possibly before it has even started for the reasons detailed above), and therefore
lacking understanding of the inevitable problems it will reveal. Also, the proposed
aggressive modernization plan and overlapping schedule for Block 4 increments
do not depict adequate schedule and resources for formal operational testing.
In addition, due to the cost and complexity of the proposed additional capabilities
in Block 4, sufficient test resources, including enough test aircraft, will
need to be available. Furthermore, because of program concurrency resulting in
the fielding of multiple configurations, (i.e., different avionics processors)
additional configurations of test fleet aircraft will be needed. For example,
enhancements and fixes of mission systems software for aircraft with TR2
processors will be needed while capabilities are developed and tested
simultaneously for aircraft with new open architecture Technical Refresh 3
(TR3) processors. Due to the hundreds of aircraft that will already have been
produced, the program and Services will be sustaining aircraft with TR2
processors with versions of Block 4 software for 10 to 15 years before all
aircraft can be modified to the TR3 configuration.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
BTW: making a big deal out of having a mixed fleet of TR2
and TR3 processor aircraft is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html">Red Herring</a></b>, used apparently to increase the memo’s page count. The mixed fleet
was the plan. It is not unexpected, not unprepared for, and certainly not a
'problem'. Gilmore can take some smelling salts and stop fainting
already.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: "times new roman";">
</span>Gilmore closes by reiterating all the risk, deficiency,
‘inevitability’, and ‘you need me for Block 4’ horse sh*t that he’s already
spread. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
For all the reasons stated above
and described in my previous memoranda, the F-35 program clearly lacks
sufficient time and resources to deliver full combat capability and be ready for
operational testing and deployment to combat if it is unwisely constrained to
operate within its currently planned budget and schedule. The program should
now be provided the additional resources required to deliver full Block 3F
combat capability; i.e. to complete all the testing (including regression)
needed to rectify a substantial number of existing critical deficiencies as well
as the new deficiencies that will inevitably be discovered during the remaining
Block 3F testing.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
Failure to adequately finish SDD
will result in far greater risks and costs than completing it now. First, since
the program clearly will not be able to start IOT&E in August 2017, as indicated
in their program of record, the program's plan to draw down staffing and test infrastructure
in CY17 to close out SDD would occur at a time when the program should be aggressively
using the full capacity of the current test resources and experienced personnel
to complete testing, address deficiencies, and ensure full Block 3F capability
is delivered and ready for IOT&E and combat. Second, if the program
continues with plans to close out SDD prematurely, it will carry the high risk
of failing and having to repeat the approximately $300- million operational
test, and failing for many years to provide the full combat capability Block 3F
has long been meant and claimed to provide. Third, the unresolved technical
debt will spill into FoM. where it will take longer to fix and cost more to
address than if rectified now. Finally, the combination of unfinished SDD work
and the likely follow-on operational test would significantly delay, and
increase the cost of, achieving the important FoM capabilities which are urgently
needed to counter current and emerging threats.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in;">
I therefore recommend very strongly
that the program be restructured now and provided the additional resources it
clearly requires to deliver its long-planned and sorely needed full Block 3F
combat capability.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-size: 16pt; line-height: 107%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">Gilmore’s 8
Page Memo in Bullet Format: </span></b></div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore says schedule delays bad!</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore says much risk ahead!</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">3.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->JSFPO wants incremental OT to accommodate
delays, reduce risk and keep schedule!</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">4.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore has piece of paper that he likes that
says NO to incremental OT!</div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">5.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore/DOT&E doesn’t want to count
incremental beans! </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">6.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore says Replan/Stretch the SDD Schedule so
OT schedule stays same! </div>
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt 0.5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo2; text-indent: -0.25in;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">7.<span style="font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; font: 7pt/normal "Times New Roman";">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Gilmore says keep DOT&E employed!</div>
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<o:p></o:p> </div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-42396867965952020352016-07-11T22:20:00.000-05:002016-07-11T22:20:19.012-05:00What I've Been Doing<h3>
Is what I'll be doing for a little while longer. </h3>
No deadline considerations, just quality ones.<br />
<br />
I've had a few enquiries as to why the long time 'light blogging'. I hope to come out from under a rock someday and hit some of the big topics anyway, but here's what I've been spending my off-work hours doing since the weather was still cold (for Texas). <br />
<br />
I designed what we call 'the shed' (~500sq ft) for construction at the secret location of stately Mac Manor somewhere in the wilds of Parker County Texas. I have played general contractor for the heavy stuff, am but doing the insulation, drywall, trim and paint, and also building the large bay barn doors myself. The foundation slab is twice typical thickness with 2ft deep perimeter and cross 'rails' with up-sized rebar so it isn't going anywhere. Believe it or not, the most time consuming part of the project (so far) was finding a concrete contractor who would take the job. Couldn't find one forever. Seems the job was too small for the guys who do real house foundations and too complex for the guys who pour patios and driveways.<br />
<br />
I would have done the electrical, but my main breaker box at home was so full I needed a new panel and the wiring had to be dragged all the way from the other side of the house AND a buried cable run was needed to get 110v/220v to the shed. Better to pay someone who does this kind of stuff all the time, I say. <br />
<br />
<strong>Framing the roof.</strong> If I had known how complicated a cathedral ceiling, and storage area over the side room, would make the insulation and drywall job I may have simplified it some. Live and learn.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5k1Qvi0aN6lOWbolULzIrOJlBXtIDvvihcAftegwUowUCokSMwrOM5dZiZVC8fRBei7RH1gHZ5hQYAepZoVM64-JMDqzz2GXIvL0Q_4PItNyeFqtqYCcVjX0KNij92mYlAcVGZQ/s1600/framing.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5k1Qvi0aN6lOWbolULzIrOJlBXtIDvvihcAftegwUowUCokSMwrOM5dZiZVC8fRBei7RH1gHZ5hQYAepZoVM64-JMDqzz2GXIvL0Q_4PItNyeFqtqYCcVjX0KNij92mYlAcVGZQ/s320/framing.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Back side, <strong>Roof on!</strong><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMACGZEl1KfKk6_RjcVZKUcMfnVRtGmwu-gwYMO6iSwevupEyK214m5tmRBrDNzO_MgdQM2gGGml57nyor3fcNtp4FwWOzcS6jo3dz-h0MI5yjDaTq1Ktn-dRuNKAR8479FBo6pg/s1600/back-side.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMACGZEl1KfKk6_RjcVZKUcMfnVRtGmwu-gwYMO6iSwevupEyK214m5tmRBrDNzO_MgdQM2gGGml57nyor3fcNtp4FwWOzcS6jo3dz-h0MI5yjDaTq1Ktn-dRuNKAR8479FBo6pg/s320/back-side.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<strong>Drywall beginning.</strong> I had to temporarily hang the doors I built to keep the Spring storms from blowing through. The table you see on the sawhorses is 4' x 8' and was where I built the template for the bi-fold barn doors (80 lbs per panel plus or minus).<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUNDvzQN360EFLhqzsV8Oe7XtNmPDvjS-nQmbJ02ii3DMGT92zS_04vvh-2EMbZUkgV8iPMvANI-vzsx5z8IHXzBFYFJ0ETPv571Rws4SFgg0dU5I1CW7APdpottY4WW11tU1LLw/s1600/interior-in-work.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgUNDvzQN360EFLhqzsV8Oe7XtNmPDvjS-nQmbJ02ii3DMGT92zS_04vvh-2EMbZUkgV8iPMvANI-vzsx5z8IHXzBFYFJ0ETPv571Rws4SFgg0dU5I1CW7APdpottY4WW11tU1LLw/s320/interior-in-work.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Stone selected and delivered:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqgYBWEQHpNtd14I35HPDcXcfBNFyMlo9nX-n2wpMNJ-Z_fb6v6qsENFncJQzYT02cXtVvfplsKZL1xxtouVb0mRMfj7egjckMQq7PpdnLErEE3TMtQ8CWuP5ePTTtNgKt5U4QPQ/s1600/WP_20160512_002.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqgYBWEQHpNtd14I35HPDcXcfBNFyMlo9nX-n2wpMNJ-Z_fb6v6qsENFncJQzYT02cXtVvfplsKZL1xxtouVb0mRMfj7egjckMQq7PpdnLErEE3TMtQ8CWuP5ePTTtNgKt5U4QPQ/s320/WP_20160512_002.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
Finally! the brick came. It matches my house and is part of the last batch the company will ever make. I didn't do this a moment too soon.<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1FyxDJkjUfI7TPBTWOQ4axhyphenhyphenZQgTlaljVfjmAD07mAuRR1Ot4HW6fcHBrCramWU4Si1-g57W66OlLvHNH_rnh8tVgzedl16n5xbBPzenV3y5YbZZb0s-eIAn_u5Lc487-WkiqRw/s1600/WP_20160624_001.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1FyxDJkjUfI7TPBTWOQ4axhyphenhyphenZQgTlaljVfjmAD07mAuRR1Ot4HW6fcHBrCramWU4Si1-g57W66OlLvHNH_rnh8tVgzedl16n5xbBPzenV3y5YbZZb0s-eIAn_u5Lc487-WkiqRw/s320/WP_20160624_001.jpg" width="240" /></a></div>
No finished photos will be posted except maybe from the back. You'll have to take my word for it-- it is IMHO-- freaking awesome! (And the neighbors seem happy since I knock off at 10 every weeknight.) I'm now re-hanging the barn doors permanently so I can put an A/C in there and finish the drywall. <br />
Have you ever tried to finish drywall joints when the air AND the wall is about 100 degrees F? Fugeddaboutit!<br />
<br />
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-53796559417047506132016-07-01T19:16:00.000-05:002016-07-02T09:33:54.931-05:00F-16 and F-35 parallels: Boy Reporter Gets Few Facts Right, Story WrongHat Tip: <a href="http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=49815&p=345606#p345606" target="_blank">'tbarlow' @ F-16.net</a><br />
<br />
This is just too funny and too easy to debunk for me to pass up. I just <em>gotta</em> point out the <em>stupid</em> involved. Kyle Mizokami tripped over a <a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/FighterJets/comments/4qeq2o/article_from_1977_talking_about_how_the_f16_was/" target="_blank"><strong>thread in Reddit</strong></a> and built a nice 'on the one hand, but on the other hand'<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a21587/1977-when-the-f-16-was-americas-problem-child/" target="_blank"> <strong>F-35 "narrative" for Popular Mechanics</strong></a> that is so lame it answers the question as to why most media writers aren't paid as much as they think they're worth. It is a shame too, because with really very little research, and demonstration of a minimal understanding of economics--specifically the 'time value' of money and proper use of deflators -- he could have contributed significantly to killing the false narrative that the F-35 program is 'plagued by (fill in the blank)'. Instead, he tries, and fails to make the F-35 look bad, using numbers that when applied correctly only make the point that the F-35 program, and the problems that have been encountered are in no way unique.<br />
<br />
Here's the PM story:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">A New York Times newspaper article describes a beleaguered American fighter program enduring delays, escalating costs, and technical problems. Another article about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter no doubt, right? Nope. It's an article from 1977 about the F-16 Fighting Falcon.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">The F-16 was the original multinational fighter. Developed by the United States with Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway as partners, the fighter was designed to be an agile, lightweight, daytime fighter to replace aging fighters such as the F-5 Freedom Fighter and the F-104 Starfighter. At $6,091,000 per unit—$27.1 million when adjusted for inflation—it was also supposed to be inexpensive.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Many of the F-16's past problems are mirror images of the issues we see in the F-35. According to the article, the Air Force expected the F-16's research and development costs rose by some $7 billion to reach $13.8 billion by 1986. Adjusted for inflation, that's $54.7 billion in today's dollars. F-35 R&D costs, on the other hand, are estimated at $107 billion dollars to date.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Like the F-35, the F-16's problems arose from technological issues and design challenges. The fly-by-wire mechanism of the F-16, in which an aerodynamically unstable but highly maneuverable aircraft was tamed by computers to keep it flying, was an expensive problem that was eventually solved. Like the F-35, the F-16 had problems with its engine and also had to be modified to placate U.S. allies who wanted a fighter capable of air-to-ground missions, a real multi-role fighter.
</span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Still, as similar as the problems between these two planes are, the F-35's problems are much more intense. The F-35 was originally slated to cost $50 million apiece—nearly twice the original cost of the F-16 at today's prices—but the three versions of the plane currently run anywhere from $112 to $120 million each. The F-16 encountered months of delays, but the F-35 A/B/C models will, on average, be delayed half a decade. </span></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Yes, America and her allies have been down this road before, but this time it is a lot rockier.</span></blockquote>
First, the 'costs' narrative whereby Mizokami attempts to make it look like the F-35 is MUCH worse than it's predecessor....when it is not that different at all.<br />
<br />
RE: <em>The F-16's “$6,091,000 per unit—$27.1 million when adjusted for inflation”.</em><br />
<br />
I don’t know where he got the $27.1M inflation unit cost value (though given the depth of research he shows I suspect he just found a number) but it strongly correlates with Contemporary Opportunity Costs between 1976-77 and 2015.
In terms of a project’s Economy Cost (relative share of the GDP used: the correct figure for 'projects') that 1977 F-16 unit cost would equal <strong><em><u>$58.2 million</u></em></strong> in 2015 dollars. [Note: Calculators I used for the interested are <strong><a href="https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/" target="_blank">here</a></strong>.]<br />
<br />
RE: <em>
“the Air Force expected the F-16's research and development costs rose by some $7 billion to reach $13.8 billion by 1986. Adjusted for inflation, that's $54.7 billion in today's dollars. F-35 R&D costs, on the other hand, are estimated at $107 billion dollars to date” </em><br />
<br />
This is an odd disconnect from Mizokami's unit cost claim and the R&D figure he used for the F-16 DOES equal about $54B in 2015 Economy Cost, so who knows why the author came up with a lower number for the unit cost of the 1977 F-16 in “today’s dollars”.
It was widely touted early in the F-35 program that we could develop three aircraft for the cost of 1.5 to 2 aircraft. <a href="http://www.rand.org/pubs/periodicals/rand-review/issues/2014/spring/aircraft.html" target="_blank"><strong>Craptastic! RAND policy pieces</strong></a> non-withstanding, let's note that the estimated F-35 R&D costs that Mizokami uses (and we will watch these estimates as they become 'real') are running about 2 times that of the 1977-era's F-16 R&D costs when adjusted for inflation. That seems pretty reasonable, considering the F-16 is the cheapest of the 'Big three' aircraft designs (F-16, F-18C/D, AV-8B) whose capabilities drove the requirements for the F-35 design.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEo0VSds-LVuHyV0XCt897CZrQcrKZg8TTx4WxIkJ6QlCwjSMlmzxy9DuMRog-8vyRzWnz4LkRcaeqmvVVanhT9rRiyC4261blptdnMLvJCf6I6Frd2EF6eRl9VtNvcXW6mf4SbQ/s1600/Historical-Cost-2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="111" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEo0VSds-LVuHyV0XCt897CZrQcrKZg8TTx4WxIkJ6QlCwjSMlmzxy9DuMRog-8vyRzWnz4LkRcaeqmvVVanhT9rRiyC4261blptdnMLvJCf6I6Frd2EF6eRl9VtNvcXW6mf4SbQ/s200/Historical-Cost-2.jpg" width="200" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjv2d4QFvSTD6Ryl0mG_nBQWSVSgiYrnH6-MgYkG1DQCQxTt4h4FQwpj_QAHvXI1peIfSXGwS5AqS0BAIPPeMHR6cIYaPH9RnvYp5Ia4DFhv2CeUT7tL3UZ8MPoRKgO5kWiWZivw/s1600/Historical-Cost-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="128" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjv2d4QFvSTD6Ryl0mG_nBQWSVSgiYrnH6-MgYkG1DQCQxTt4h4FQwpj_QAHvXI1peIfSXGwS5AqS0BAIPPeMHR6cIYaPH9RnvYp5Ia4DFhv2CeUT7tL3UZ8MPoRKgO5kWiWZivw/s200/Historical-Cost-1.jpg" width="200" /></a>Even the F-16 as we know it today involves much more content and cost as Mizokami indirectly acknowledges than that of the 1977 F-16, so how about we consider all the additional ‘content’ the F-16 now has that it didn’t have in 1976-77? What was the later ‘development cost added’ that came with the later ‘value added’? We can't compare apples and apples directly, but we can get an idea about unit costs at least . In 2012, it was said that the F-16V would be less than half the “then” cost (<a href="http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/f-16v-is-latest-viper-variant-for-fighter-market/" target="_blank">Richard Aboulafia</a>) of the F-35. Anyone remember the 2012 F-35 unit cost? It was $125-150M a copy depending upon who’s chart you’re looking at in whatever FY$’s being discussed. (see charts lifted from F-16.net's voluminous archives to the left)
That would make the F-16V somewhere in the $60M-70M range in 2012 dollars. Guess what that is in 2015 dollars? Go ahead do the calculations).
That's right. the F-16V would probably cost $70M-$80M (Economy Cost) in 2015 dollars. Note that also does not include the same 'content' that comes on an F-35.<br />
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
People who rail about F-35 costs fall into one or more of three camps:
</h3>
1. The willfully ignorant or gullible who’ll fall for anything.
<br />
2. The liars who have their own agendas
<br />
3. The internet's village idiots.
<br />
<br />
<h3>
Enough about dollars. How about some history instead of Mizokami's stories?</h3>
<br />
RE: "Like the F-35, the F-16 had problems with its engine and also had to be modified to placate U.S. allies who wanted a fighter capable of air-to-ground missions, a real multi-role fighter."<br />
<br />
1. The AF ALWAYS wanted the bells and whistles that were finally delivered with the first Block 30 F-16s. It wasn't the 'allies'. Don't believe me? Just look at what then recently retired Gen John Vogt who had commanded USAFE was saying about what was needed while the F-16 was in early development via a Euro 'Hit piece' from the period:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" class="YOUTUBE-iframe-video" data-thumbnail-src="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PkrtxDdaWuM/0.jpg" frameborder="0" height="266" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PkrtxDdaWuM?feature=player_embedded" width="320"></iframe></div>
This rather poor documentary looks even sillier now than it did at the time, given the successes of the F-16 (airplane and program) that came soon thereafter. But it's value in illustrating how the stripped down version of the F-16, the day-time knife-fighter that the faux reformers wanted, was a politically driven, and not operational requirements-driven configuration endures. Of course, we could also simply review the history of the development to see the USAF always wanted more on board the F-16. This was made possible only by advancements in small electronics technology that then had to be developed for military aerospace. And TANSTAAFL.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-size: small;">RE: "The F-16 encountered months of delays, but the F-35 A/B/C models will, on average, be delayed half a decade."</span></span><br />
<br />
'Delays' are a measure of the difference between 'time planned' and 'time scheduled' to reach some meaningful achievement. If you want to compare the F-16 development with the F-35's, then the baseline F-35 Block 3 will be achieved two years faster (with about 1600 fewer aircraft produced) than the F-16's Baseline Block 30. The biggest difference between the F-16 and F-35 programs is the differences in size of the initial 'brass ring' being sought. <br />
<br />
Finally, a minor nit to pick about the F-16 so-called 'engine problems'. If Misokami cared to do some research, he'd find that the problems never really affected the F-16 like the F-15, partially because of the installation, and partially because the F-15 was the lead user o the PW F100.<br />
<br />
Misokami's story <em>could</em> have been a good one. In any case, if Mizokami read a little more widely, he would have known about this part of F-16 development 'history' over <strong>NINE Years</strong> ago.<br />
<br />
Yes, that's right. <a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-fighter-comes-under-fire-will-f-35.html" target="_blank"><strong>All has proceeded as I have foreseen</strong></a><strong>.</strong>SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-77251165467485995932016-04-11T00:31:00.000-05:002016-04-11T00:31:03.457-05:00Law of Unintended Consequences and F-35 H8ers.
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Hillarity ensues.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">My apologies for not posting more, but I’m swamped with higher
priorities and will continue to be for a while yet. There’s been a lot going on
that I’d like to really get into the weeds on with some in depth posts. Those can sit for a bit without harm and I notice the
internet seems to do just fine with most of the ‘news’ without me having to add
my 2 cents worth. It does seem others often have things covered pretty well.</span></div>
<h3 class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
But here’s a little story breaking that I haven’t seen anyone pick up on yet….and
it is just too delightful to let lay unnoticed and unloved.</h3>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Flashback to the A-10 Fanbois Faction <a href="http://www.defensetech.org/2013/12/13/bill-blocks-air-force-from-retiring-a-10-warthog/" target="_blank"><strong>whining up a delay in the A-10 ramp-down</strong></a> to retirement.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Then remember how the AF bluntly stated this <strong><a href="http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2015/11/02/weary-maintainers-struggle-keep-fleet-combat-ready/74870766/?from=global&sessionKey=&autologin=" target="_blank">delay will impact the F-35 by hindering the training-up of the maintenance force</a></strong>. (Those bodies
gotta’ come from somewhere, y’ know.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Recall how there’s a <strong><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2014/11/lt-general-bogdan-f-35-noise-good-to-go.html" target="_blank">whole bowl of granola</a></strong> (what ain’t ‘flakes’
is ‘fruits and nuts’) trying to ‘stop’ the Vermont National Guard “Green
Mountain Boys” from transitioning from the F-16 to the F-35. That <strong><a href="http://www.stopthef35.com/pierresprey/" target="_blank">Sprey-hosting</a> </strong></span><span style="font-family: Calibri;">crowd is currently pursuing a lawsuit that has so far soundly
lost every court challenge, but they <strong><a href="http://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2015/10/29/f-35-opponents-appeal-to-us-supreme-court" target="_blank">keep appealing their ‘lost’ cause</a></strong>. They
even <strong><a href="http://vtdigger.org/2015/03/04/winooski-voters-support-joining-lawsuit-f-35/" target="_blank">snookered a local city into helping subsidize their antics</a></strong> and they just
asked for and <strong><a href="http://www.wcax.com/story/31589999/winooski-approves-spending-additional-5k-on-f-35-lawsuit" target="_blank">received even MORE ‘joe public’ money</a></strong>. (How do most of the citizens
feel about that ongoing rent-seeking, eh?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Enter last week’s unsurprising announcement that the <strong><a href="http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/712879/eielson-selected-to-receive-operational-f-35a-aircraft.aspx" target="_blank">F-35 will be based at Eielson AFB</a></strong> (well OK, many Canadians were probably shocked <strong><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/buying-single-engine-f-35s-for-canada-a-serious-mistake-report-1.2669476" target="_blank">because they’ve been told for years that the F-35--or any single engine fighter--isn’t any good</a></strong> at operating over vast expanses of cold nothingness). Buried on metaphorical Page 2
of that Eielson announcement has the <strong><a href="http://www.wptz.com/news/air-force-to-deliver-f35-fighter-jets-to-vermont-air-national-guard/38861192" target="_blank">AF accelerating the deployment of F-35s to the Green Mountain Boys at their Burlington VT ANG base</a></strong>.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p><br />
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">This, as you can imagine has the ‘Stop the F-35’ <strong><a href="http://www.wptz.com/news/groups-vow-to-fight-f35s/38881994" target="_blank">snowflakes in a very unhappy place</a></strong>.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>So why is the AF accelerating the F-35 basing in VT?</strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em><span style="font-size: large;">“The accelerated timeline is intended to help the Air Force
address a shortage of active-duty fighter aircraft maintenance workers,
officials said.”</span> (<strong><a href="http://www.willistonobserver.com/f-35s-to-arrive-early/" target="_blank">link</a></strong>)</em></blockquote>
<br /></div>
</span><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Like I said, <u>the bodies have to
come from somewhere</u>. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 8pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If the AF can’t transition the A-10s out of the fleet at the needed rate,
that pretty much leaves the F-16’s having to speed up their conversion pace to make up
for it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong><span style="font-size: large;">Bottom Line: 'A-10-forever' Anti-JSF faction
has hosed a 'NIMBY luddite' Anti-JSF faction.<o:p></o:p></span></strong></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: .5in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Sweeeeeeeeeet.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListBulletCxSpMiddle" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-add-space: auto; mso-list: none; tab-stops: .5in; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">BTW: The Green Mountain boys don’t
fly out of a backwater grass strip in some idyllic mountain meadow. They fly out of the
<a href="http://www.btv.aero/" target="_blank">very nice and relatively busy Burlington Int’l Airport</a>, where jetliners fly in and out with far
greater frequency than the ANG does it's F-16s and soon to be F-35s. </span></div>
<br />
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-61320495748751122632016-02-26T21:38:00.000-06:002016-02-26T21:38:40.120-06:00Northrop Grumman's B-21 Bomber Concept Revealed<h3>
Newly released B-21 unclassified computer art? Deja Vu Baby!</h3>
The artist's concept revealed by the Air Force for the newly-revealed B-21 "bomber" (will that moniker survive or will it become something else when it is all said and done?) is "Deja Vu all over again". Cool.<br />
<br />
Contrast the B-21 computer sketch just released:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmtJQDKj8xfBpbBBbb-1zALNr6nEr5VzkTWh1ePqkal9qJqbItsPHMLAbGrZV3-BsFKSFibENTbLO_9fzFWgKOjQt298JBqNGwXG6eTkSwbt2p2pgItT8QgiHYoME-8hJVj2qbxg/s1600/B-21-concept.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="360" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjmtJQDKj8xfBpbBBbb-1zALNr6nEr5VzkTWh1ePqkal9qJqbItsPHMLAbGrZV3-BsFKSFibENTbLO_9fzFWgKOjQt298JBqNGwXG6eTkSwbt2p2pgItT8QgiHYoME-8hJVj2qbxg/s640/B-21-concept.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
...with the first artistic rendering of the B-2 for public release:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4mcG2xoJzMegCi5mwm9hi3nBkDtwcUw7FxEM1W0aAZLaAyS-gXZ8rG5_VAQ0JfXhHWZOww-1UxmTCeESFgPOANRqhpHX60kii5sq80nVHafJ1MLUFoXoDyeyuXg0HU46nQWfitA/s1600/B2-concept.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="396" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4mcG2xoJzMegCi5mwm9hi3nBkDtwcUw7FxEM1W0aAZLaAyS-gXZ8rG5_VAQ0JfXhHWZOww-1UxmTCeESFgPOANRqhpHX60kii5sq80nVHafJ1MLUFoXoDyeyuXg0HU46nQWfitA/s640/B2-concept.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<h3>
Someone has a sense of humor...and history.</h3>
Note the similarities between the two in what is obscured and what is revealed. Both illustrations mask the exhaust design completely and 'shadow' the aft window areas. The B-2's debut drawing had more details shown for the intakes, but there may not be any details to be masked in the B-21's design....or some interesting details left out perhaps?<br />
<br />
Both illustrations give ZERO indication of what the underside shape or volume may be. The B-2's leading edge rendering gives a hint to what had become one of its most critical design features: the 'toothpick' leading edge (<a href="http://www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/B2SpiritBomber/Documents/pageDocuments/B-2-Spirit-of-Innovation.pdf">P.64</a>). I do see something that I find kind of surprising in the B-21 illustration (not going to say what it is until <i><u>maybe</u></i> after I talk to some folks) but I wonder now if there's a critical design feature hinted at here that will only come out in time just like the B-2's 'toothpick'?<br />
<br />
I'll let our potential enemies' minds boggle over the possibilities. I'll also just enjoy the possibility that the data from original B-2 high-altitude design optimization seems to have come in handy for Northrop Grumman in preparing their winning design.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Minor Snickers</h3>
1. So much for all that cranked-kite speculation eh? <br />
2. The conspiracy nuts are going to have a field day with the revelation there has been no prototypes built. SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-13757672152568282372016-02-16T12:49:00.001-06:002016-02-16T23:14:42.823-06:00LRS-B Contract Award to Northrop Grumman Found to be CorrectWhich means the protest was found not too valid. Hooray for sanity!<br />
Read about it <a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story/breaking-news/2016/02/16/gao-denies-boeings-protest-long-range-strike-bomber-contract/80433300/" target="_blank">here. </a><br />
Ignore the grossly incompetent journalistic failure in the last paragraph. La<strike><span style="color: red;">u</span></strike>ra just forgot to ctl-alt-desnark at the end.<br />
<br />
Update @ 22:56 Central: The Defense News piece I linked to has since been updated. the offending paragraph I was referring to is no longer last. It read in (offending) part, with the offending bit highlighted:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The timing of the news raised questions about implications to the protest decision, but the Air Force <b><span style="color: red;">maintained</span></b> that the official, Richard Lombardi, was not involved in the LRS-B source-selection process and was not the service acquisition executive at the time. The Air Force reassigned Lombardi to duties outside the acquisition portfolio and referred the issue to the Inspector General.</blockquote>
It is a known and verifiable fact that Lombardi was not the responsible "service acquisition executive" at the time. It is <i>known</i> that he was brought in as the responsible executive's replacement, and we know who Lombardi replaced by name and when. Lara Seligman (or her editor) needs to save the 'maintained' verb for unverified assertions.<br />
As to maintaining Lombardi was not involved in the source selection at all, we know 'you can't prove a negative', but you can at least research your subject to get a feel for the probability or possibility that something IS or IS NOT true. For example, I may maintain Lara doesn't strangle puppies for entertainment in her leisure time, but a modicum of research on my part would probably prove it to be VERY UNLIKELY, and therefore not worth mentioning. SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-5354130928168406632016-02-15T21:54:00.004-06:002016-02-16T12:50:55.725-06:00GAO's LRS-B Findings Tomorrow?Tomorrow was the planned release of the GAO's findings on Boeing's LRS-B contract protest. It technically is two days later than the required timeframe/due date, but the deadline was on Sunday and today was a Federal holiday. Will the tempest-in-a-teapot <strong><a href="http://breakingdefense.com/2016/02/top-air-force-acquisition-official-pushed-out-over-link-to-northrop/">over someone's second-hand ties to a Northrop (or Northrop Grumman) pension</a></strong> that emerged last week delay the announcement? I think it would be pretty silly for it to cause delays, since the person involved had <u>nothing</u> to do with the source selection: he was THAT guy's replacement AFTER the selection was made. <br />
<h3>
But we live in the 'stupid era' and lawyers are involved. </h3>
What wouldn't have raised an eyebrow a couple of decades ago will set off a storm of controversy because...well because the coddled, noisy elements of society are particularly ignorant and easily manipulated these days and soapboxes have never been so cheap.<br />
<br />
<strong>Standing by......</strong><br />
<br />
FYI: GAO's findings, whatever they are, are not binding on the DoD. But if the DoD wants to go against them, it will require varying degrees of political capital to be spent. Should be interesting... if it is not boring...when the news is finally let out.SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-56052104989888384852016-02-10T21:55:00.003-06:002016-02-10T21:55:43.567-06:00LRS-B Cost Story Not Really About LRS-BDefenseNews has a young posse of correspondents that are pretty hapless when it comes to analysis, but they still manage to do some actual reporting from time to time. If you can stand having to read around the speculation, hearsay, and opinions coming from the usual anti-defense sources who seem to feed DefenseNews and most other D.C. media outlets, you can pick up some odd useful stuff. <br />
<br />
<div>
<a href="http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/budget/2016/02/10/us-air-force-updates-long-range-strike-bomber-cost-estimate/80174178/">This time, Lara Seligman reports</a>:</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>...
In last year’s budget request, the Air Force included about $12.6 billion in its research, development, technology and evaluation account for the next-generation bomber from FY17 through FY20, according to official budget documents. But for the same time period, the service’s FY17 funding profile for LRS-B is about $9.1 billion – a significant drop of about $3.5 billion.
</em></blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<em>
Budget observers took to Twitter Tuesday after the initial budget rollout to lambaste the Air Force for cutting resources for the bomber. However, the reduction simply reflects the service’s updated cost estimate for the program since awarding a contract to Northrop Grumman Oct. 27, Air Force deputy for budget Carolyn Gleason told reporters Tuesday at the Pentagon.
...</em> </blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Now the real news here isn't that the estimated program cost dropped nearly 28% with <strike>better</strike> newer data, or that some people over-reacted to the budget change and ASSUMED the worst. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">The REAL story is:</span><br />
<ol>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">How much cost estimates can and do vary wildly depending upon assumptions made and external factors...even over short periods of time.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-size: large;">No cost estimate involving the design and fielding of new technology in an unstable funding environment is any more 'REAL' than ANY other.</span></li>
</ol>
These two points should be kept in mind whenever one hears a cost estimate asserted in the press and is received as gospel. Many fonts of these estimates, such as <strong><a href="http://csis.org/expert/todd-harrison">Todd Harrison</a></strong>, who is now a go-to CSIS soundbite source, need to start assuming some mantle of humility in their cost and budget assertions, if only to at least PRETEND that someday they will be held accountable for their applying inconsequential knowledge to consequential things.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">I submit that ALL such cost estimates should be prefaced from this day forward with...</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: large;"> the <strong><em>'Doc' Brown Disclaimer</em></strong>:</span> </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA3lfP1UXPVNNmHZ_iHXrbU28w8OkkFaCZVluQqx2wsQO8SyVz1PvBRg6Iyjsa4VExU1DD-AC0g1dI9j9nxQsnexULq96_XYSCCntH6rv6FEqvsqX9g3Ff8Q1YY5Mu20ec05_AvA/s1600/crudidty-of-this-model.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="307" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhA3lfP1UXPVNNmHZ_iHXrbU28w8OkkFaCZVluQqx2wsQO8SyVz1PvBRg6Iyjsa4VExU1DD-AC0g1dI9j9nxQsnexULq96_XYSCCntH6rv6FEqvsqX9g3Ff8Q1YY5Mu20ec05_AvA/s640/crudidty-of-this-model.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div>
</div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-68820074687686362932016-02-04T00:01:00.000-06:002016-02-04T00:01:13.500-06:0010 years of Blogging<h3>
I know, I know. Lately I've been on my longest hiatus ever.</h3>
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLC2n2cu3PxHxuABLzMynOO7dCXjExO1OneL_dtYHb6PCbbRBltCsztsqAMqhd27h81j8uiEkKwiOLZb5N7AqqdRy5p6FmfmzK-PjpopmFNhvA0MJWyxpwb-2kJ1sXS1uMI8DteA/s1600/10yearsEOP.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLC2n2cu3PxHxuABLzMynOO7dCXjExO1OneL_dtYHb6PCbbRBltCsztsqAMqhd27h81j8uiEkKwiOLZb5N7AqqdRy5p6FmfmzK-PjpopmFNhvA0MJWyxpwb-2kJ1sXS1uMI8DteA/s320/10yearsEOP.jpg" width="268" /></a><br />
I <i><u>needed</u></i> the downtime after spending most of the non-holidays in November and December closing out a 4 year project-from-hell, and am still wrapping up the paperwork in the aftermath. But I hope to return to 'normal' blogging as of today, with some posts that close out old series and try to introduce some new topics, staying with the more substantial topics if I can resist the urge to swat intellectual flies.<br />
<br />
I can't imagine how other people have lasted as long as a decade doing this stuff at the rates of posting I've witnessed and I marvel at their productivity (and in some cases wonder what in the h*ll could they fit into their lives other than blogging). It can be a grind if you let it be. But while the emphasis here may shift, I shall attempt to 'endeavor to persevere'.<br />
<br />
Next up: DOT&E's 2015 Annual F-35 Report: A User's Guide SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21894908.post-21805525100595636832015-10-27T21:05:00.001-05:002015-10-27T21:06:54.274-05:00Faux Reform's Camel Already Has Her Nose Under the LRS-B Tent <b>The Faux Reform Crowd are hilariously heavy-handed. May it ever be so.</b><br />
<br />
Embedded in the bottom in an otherwise very fine article at Breaking Defense about Northrop Grumman winning the LRS-B contract we find this nugget from Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA):<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>“We need to keep the Long-Range Strike Bomber on track and hold the Pentagon to its promise of delivering a tested, reliable airplane for $550 million a copy [in 2010 dollars],” Speier said in a statement. “The Rapid Capabilities Office has made some good decisions to use proven technology and accept the recommendations of independent weapons testers and auditors in their development process. But there are warning signs, including a clerical discrepancy that resulted in a $16.7 billion misreporting error to Congress.”</i></blockquote>
(I suspect this and the oblique 'emerging critics' reference early in the piece were Sidney's contribution. He likes to cite politicians as if they are soothsayers.)<br />
<h3>
<br /></h3>
<h3>
LOL! Well <u><i>THAT</i></u> didn't take long. </h3>
<div>
A clerical error, in only one of many documents, on a number everyone knew beforehand, and was corrected as soon as it was noticed, after being so out of place it was noticed quickly is a 'warning sign'? I got Jackie's warning sign for her right here: It's called the <b><a href="http://elementsofpower.blogspot.com/2015/06/william-hartung-you-got-yerself.html">revolving door between faux military reform operations and Prog legislators teamed in a pernicious self-licking ice cream cone with Punk Journalists </a>. </b>That <i>IS</i> the "Faux Reform Message Machine".</div>
<div>
I could take these people if they were honest with their arguments, but if they were honest with their arguments they couldn't stand the laughing.</div>
<div>
Mmmmmmm. #SmellsLikePogo</div>
SMSgt Machttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08126690689798203866noreply@blogger.com6