USAF’s F-35A Not Even Ready for Combat Training
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued March 6, 2013)
Including stunning pilot comments about the aircraft’s survivability (such as “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time”), a new, unclassified DOD document on the F-35 is now available.
It describes the performance of the F-35A and its support systems in initial training at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Not previously in the public domain, the unclassified DOT&E materials are available at the POGO.org.
DoT&E Memo on F-35A Operational Utility Evaluation
(Source: DoD Director, Operational Test and Evaluation; dated Feb. 15, 2013)
FOR: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ·
FROM: J. Michael Gilmore, Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
SUBJECT: F-35A Ready For Training Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE)
• I have attached at TAB A the F-35A Ready For Training OUE Report. At the request of the Joint Strike Fighter Program Executive Officer, the OUE evaluated the capability of the F-35A air vehicle and the infrastructure at Eglin Air Force Base to train an experienced initial cadre of pilots using a very basic syllabus designed to familiarize pilots with aircraft that possessed no combat capability. It also evaluated the ability of the F-35A maintenance and Autonomic Logistics Information System to sustain a sortie generation rate consistent with the limited training contained in the Block 1 A syllabus.
In the report I conclude the following:
• The limitations, workarounds, and flight restrictions in place on the F-35A at this early stage of its development substantially limit the utility of training. However, the evaluation indicates areas where the program needs to focus attention and make improvements.
• The radar, the pilot’s helmet-mounted display, and the cockpit interfaces for controlling the radios and navigational functions should be improved.
• Discrepancies between the courseware and the flight manuals were frequently observed, and the timelines to fix or update courseware should be shortened.
• The training management system lags in development compared to the rest of the Integrated Training Center and does not yet have all planned functionality.
• Plans and procedures for training pilots to recover the aircraft in the event of an engine problem or flameout should be reviewed for adequacy and to assure such training can be conducted in an appropriate venue.
• Sustainment of the six Block 1A F-35A aircraft was sufficient to meet the relatively low student training sortie demand of the syllabus, but only with substantial resources (aircraft and manpower) and workarounds to the intended sustainment system in place.
• The demonstrated reliability of the F-35A is significantly below the program office’s projected targets for the reliability it expected the aircraft to achieve at the 2,500 flight hours the F-35A fleet has now accumulated.
• I am providing copies of my report to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Secretary of the Navy; and the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The professional staff of the Congressional defense committees have also requested the report and I will provide them copies next Thursday. By law, I must provide the Congress with any test-related material it requests.
Click here for the full report (68 PDF pages) on the POGO website.
(ends)
New, Unclassified DOD Document Describes F-35A Performance in Training
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued March 6, 2013)
(by Winslow T. Wheeler, Director, Straus Military Reform Project, POGO)
Find my summary and analysis of the document below.
The Air Force’s F-35A: Not Ready for Combat, Not Even Ready for Combat Training
On February 15, 2013 the Department of Defense’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) sent a memorandum and accompanying evaluation report to Congress and the DOD hierarchy describing the performance of the F-35A and its support infrastructure at Eglin Air Force Base (FL). There, already skilled Air Force pilots are undergoing a basic syllabus of familiarization training with the aircraft.
Not previously in the public domain, the unclassified DOT&E materials are available at the POGO website at http://pogoarchives.org/straus/ote-info-memo-20130215.pdf
DOT&E’s report, titled “F-35A Joint Strike Fighter: Readiness for Training Operational Utility Evaluation,” reveals yet more disappointments on the status and performance of the F-35. The Operational Utility Evaluation (OUE) is particularly valuable as it focuses on the Air Force’s A model of the F-35 “Joint Strike Fighter.” Many in the political and think tank world have focused more on the Marine Corps B, or Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL), version or the Navy’s C model with its heavier structure and larger wings.
While the B and C are even more expensive and lower in performance-on certain key performance dimensions-than the Air Force’s A model, this OUE (inadvertently) demonstrates that the A model is also flawed beyond redemption.
While the DOT&E paperwork includes an opening memo and an executive summary, they do not do justice to the detailed findings of the report. Specific issues are discussed below-much of it in quotations and showing the appropriate page number of the text of the evaluation.
RESTRICTIONS IN SOFTWARE, SYSTEMS AND FLIGHT
The currently available software essential to control the aircraft (software Blocks 1A and 1B) is “intended to provide only basic pilot training and has no combat capability. The current aircraft have a number of significant operational restrictions . such as limited maneuvering, speeds, and constrained descent rates; no carriage of weapons, no use of countermeasures, and no opening of weapons bay doors in flight.” (p. 1.)
Also, “. student pilots were limited in flight maneuvering to very basic aircraft handling, such as simple turns, climbs, and descents as the flight envelope of speed and altitude was limited, angle-of-attack and g-loading were restricted, and maneuvers normally flown during a familiarization phase of a syllabus were explicitly prohibited.” (p. 2.)
Table 3-1 (starting on p. 14.) outlines the many limitations. The following are prohibited:
— Descent rates more than 6,000 feet per minute (for reference, Wikipedia shows the F-16C rate of climb to be 50,000 feet per minute);
— Airspeed above 550 knots per hour or Mach 0.9 (not the 1.6 Mach or 1,200 mph Wikipedia says the F-35 is capable of);
— Angle-of-attack (attitude of flight) beyond -5 and +18 degrees (e.g. not the +50 degrees the aircraft is capable of);
— Maneuvering at more than -1 or +5 gs (nowhere near the stated +9g capability);
— Take offs or landings in formation;
— Flying at night or in weather;
— Using real or simulated weapons;
— Rapid stick or rudder movements;
— Air-to-air or air-to-ground tracking maneuvers;
— Refueling in the air;
— Flying within 25 miles of lightning;
— Use of electronic countermeasures;
— Use of anti-jamming, secure communications, or datalink systems;
— Electro-optical targeting;
— Using the Distributed Aperture System of sensors to detect targets or threats;
— Using the Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Interrogator;
— Using the helmet mounted display system as a “primary reference;”
— Use of air-to-air or air-to-ground radar modes for electronic attack, sea search, ground-moving targets or close-in air combat modes. (pp. 14-16.)
In addition, “…the radar system exhibited shortfalls that – if not corrected – may significantly degrade the ability to train and fly safely under a typical transition training syllabus, where an operational radar is required. The radar performance shortfalls ranged from the radar being completely inoperative on two sorties to failing to display targets on one sortie, inexplicably dropping targets on another sortie, and taking excessive time to develop a track on near co-speed targets on yet another sortie.” (p. 13.)
“AFT VISIBILITY WILL GET THE PILOT GUNNED EVERY TIME”
A key system of the aircraft, the pilot’s multi-million dollar helmet-mounted display (HMD) of the aircraft’s operating systems, threats, targets and other information “functioned more or less adequately. [but] presented frequent problems for the pilots.”
These included “misalignment of the virtual horizon display with the actual horizon, inoperative or flickering displays, and focal problems – where the pilot would have either blurry or ‘double vision’ in the display. The pilots also mentioned problems with stability, jitter, latency, and brightness of the presentation in the helmet display..” Two of the complaints were basically that elements of the helmet made it harder, not easier, to see outside the aircraft. (pp. 16-17.)
There are additional problems for detecting threats in the all-important visual mode: the ejection seat headrest and canopy “bow” (where the canopy meets the fuselage) are designed in such a way as to impede seeing aircraft to the rear: one pilot commented “A pilot will find it nearly impossible to check [their six o’clock position{to the rear}] under g.” Another commented, “The head rest is too large and will impede aft visibility and survivability during surface and air engagements,” and “Aft visibility will get the pilot gunned [down] every time,” referring to close-range combat. (p. 18.)
Indeed, DOT&E stated explicitly “The out-of-cockpit visibility in the F-35 is less than other Air Force fighter aircraft.” (p. 17.)
To summarize in different words, the helmet-mounted display and the F-35 system does not present an enhanced, clearer view of the outside world, targets and threats to the pilot; instead, they present a distorted and/or obstructed view.
This is one of the most serious backward steps that the entire F-35 system takes, and it presents an even greater threat to the survivability of the F-35 and its pilot than the astounding evidence of the flammability of the F-35 (all versions) in the recent analysis of another DOT&E report by military analyst Lee Gaillard at Counterpunch at http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/04/when-money-is-no-object-the-strange-saga-of-the-f-35/
In the event of the pilot needing to escape from the aircraft, there are also some incompletely explained problems with the ejection seat in “off-normal” situations, i.e. those that can occur in combat or even real training. (p. 43.)
SUSTAINMENT
While there is little that is more important than pilot and aircraft survivability, additional, almost-as stunning revelations about the F-35A involved its “sustainment”-or reliability, maintainability, and availability.
While the report states “Sustainment of the six Block 1A F-35A aircraft was sufficient to meet the student training sortie requirements of the syllabus” (p. ii.), it further explains that this was despite “generous” Air Force resources and a “hybrid of government and contractor support personnel that relies heavily on workaround procedures, non-standard support procedure, and specialized support equipment to generate sorties and maintain the F-35A fleet..” (p. iv).
Moreover, “the program is not meeting reliability growth targets..” That is to say, it is not as reliable as it should be for this stage of its development. (pp. iv and 27) It is also important to note that this was despite the aircraft lacking many mission systems “which resulted in far fewer failure modes and a narrower scope of demand on the supply chain” than would a combat capable aircraft. (In other words, had more of the F-35’s complex components and systems been available for use, the aircraft would have required still more maintenance, with the commensurate, additional loss of reliability and availability. [p. 27])
The as is sustainment numbers were not impressive.
The F-35 program required an air abort rate no greater than 1,000 aborts per 100,000 flight hours to commence F-35A training (p. 27): while they were previously even higher, in late 2012-well after the training started-the aircraft had an air abort rate of 3,600 air aborts per 100,000 flying hours. (p. 28)
Mission aborts while the plane is still on the ground (ground aborts) were also a serious problem: one in seven sortie attempts resulted in a ground abort. (p. 28)
The Air Force wanted the F-35As at Eglin AFB to be available for training missions 33 percent of the time: the equivalent of each aircraft flying one sortie every three days. (pp. 29, 30) By late 2012 this very modest minimum was basically being achieved (p. 29), but certain aircraft at various times during the OUE flew as seldom as one sortie every 7 to 10 days. (pp. 30, 31)
Mean Flight Hours Between Critical Failures (a typical measure of reliability) occurred every four hours, on average-well short of the expected 11 hours at this stage of the F-35’s development-and well below the aircraft’s ultimate goal of a modest 20 hours. (p. 34) The F-35As at Eglin also failed reliability goals for this stage of development: a major problem was the poor reliability of the complicated, badly performing helmet. (p. 34)
Similar problems occurred on the maintenance time the aircraft required. (pp. 36, 37) For example, the mean elapsed time for an engine removal and installation was 52 hours; the system threshold is 120 minutes. (p. 37)
One component vividly demonstrated the fragility of the F-35A. Temperatures at Eglin as moderate as <59 degrees Fahrenheit caused a problem for the 270 Volt Battery Charger Control Unit inside the airplane. Maintainers had to warm the aircraft in hangars overnight to prevent ground aborts. (p. 38) Foreign purchasers such as Canada and Norway, already wary of real cold weather issues for their F-35As, are sure to be concerned with a “cold weather” issue at just 59 degrees and below.
The aircraft’s Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) was limited and required workarounds throughout the operating cycle (p. 38), and it has potential problems in hot weather when air conditioning is not available, which would cause ALIS to shut down altogether. The system was also cumbersome and time consuming. (pp. 39-41)
CONCLUSION
The conclusion is obvious: The F-35A is not viable.
(EDITOR’S NOTE: Not mentioned above, but reported by the Toronto Star, are two other points:
— “Mechanics have had their own gripes. It takes more than two days to swap out an engine rather than the two hours it was supposed to take.
— “And because a battery unit is vulnerable in cool temperatures, ground crews have had to keep the aircraft in heated hangars overnight, taking up space that would otherwise be used for jets needing repairs. “Moving jets in and out of a hangar to keep them warm involves five personnel for three to four hours per shift,” the report says, or 15 to 20 man-hours.)
-ends-
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/143248/-new-ot%26e-report-pans-f_35a-performance.html
Sign In
