F-35 article

[Pags]

You mean these fleet "early release" programs that rip things out of DT and put them straight in the fleet aren't such a great idea? I'm still wondering how skipping OT is legal...

I heard recently they're cutting USNTPS funding by 1/3. No link to support, but it's from an inside source. I'm sure that will help our acquisition issues.

In general Title 10 is germane to INITIAL OT and becomes less so to follow on work for platforms. The general question your PMA and OTC/OTD should be discussing are whether or not the update adds/changes the capability of the platform. An annual update that includes the addition of a new weapon would probably result in OT. An annual update that only changes the shade of yellow in your cockpit probably doesn't need OT. COTF has a process to help in this determination. Cutting OT out can help get your stuff get to the fleet faster. Whether cutting out OT makes your stuff get to the fleet in a worse condition is worth discussing but since OT is supposed to check what the fleet is getting there's often not changes from OT to the fleet. Some communities have very robust comms between DT, OT, WS, and the Fleet and others don't. I've seen communities that DT and OT pilots will do worldwide roadshows to accompany new capabilities or SW drops with major changes and will work hand in hand with the WS to integrate with TTPs and other communities where this doesn't happen and maybe the fleet gets a ppt brief from the PMA or OEM on what's in the new SW.

 

[Brett327]

You mean these fleet "early release" programs that rip things out of DT and put them straight in the fleet aren't such a great idea? I'm still wondering how skipping OT is legal...

I heard recently they're cutting USNTPS funding by 1/3. No link to support, but it's from an inside source. I'm sure that will help our acquisition issues.

Yeah, it's a mess that is only going to get worse. IMO, CNAF Miller's kiss goodbye to OT is going to have lasting negative impact to our ability to fight and win in a peer conflict.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Words

I'm familiar with the subject, but some of that is good background info for those who aren't. I always figured they got "the right people" to sign off on skipping OT, thereby making it legal, even if it's inadvisable. I thought we learned this lesson from previous failed programs, but I guess not.

My frustration results from VFA skipping OT (and portions of DT in some cases) in recent years on items which go well beyond a "new shade of yellow". Items such as new radar software, a new SCS (software for the jet that introduces new capabilities), and even new airborne sensors and weapons. All were given to the fleet as part of the (VADM Miller's?) early release initiative while still in DT, and none of them had demonstrated they were ready for prime-time. That spells Problems with a capital P. There are a lot of details I wasn't privy to since I had already left the test side of things, but the impression I got was the brass didn't like that things were behind schedule*, so they essentially short-circuited the process.

Apparently flight test has no value as far the USN brass is concerned.


*Because they weren't ready yet. Which is what happens when years of Continuing Resolutions and government shutdowns result in an inability to plan ahead and budget effectively for programs that could have been successful in a more fiscally-stable environment. But I digress.

 

[Pags]

I'm familiar with the subject, but some of that is good background info for those who aren't. I always figured they got "the right people" to sign off on skipping OT, thereby making it legal, even if its inadvisable. I thought we learned this lesson from previous failed programs, but I guess not.

My frustration results from VFA skipping OT (and portions of DT in some cases) in recent years on items which go well beyond a "new shade of yellow". Items such as new radar software, a new SCS (software for the jet that introduces new capabilities), and even new airborne sensors and weapons. All were given to the fleet as part of the (VADM Miller's?) early release initiative while still in DT, and none of them had demonstrated they were ready for prime-time. That spells Problems with a capital P. There are a lot of details I wasn't privy to since I had already left the test side of things, but the impression I got was the brass didn't like that things were behind schedule, so they essentially short-circuited the process.

Apparently flight test has no value as far the USN brass is concerned.

There's a balance to be struck. For new systems and new capabilities you absolutely want OT to be conducted as it's an important part of new product introduction and developing trust. For iterative SW drops that don't have a lot of sweeping changes you may want to avoid the painful and long non-scalable OT test planning process. But, for several reasons, you probably still want your OT guys to fly stuff for DT Assists or something like that to still get an OT/Fleet perspective on things.

 

[sevenhelmet]

There's a balance to be struck. For new systems and new capabilities you absolutely want OT to be conducted as it's an important part of new product introduction and developing trust. For iterative SW drops that don't have a lot of sweeping changes you may want to avoid the painful and long non-scalable OT test planning process. But, for several reasons, you probably still want your OT guys to fly stuff for DT Assists or something like that to still get an OT/Fleet perspective on things.

Yep. I saw a fair amount of OT and DT assists during my VX time. It's a good way to share resources in a cash-strapped environment. Another trick was doing an OT assist to end-around the fact that DT uses vehicle-burdened cost to calculate flight hours (which IMO is smarter in the long term, but translates to correspondingly higher program costs). "Creative accounting" to stretch dollars into more flight hours at the squadron level.

 

[taxi1]

I did a project where the same people conducted DT, OT, mission rehearsal, and deployment. There was a real benefit to having the same people take it through the full pipeline.

The biggest lesson came from the fact that once we got it downrange, we ended up not using it in the way we were sure we were going to use it. A lot of rehearsal got tossed aside as we invented our TTPs.

 

[Pags]

Yep. I saw a fair amount of OT and DT assists during my VX time. It's a good way to share resources in a cash-strapped environment. Another trick was doing an OT assist to end-around the fact that DT uses vehicle-burdened cost to calculate flight hours (which IMO is smarter in the long term, but translates to correspondingly higher program costs). "Creative accounting" to stretch dollars into more flight hours at the squadron level.

Stealing OT airplanes to do DT can come with its own pain. OT may not be happy if you need to take their best flyer and hang it in the chamber for a month or so. Lots of MOAs and ARC type discussions and if someone gets uncomfortable it can come apart. Also is a pain if you're the OT SafetyO and DT comes and prangs your birds.

But we had a few projects where only one a/c was in the right configuration so we had mixed patches in the cockpit and depending on phase of test that patch signed for the a/c.

 

[Pags]

I did a project where the same people conducted DT, OT, mission rehearsal, and deployment. There was a real benefit to having the same people take it through the full pipeline.

The biggest lesson came from the fact that once we got it downrange, we ended up not using it in the way we were sure we were going to use it. A lot of rehearsal got tossed aside as we invented our TTPs.

Had a project where the OT is being conducted with a fleet squadron during their workups while OTD flies with them. Then the fleet is gonna deploy with the system. Was a good way to ensure the fleet was ready for the airplane.

 

[cfam]

The other problem with skipping OT is that it makes it a lot harder for the weapons schools to write the appropriate TTPs in a timely fashion. During my time in Fallon there were several “speed to the fleet” capabilities that made their way directly to fleet squadrons who then proceeded to invent their own TTPs while refusing to accept any input from us.

I’m not saying that there isn’t a time and place for rushing capability to the fleet, but I don’t think a peacetime scenario necessitates cutting both OT and the weapons school out of the loop.

 

[Pags]

The other problem with skipping OT is that it makes it a lot harder for the weapons schools to write the appropriate TTPs in a timely fashion. During my time in Fallon there were several “speed to the fleet” capabilities that made their way directly to fleet squadrons who then proceeded to invent their own TTPs while refusing to accept any input from us.

I’m not saying that there isn’t a time and place for rushing capability to the fleet, but I don’t think a peacetime scenario necessitates cutting both OT and the weapons school out of the loop.

If I was king for a day I'd love to find a way to get more early WTI involvement in T&E but every time I've had that conversation it gets OBE from the reality that WTIs have other jobs and there's not a dirth of spare WTIs hanging around. Also, some communities are better about having their OT bubbas write OTG/Draft TTPs. But all to often I see a new system go in to OT with its predecessors TTPs and little to no work has been done on updating the TTPs for the new capabilities.

 

[Brett327]

If I was king for a day I'd love to find a way to get more early WTI involvement in T&E but every time I've had that conversation it gets OBE from the reality that WTIs have other jobs and there's not a dirth of spare WTIs hanging around. Also, some communities are better about having their OT bubbas write OTG/Draft TTPs. But all to often I see a new system go in to OT with its predecessors TTPs and little to no work has been done on updating the TTPs for the new capabilities.

We have WTIs at VX-9, but ultimately that's up to the schoolhouses at Fallon to build relationships with DT and OT so that test plans are informed by how the tactics SMEs envision employing the capability. Likewise, that relationship gives WTIs an early look to start TTP development.

 

[IKE]

Yeah, it's a mess that is only going to get worse. IMO, CNAF Miller's kiss goodbye to OT is going to have lasting negative impact to our ability to fight and win in a peer conflict.

Is it really his initiative dooming VX-1/9? I've heard it may have more to do with head counts and vessel manning than dollars or speed-to-the-fleet. I don't know; asking.

I'm working a program now where the PMA is getting away with canceling the vast majority of OT and deploying a platform for the first time before DT is even really done with it. Crazy times.

 

[Brett327]

Is it really his initiative dooming VX-1/9? I've heard it may have more to do with head counts and vessel manning than dollars or speed-to-the-fleet. I don't know; asking.

I'm working a program now where the PMA is getting away with canceling the vast majority of OT and deploying a platform for the first time before DT is even really done with it. Crazy times.

It was a decision about resources, and that’s where his axe fell. Don’t have more details, but as someone whose organization is going to be cleaning up the mess from that decision, we’re only now beginning to understand the repercussions. The idea of a fleet squadron performing OT-like functions while in Mx phase makes me shudder. They’re neither qualified nor resourced to do that work. Someone pitched that model to the bean counters because that’s how the SWOs do OT.

 

[MIDNJAC]

To be fair, CVW-5 has been doing their fair share of (to a layman) "OT" for some time now. Like the following repetitive conversation: "oh hey when does [xxxx] IOC/EOC again?"..."oh it's flying in Japan now"......"I thought it was still in DT?". I say that both as a person who used to work at NSAWC/NAWDC, as well as one who currently works at a prime Rhino/Growler contractor.

 

[robav8r]

This will get out of control . . .