The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The F-22 Mud Fighter
SYSOP    7/4/2009 6:50:54 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3
sinoflex    Dam it Jim!   7/7/2009 4:08:53 PM
The picture is clearer now, the administration sees the F22 program as a deep money pit that they don't want to get dragged into.  What a terrible shame, a national asset that has been so horribly soiled.
 
As Bones would put it "Dam it Jim!  I'm an airplane builder, not an IT architect!".  It's too bad LM didn't have the engineers with the proper background and training to work on the hardware and software bits to give the Raptor the proper core/kernel that it truly deserved. 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/7/2009 4:10:38 PM

I have seen the article and remember vividly about our discussions, never would I have believed it was a backdoor admission of guilt. They should be held accountable, bottom line.

I'm not going to pretend I had anything more than OSINT info on this prior however there were a lot of indicators to me that there was more than meets the eye here. IMHO the F-22 is a great plane and it will remain dominant in its role for a long time. But the F-35 is the clear standard bearer now...

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

neiyold       7/7/2009 4:40:13 PM
Thanks GF!  Though somewhat nebulous...that is, I think, more or less what I was alluding to.  I guess I'll have to wait like everyone else for the exact truth to become public. 
 
A comment or two on obsolescence, and why LM alone does not bear the responsibility.  I have recently concluded an upgrade project on relatively complex control system.  While the new hardware, RTOS, control functions and MMI are fantastic and many *times* more reliable, one of the early goals of the project could not be met.  Period.  Reducing volume from 4 to 1 without system level approach changes could not be achieved.  The restriction of using legacy interfaces (not just hardware) resulted in real, mechanical and electrical, limitations that caused the total volume to increase.  This was of course an acceptable tradeoff according to client as we have nearly finished the project.  At some point in the future, many years away, when the current system becomes the old one, this process will be repeated, or not.  Ground work was laid on this project to allow large scale changes in the system level approach to be addressed with much less risk and cost in the future. 
 
This of course does not exactly follow the F22 and F35 move, duh.  But it does reflect that often times choices are made based upon risk or immediate affordability.  When that happens, if the team is given latitude, they can create an approach to the next project or program which can be used on the next go around to take those lessons learned and create an evolved and far superior (and in both examples a more integrated AND adaptable) solution.  
 
Not being privy to the limitations driving those decisions leaves me with less contempt and more curiosity.  What were the technical and managerial reasons for the limitiations.  Could be good reading at some point in the future, if you like those kinds of narratives.
 
Thanks again GF.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/7/2009 5:19:28 PM

Was the physical parameters of the bird. Its still a brilliant application of physics and can wax anything out there on that basis alone. Whether we get forty or more will be problematic, but most of us seem to forget something else.........

(Wonder why I always liked the YF-23 as the better bird?) 

Those birds WILL have to be rewired and their core architecture rebuilt. WE HAVE NO CHOICE in this........

The AMRAAM is scheduled to be replaced as our primary air combat missile around 2018.

That means the upgrades that we make to our Eagle and Falcon fleets, we have to also make to the Raptor.


Maybe some of you now understand why I kept saying LockMart were thieves?  

My guess is after the interregnumist is history, it will be BOEING that rewires the birds.  

Herald

* and no, the Darth didn't have a clue.
link width="425" height="344">
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/7/2009 5:19:56 PM

The 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron: The cutting edge of airpower

June 29, 8:48 PM · Dave Majumdar - Military and Civil Aviation Examiner

A 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron F-22 Raptor takes off from Nellis AFB, Nevada. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald)

Before any new piece of hardware or software is accepted into service with the United States Air Force (USAF), it must first survive the rigors of operational testing at Nellis Air Force Base (AFB), Nevada, located just outside of Las Vegas. The unit responsible for carrying out this vital task is the elite 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron (422nd TES). Known as the ?Green Bats?, the squadron is a component of the USAF Warfare Center.

?The 422nd Test and Evaluation Squadron does operational testing of all fighter aircraft and munitions entering the combat air forces (CAF)?, says Lt. Col. Michael ?Fangs? Kensick, an Assistant Director of Operations at the squadron. Kensick adds that this includes ?new aircraft like the F-22, any sort of new software or hardware modifications, or even something like new life support equipment?. Kensick, who has been flying with the 422nd TES since 2004, explains that the mission of the squadron is to test new equipment ?in an operational environment?.

After a new system completes Developmental Testing (DT) at either Edwards AFB, California, or at Eglin AFB, Florida, Kensick said it is up to the pilots and maintainers at the 422nd TES to thoroughly vet the new equipment ?in a combat representative environment?. This task is essential, as the lives of pilots and other aircrew will depend upon the performance of any new system during actual combat operations.

A 422nd TES F-16C Fighting Falcon flies along side a F-22 Raptor from the same squadron. (U.S. Air Force photo by Tech. Sgt. Kevin J. Gruenwald)

Kensick explains that new equipment is judged based on two criteria, effectiveness and suitability. The first, effectiveness, is a measure of if a new piece of hardware or software performs up to the requirements set forth by the USAF in the system?s Operational Requirements Documents (ORD). Essentially, this criterion ?makes sure the equipment does what the USAF paid for?, Kensick said.

The suitability criterion, meanwhile, is a measure of a new system?s reliability. Kensick explains that any new equipment ?needs to be maintainable by an average combat air forces unit?. If a new system meets the standards set forth by the USAF, ?we will enter it as ?recommended for fielding??, Kensick said.

Occasionally, the 422nd TES discovers that a new weapons system does not meet the requirements to be fielded to operational CAF units. The system will either fail to demonstrate that it is effective in a combat representative environment, or it will prove not to be suitable for fielding due to ?sustainability? issues, Kensick explained. In such cases, ?we will enter ?not recommended for fielding??, Kensick said, with a grade of ?not effective? or ?not suitable? depending upon the particulars of the case. However, Kensick adds, equipment not recommended for fielding may be redesigned and retested.

A trio of A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft from the 422nd TES prepare for a sortie at Eglin AFB, Florida. The Thunderbolt is affectionately known as the Warthog by those who fly and maintain these machines.  (US Air Force photo/ Airman 1st Class Anthony Jennings) 

In addition to its operational testing mission, the 422nd TES is also responsible for the development and testing of new tactics for the USAF, Kensick said. The squadron develops new tactics to employ weapons systems in combat as part of its operational testing role. Additionally, the unit also works on developing new tactics to counter emerging threat weapons systems as intelligence becomes available. When developing new tactics, the 422nd TES works ?side by side with the Weapons School. We talk to representatives from the Weapons School and we get their input?, Kensick said. However, ultimately, the 422nd TES is responsible for the development and testing of all new tactics for every CAF fighter Mission Design Series (MDS), Kensick emphasized. Other mission areas include foreign materiel exploitation and field visits to instruct operational aircrews on new systems and tactics, Kensick added.

The 422nd TES ?is one of the largest squadrons is terms of manpower?, Kensick said. All of the aircrew selected for assignment to the squadron are handpicked by senior unit officers and are, at a minimum, instructor pilots in their respective major weapons systems. Approximately half of the unit?s pilots are required to be graduates of the elite USAF Weapons School, Kensick said. He added that the unit also includes USAF Test Pilot School (TPS) graduates. ?A couple of test pilots are assigned for each MDS, they have a unique perspective on systems engineering issues?, Kensick says.

Once a new pilot is selected for assignment at the 422nd TES, he or she has to become ?Test qualified?. ?The aircraft we operate are different from the planes flown by the combat air forces?, Kensick explained, ?Our aircraft are instrumented and have the latest hardware and software modifications?. The ?test qualification?, Kensick said, involves familiarizing new pilots with the various unfamiliar displays found in the squadron?s test aircraft. In addition, incoming pilots are also familiarized with the formal testing procedures of the 59th TES, which is the primary organization responsible for managing operational flight test activities. ?In our building there are many 59th TES aircrew, flight test engineers, and analysts working side by side with us?, Kensick said.

A pair of 422nd TES F-15E Strike Eagles over Nevada. (USAF Photo by Paul Ridgway)

The squadron currently has an eclectic mix of aircraft assigned to it, Kensick said, including the A/OA-10 Thunderbolt II, F-15C Eagle, F-15E Strike Eagle, F-16C Fighting Falcon, and the F-22A Raptor. Currently, the newest aircraft assigned to the 422nd TES are the unit?s F-22 Raptors, which Kensick said, are shared with the 433rd Weapons Squadron, a division of the USAF Weapons School. In the future, Kensick said, ?there will be some drawdown? of the test fleet with the impending retirement of some of the unit?s legacy fourth generation fighters such as the F-15C and the F-16. In 2012, however, Kensick said the 422nd TES will start to receive new F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters.

To illustrate the process of operational testing, Kensick used his own experience flying the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor as an example. Kensick, who is a former F-15C Eagle pilot and Weapons School graduate, was chosen along with seven others officers to be part of the initial cadre of operational test pilots for the Raptor program at Nellis AFB, Nevada, in 2003. When Kensick started flying the Raptor, the aircraft was encountering numerous teething problems. ?Early on, we were finding numerous bugs in the system?, Kensick said.

These early aircraft, which were Production Representative Test Vehicles (PRTV), ?had some pretty significant issues?, Kensick said. He added that ground aborts were common, especially on hot days when avionics systems overheated. At other times, computers would have to be rebooted in the air and there were numerous avionics stability issues, he said.

This 422nd TES Raptor is the tenth example of the F-22 built for the USAF. (Lockheed Martin Photo)

Kensick explained that one of his fellow follow-on operational test and evaluation (FOT&E) pilots was not only a TPS graduate, but was also familiar with the systems engineering issues of the F-22. This familiarity with the Raptor?s systems engineering allowed the TPS graduate to act as an intermediary between the other operational test pilots and the F-22 System Program Office (SPO) and contractor. This arrangement helped to resolve some of the plane?s avionics problems.

Despite the numerous avionics stability issues, the F-22 proved to be a stellar performer. The jet?s speed and stealth, combined with its exceptionally powerful avionics systems, allowed the Raptor to obliterate most aerial opposition with incredible ease. Operational testing, at this time, focused primarily on the counter-air and destruction of enemy air defenses (DEAD) missions, Kensick said. While the jet proved to be overwhelmingly effective, suitability issues remained.

By the time the Raptor approached initial operational capability (IOC) in 2005, most of the earlier problems had been fixed. ?Numerous changes to the hardware and software? had to be made, Kensick said, but by the time the F-22 reached IOC, the difference ?was almost like night and day?. These days, Kensick says, ?The Raptor is exponentially more reliable?.

A brand new F-22 Raptor from the 422nd TES fires an AMRAAM air-to-air missile at a recent Combat Archer exercise.  (U.S. Air Force Photo/ Tech Sgt. Jason Wilkerson)

Currently, the 422nd TES operates a small fleet of Raptors in three hardware configurations. There are Block 10, 20, and 30versions of the F-22 in service with the squadron operating with the current Increment 2 package. Some of the 422nd TES Block 20 planes are modified Block 10s, which are the oldest Raptors in the Air Force fleet, Kensick said. ?We won?t upgrade all of our planes, we need to be representative of the combat air forces. It?s important for operational testing to have a little of everything?, Kensick explained.

Maintaining multiple different configurations of the same aircraft causes some problems, Kensick said, ?It?s a challenge for the schedulers. We may only have two Block 20s, for example. And it?s also a challenge for the maintainers; they have to make sure we have those aircraft available because we need that configuration for the test. We can?t always switch to a spare jet like in other squadrons?.

Next year, the 422nd TES is gearing up for the operational testing of the F-22?s new Increment 3.1 hardware and software upgrade, Kensick said. Increment 3.1 adds a number of new features to the Raptor, including synthetic aperture radar, electronic attack, and the capability to drop the new Small Diameter Bomb. It also includes a significantly improved pilot vehicle interface (PVI), Kensick said.

An Edwards AFB Raptor over the California desert. (Lockheed Martin Photo) 

?Increment 3.1 is currently in developmental testing?, he said, adding that developmental testing for the new upgrade is actually being carried out at Edwards AFB on aircraft on loan from the 422nd TES. The squadron has also deployed pilots to Edwards AFB, not only to familiarize themselves with the modified hardware and software, but also to provide the developmental test personnel ?an operational perspective, which they may not necessarily have considered?, Kensick said.

Once the Increment 3.1 upgrade arrives at the 422nd TES, the squadron will perform the Follow-on Operational Test and Evaluation (FOT&E) for the upgrade as mandated by the independent Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center(AFOTEC). ?The whole point of the FOT&E is to provide a completely objective perspective?, Kensick explained. ?We have more say in the FDE (Force Development Evaluation)?, he said, explaining that the FDE is a follow-on Air Combat Command evaluation designed in large part to refine tactics. ?We have quite a bit of testing ahead of us because Increment 3.1 is such a significant change,? Kensick said. He added that between the major Increment changeovers, which includes both hardware and software modifications, there are also software updates that will need to be tested.

A 422nd TES Raptor climbs using its afterburners. (Lockheed Martin Photo)

While the Increment 3.1 upgrade adds significant air-to-ground strike potential to the Raptor?s capabilities, Kensick said he doesn?t expect any decline in the air-to-air skills of operational pilots because of any reduced air-to-air training time. The Raptor already scores lopsided air-to-air victories against legacy 4th generation machines with it?s combination stealth, speed, and sensors. Even close in, ?we find that we can typically get to a merge against a 4th generation threat undetected, negating their high off-boresight weapons?, Kensick said, referring to the Raptor?s current inability to employ the AIM-9X high off boresight missile system.

Additionally, for the ground attack role, ?new smart weapons don?t require nearly as much training to employ?, Kensick said. He emphasized that the vast majority of an operational Raptor pilot?s training time will be spent on the counter-air and destruction of enemy air defenses mission sets. However, Kensick acknowledged, ?3.1 is going to take some additional training?.

A prototype F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter over Texas. The F-35 is scheduled to arrive at Nellis AFB in 2012. (Lockheed Martin)

With the impending arrival of the F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) at the 422nd TES in 2012, Kensick said the squadron has already begun to make preparations. ?JSF core pilots are assigned to each division?, Kensick said, explaining that these pilots are assigned to gather relevant data on the tactics and mission employment of current aircraft which can be applied to the Lightning II. ?They?re fully briefed on the JSF and have flown the F-35 simulator?, Kensick said. The 422nd TES will the ready when the F-35 arrives at Nellis.

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/7/2009 5:38:34 PM

The picture is clearer now, the administration sees the F22 program as a deep money pit that they don't want to get dragged into.  What a terrible shame, a national asset that has been so horribly soiled.

 It's only in this position because of project managent and engineering issues. Unfortunately this is a hindsight issue - but it was one of the reasons why distributed development and why parallel trialling of subsystems on mules was done with the JSF.
 
I should make it clear that 4 years ago I was far from being a supporter of JSF - I subscribed to the 2 engines, twin engine redundancy brigade etc....

I'm also far from being hostile to the F-22, my "internet anger" is more about some of the pseudo intellectual claptrap thats been used to support a plane that clearly had development and through life problems glossed over, and even more so about some some of the silliness used to denigrate JSF when it was pretty clear that "we" had learn savage lessons from the F-22 engineering malaise and through life debacle.

Ironically, if some of the JSF build processes had been used in the F-22, the USG and USAF would not be in this situation and you'd probably have 400 of them running around doing double duty as multi-role platforms because they'de been set up properly in the first place.

 
 

 

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex    LM: Willful Ignorance or Incompetence?   7/7/2009 5:58:57 PM


Not being privy to the limitations driving those decisions leaves me with less contempt and more curiosity.  What were the technical and managerial reasons for the limitiations.  Could be good reading at some point in the future, if you like those kinds of narratives.


 

That's the $24k question.  It would make an interesting case study.  If the initial software achitecture was rooted in 70s design paradigms I can see how it would have contributed to the lack of achitectural flexibility if the software code was designed and written with crude brute force techniques.
 
Windows as an example has a HAL (hardware abstraction layer) that insulates the core kernel functionality from the physical aspects of the hardware (e.g. physical memory addressing, IO interfaces etc) and modern enterprise software will have similar separations of function (e.g. there will be a data layer that handles the APIs necessary to retrieve data from databases or other data sources separate from the business processing logic code).  If any changes need to be made to accomodate new interfaces they are isolated to the specific software layer rather than having to change code everywhere. 
 
If the LM project management or engineering knowingly and willfully disgarded such considerations then it would border on criminal.  Otherwise they were really incompetent.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/7/2009 6:53:05 PM
Just to add, this issue of F-22 capability and development lock was raised when I was in the US 3 years ago for discussions on a different weapons program, so it's not something that people have been unaware of.

Hence my frustration at the selective "bagging" of the JSF program when every man and his dog knew that the F-22 had bigger issues and was being glossed over.... 
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       7/10/2009 1:42:50 AM
This whole issue reminds me of some issues my shop had with our testing equipment.
The original testers were built in the early eighties, using mid seventies tech. Good testers all around, all built to the relatively the same specs with the same equipment. There are digital components, but its mostly anaglog tech. Miles of wire, resister trees, relays, and circuit breakers. We had plenty of spare parts from the Reagan years, but they were getting old.
 
Anyhow, the old system got old, they decided we needed a new system. Replace the big main racks with a portable boxed system. The first of the new testers used windows 98, then we started getting testers with windows NT. The last couple of testers had XP. First problem off the bat, getting the new computers to talk to the equipment we were testing. Those problems were solved, for the most part. Next came what was supposed to be a general debug phase, but because the testers had been gradually improved as they were manufactured, the debugs were spotty. You find a problem with one tester, fix it, and then apply the solution to another tester with a different O/S, and wound up with another software glitch. Then it was discovered that the testers' adapter groups weren't interchangeable. Each tester only wanted to work with its specific adapter group. So the engineers did all the data gathering and general debugging they could do, and sent the testers back to get standardized. The fabricators bumrushed the job, and the testers came out with shoddy solders, imporperly installed hardware, and bad pins galore. Of course the whole system is digitzed and semisealed up in boxes, no way to take it apart and discover if the problem you're troubleshooting is due to bad code, or a microscopic flaw in the solder, or an ESD fragged circuit chip. 
 
We spent several years trying fix the system. We'd use the new tester, and trouble shoot and certify with the old system. The engineers would scratch thier heads, write and rewrite code, and occasionally trace issues down to hardware faults that they couldn't fix on site. The testers would get shipped back, get torn apart and put back together again, and something about the fix would interfere with the code or throw the software for a loop. The contractors backshop burned through thier parts stocks, and started swapping new parts, destroying the standardization step they had previously gone through. We wound up back at square one. A bunch of flaky testers with mismatched parts that were unserviceable and nonrepairable.
 
Now the new tester is sitting precariously close the chopping block, and there are talks of upgrades for the old system. Say what you want to, but fixing electrical faults is a heck of a lot easier then fixing electronic faults.
 
Quote    Reply

razputin       7/10/2009 7:47:28 PM

what a mess))

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/10/2009 8:03:15 PM
Indeed , what a mess :-(
 
Kirby1 , I 've only been a software debugger but I know what you 're talking about . I pulled my hairs many times ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       7/11/2009 6:07:57 PM


I kind of figured that part out, what I would like to know is why. What sets it apart from F-15/16/18 series upgrades and will those first 63 be training/research aircraft. I really can't see the AF getting their moneys worth out an non-upgradeable aircraft. Sounds like another reason why 60-80 more would extend the fleet's capabilities.





The Block 30s are still better than anything else out there for the air dominance role. What you read here is that the computer networks for the first 60 or so birds are not easy to REWIRE to take the software and coding changes that the new telemetry and weapon interfaces require. That was a design BLUNDER. Newer avionics are supposed to be able to take the coding changes, inside the distributed computer network as SOFTWARE UPGRADES and simple card change-outs.

 

1970s solutions run into the 21st Century headon.

 

Blame LOCKMART solidly for this one.


.

Herald


Thanks for clearing it up. That's pretty much what I expected (architectural changes that are too difficult/cost intensive to be effected in the current context). Reminds me of the MN's Rafale F1s in that way.

 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy