Bypassing OPEVAL a good idea or no?

[UInavy]

simple, they bypassed VX 9.

First, flaps, thanks for your service.

Second, I'm not sure how it was in your day, but saying that bypassing vx-9 and OT is a good way to get systems to the Fleet sounds just like dozens of 'dirtbag contractors' I've heard over the years who claimed that the 'workarounds' in their products were 'good enough.' These guys are generally retired or former military who have just enough pull with their former buddies to get someone senior enough to say 'We NEED this system now!' You want it bad, you'll get it bad. Operational Test is looking out for the Fleet, no one's paycheck changes or has stock price rise if something is found effective and/ or suitable.' Can you say the same of a contractor who is pushing his wares to bypass OT? As a side note, NAVAIR and OT are completely separate and different animals and certainly don't constitute the entirety of the acquisition process.

 

[flaps]

good inputs, pags and uinavy. i wasn't advocating doing away with OPEVAL . just saying that in that case of lantirn introduction, it was a good idea.

a. if the tomcat community did not have an up to date air to mud system, they weren't gonna get invited to the war .

b the lantirn system was off the shelf (hardware and software).

c. OPEVAL at the squadron level is made up of well above average young aircrews.but in the real world, just like everywhere else, the opeval community is an organization wiith bills to pay, their own agenda and by charter does not report to NAVAIR (the navy money guys). also,it can be argued, the real management is the civilian GS guys, and some of these are contractors. this is fine in peace time, not always in war time.

d. we introduced a lot of new things in ww11. good thing this system was not in place back then.

e. the concept is fine but the execution can be ( in my experience), somewhat flawed.

f. had the lantirn system gone through the opeval meat grinder it would have cost more and delivery to the fleet would have been at least a year later.

e. as it turned out,(at least in this one case) the f14 community got an excellent system in record time.

just sayin'

for uinavy,
re:"Second, I'm not sure how it was in your day,..."

i love hearing this stuff, especially after just getting back from a week of snowboarding with my 62 year old little brother, a retired army o-6 and an iraq war vet. best part is when we hear the kids say,

"hey mister, how old are you guys?"

 

[MasterBates]

So which Eval group do I bitch at for the E-2D cockpit being less capable than an E-2C CNS/ATM (or for day to to day INCONUS use, the plain C with a Garmin).

 

[HeyJoe]

....I'm not sure how it was in your day, but saying that bypassing vx-9 and OT is a good way to get systems to the Fleet sounds just like dozens of 'dirtbag contractors' I've heard over the years who claimed that the 'workarounds' in their products were 'good enough.' You want it bad, you'll get it bad. Operational Test is looking out for the Fleet, no one's paycheck changes or has stock price rise if something is found effective and/ or suitable.'

It's not black and white IMHO and COMOPTEVFOR likes to say they live in an Ivory Tower representing the Fleet. but sometimes has an agenda however pristine that can lead to a real mess. Case in point: ASPJ (Airborne Self-Protection Jammer) = Lots of money spent to get urgently needed DECM into Fleet, but flawed measure of effectiveness calculation used by Operational Testers that led to negative Operational Effectiveness determination and the ASPJ not going to production or being introduced. The impasse was not solved until years later and was a black mark against OT community for setting their own requirements whereas their mission is to evaluate the performance of the entire weapons system/aircraft as delineated in the Operational Requirement set forth/validated by the OPNAV Sponsor (N88).

That is an important distinction because NAVAIR and thereby industry are supposed to develop and acquire platforms, weapons, components, etc. that are laid out in an "Operational Requirement" and then resourced by N88. This can end up as a classic "Rock, Paper, Scissors" standoff when an Operational Test Director (OTD) who is a talented O-3/4 recruited directly from operational assignment arrives and falls into trap of so-called "Requirements Creep" or quandry of "Technology Refresh".... This occurs because of the OODA loop of acquisition is incompressible due to time it takes to take a demand signal from the fleet, validate and resource a "requirement" (PPBES POM Cycle alone introduces a 2.5 year delay) before NAVAIR/PEO Program Manager (PM) has funding in hand to put on contract with a provider (Industry in most cases).

Furthermore, by the time an Operational Tester gets a "product" given to them for their evaluation, it cannot be a developmental article, it has to be "production representative" of what will be given to the fleet which induces a dilemma because to decide if something is Operationally Effective or Suitable, it has to be at least in Limited Rate Initial Production (LRIP), which is defined to limit expense of producing said article for OPEVAL before a Full Rate Production (FRP) decision is made. That's where pressure to introduce systems to fleet early arises and sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. Note: Aviation is only community that has luxury of dedicated Developmental Test (the "other" VX squadrons at Pax and China Lake that are under the Naval Air Warfare Center Aircraft and Weapons Divisions) and Operational Test units. CNO and DOT&E rely on the fleet units to do "trusted agent" evaluation in case of ships and subs and in some cases, OT occurs in squadrons with COTF testers participating.

As to paycheck/stock price tied to finding of COTF, I think that COTF reporting can influence both negatively or positively. Industry doesn't make money on development side of equation, they make it on the production and operational support side after FRP decision is made. Investors/stockholders want to see investments pay off and go after international sales that are influenced by COTF ruling in their favor. A lot rides on that finding and the subsequent FRP decision in which COTF finding is considered.

(note - VX-9 is not only OT unit under COMOPTEVFOR (VX-9 has legacy VX-4 and VX-5 OT activities at Pt Mugu and China Lake). VX-1 is at Pax River and does P-3, P-8, all 60 series, etc. as well VMX-22 and HMX-1 that handle Marine platforms not handled by VX-9 at China Lake which are the ones with ordnance needing testing there..ie Harrier, UH-1Y, AH-1Z)

As a side note, NAVAIR and OT are completely separate and different animals and certainly don't constitute the entirety of the acquisition process.

OPEVAL at the squadron level is made up of well above average young aircrews.but in the real world, just like everywhere else, the opeval community is an organization wiith bills to pay, their own agenda and by charter does not report to NAVAIR (the navy money guys). also,it can be argued, the real management is the civilian GS guys, and some of these are contractors. this is fine in peace time, not always in war time.

- we introduced a lot of new things in ww11. good thing this system was not in place back then.

- the concept is fine but the execution can be ( in my experience), somewhat flawed.

Indeed and "NAVAIR", although headed by a 3 Star, doesn't own the programs, the Program Managers fo all the significant programs (dollar-wise) report to the Asst Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development and Acquisition (ASN RD&A) through a Program Executive Officer (PEO) who is a 1/2 Star Admiral. "NAVAIR" himself is NOT in that chain of command or responsibility. That is important because the PM contracts and thereby funds the program using funds provided by N88 (the Rock and Paper). COTF becomes the Scissors AND they are NOT so independent that they can ignore either one. They have to get "the Requirement" from N88 and they are funded for the Evaluation by the PM (as proposed and laid out by Chapter 4 of the Integrated Test and Evaluation Master Plan (ITEMP) that covers all Test and Evaluation activity associated with the "system". IMO, it would be more correct to say "DT and OT" are completely separate....

 

[HeyJoe]

good inputs, pags and uinavy. i wasn't advocating doing away with OPEVAL . just saying that in that case of lantirn introduction, it was a good idea.

- if the tomcat community did not have an up to date air to mud system, they weren't gonna get invited to the war .

- the lantirn system was off the shelf (hardware and software).
- had the lantirn system gone through the opeval meat grinder it would have cost more and delivery to the fleet would have been at least a year later.

- as it turned out,(at least in this one case) the f14 community got an excellent system in record time.

just sayin'

Amen, brother....a little background on LANTIRN Caper as I was there from start to finish and responsible to propose an "alternative" development/demo caper based on limited time and resources available: The traditional PM/DT guys had flown a jury rigged LANTIRN on a HARM adaptor as precursor to $1.8B Block 1 Strike upgrade that was savaged in post Desert Storm budger custs (Peace Dividend demanded by Congress and executed by SECDEF Les Aspin starting in 1992)...by 1994, the decision to retire the A-6E Intruder was part of these waves of cuts. F-14D, A-6F, AAAM and AIM-9R went by wayside early on and A-12 debacle still left bleeding ulcers. JAST and F/A-18E/F were emerging as comers and Block 1 Strike became a Billpayer in 1993/4. Handwriting on the wall was Tomcat Community would be truncated considerably (going from 2 to 1 squadron per Air Wing). Tomcats could drop bombs by then, but had no precision A/G weapon (ie LGB) capability and JDAM/JSOW were still in development and their ramifications on weapons system integration just beginning to be understood.

So by summer of 1994, Tomcat had to have a Precision Strike solution pronto or be retired by 1997. One of unwritten ROE in Resourcing game is not to fund anything but Safety of Flight items withing 5 years of retirement so if Tomcat was to retire anytime withing that window, all remaining funds from Block 1 Strike would be taken. Since it normally takes years to accomplish traditional RDT&E activity (Contracting, develop/production of articles, DT, OT), it appeared that Tomcat was in quite a pickle. When manufacturer of LANTIRN proposed a quick and dirty integration, the PM response was to send it to Pt Mugu for 9 months to developmental testing and COTF wanted 70 flights (including underwriting their annual Key West Det). Those were nonstarters so we went to AIRLANT himself and got a fleet aircraft assigned to do a prototype demo and the Commodore (Snort) assigned VF-103 to do the flights as they had a newly reported and highly experienced DT Test Pilot (XO) and OT RIO. The Wing SME in OPS was also a Tester so it was down by the numbers and by the books....and we were dropping LGTRs and then LGBs within 6 weeks of getting assets. The rest is history. It worked for the situation at hand...would not have worked for say JHMCS and AIM-9X in which you had to do the traditional path and activities...