Quality Issues in the Military

ByLei Fu

Hung HoangCraig ShullEdmund Tai

Agenda

Quality Process in the MilitaryCase Study: The Osprey Quality Issues Discussion

Additional Examples: Kurst Submarine Space Shuttle Challenger

Quality Process in the Military

70s - 80s All military equipment mfg according to specific

requirements (MilSpecs)-> No economies of scale, slow defense industry, $$

Mid 80s Increased commercial technology ‘Off-set’ strategy: Match Russian threat with superior

technology, not numbers

Present ‘Modernize’ the working of a huge organization Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Revolution in Personnel Management (RPM)

Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)

Outsourcing of non-core competencies Adopting commercial buying practices, E-commerce Streamlined testing 5 Pilot Programs (proto-typing) JDAM precision-guided bomb, Fire support

combined arms tactical trainer, etc.

Revolution in Personnel Management (RPM)

Recruitment Quality standards GI Bill

Education & Training Workstation in bases, computer-trained Simulated operations training facilites

Retention & Quality of Life Housing provision Family compensation Discrepancy between military and civilian pay

Effect of RMA and RPM

Benefits Good implementation: efficiency Management of defense programs: in

control Adaptation: flexibility and changing

world Quality in Sourcing, Planning and

Implementation.

Case Study: the Osprey

Background

A tilt-rotor, Vertical/Short Take-Off or Landing aircraft First strike weapon to insert and extract US Marine Corp amphibious forcesDesigned and developed by the Boeing Engineering Company and Bell HelicopterFirst delivered in late 1999

Why Osprey?

Work horse of USMC is the C-46 helicopter, a 1960’s design whose fleet is aging quicklyFlies faster than a traditional helicopter making it less vulnerable to enemy fireAble to fly greater distances and can re-fuel in mid-air

Osprey Problems

Vortex Ring State – V22 gets caught in its own prop wash, loses lift

Hydraulic Failure – V22 loses hydraulic pressure in its control system

Drive Shaft – Drive shaft coupling fails

Software – Fly by wire capability in both helicopter and fixed wing

Catastrophes

Delivered late 1999 April 2000 – 19 Marines killed when

Osprey loses all lift and plunges into the runway

August 2000 – No fatalities, Osprey drive shaft coupling fails, loses all power

December 2000 – 4 Marines killed, combination of hydraulic and software malfunctions

Quality Issues

Testing USMC skipped tests of the V22 Osprey

to save money and meet deadlines Only performed 1/3 of originally planned

tests Originally planned significant testing at

various rates of decent, speed and weight while converting from helicopter to airplane mode, none attempted

Quality Issues (continued)

Hydraulic System Marines had warnings there was

trouble in the hydraulic system, dismissed

Key factor in December crash was frayed hydraulic casing

Quality Issues (continued)

Falsification of Maintenance Records Col. Leberman, a lieutenant in the

USMC, orders subordinates to falsify maintenance records

“The reason we need to lie or manipulate data, is that this program is in jeopardy”

Why?

Political Clout $30 billion dollar project Large suppliers are from various

states

USMC Do not want to admit initial “unwise

decision”, continue to cover up

Garvin’s Eight Dimensions

Marine Emphasis DimensionsAesthetics

ConformanceDurability

Features

Reliability

Performance

Perceived Quality

Serviceability

Garvin’s Eight Dimensions

Features Tilt-rotor design Larger cargo space Greater lift-off

capacity

Performance Dual-functionality Speed Fuel efficiency

Marine Emphasis

Reliability 4 crashes in 2

years

Serviceability Only 38% field

capable

Conformance Misrepresentatio

n of maintenance tests

“Points of Failure”

Cost of Quality

Prevention Internal

Appraisal External

• Pilot testing• Maintenance• Design costs

• Equipment testing• Mission simulations

• Human lives• Aircraft cost• Servicing/Repair

• Public relations• Liability claims

Other Examples

Kurst submarineChallenger shuttle

Kursk Submarine

On Saturday, August 12, 1999, the giant Russian nuclear submarine Kursk -- carrying a crew of 118 -- sank in the icy waters of the Barents Sea.

Kursk – Potential Causes

Explosion of weapons in 1st compartment resulting in internal fire

Explosion during trial of a "secret torpedo" or other new Russian weapon

Collision with own target, which resulted in a torpedo explosion

Flooding through non-dense closed bow torpedo tubes after the exercises or because of torpedo sticking in the tube

Kursk

“The sinking of the Kursk is the latest in a litany of naval disasters underscoring the

disarray in Russia's military”• Shrinking military budge

• inadequate training

• flagging morale

• a bias towards land-based missiles

• the country's nuclear submarine fleet in a state of perilous disrepair

Space Shuttle Challenger

On January 28, 1986 America was shocked by the destruction of the space shuttle Challenger, and the death of its seven crew members.

Challenger – Why?

Cause of explosion was an O-ring failure in right Solid Rocket Booster (SRB)

Challenger – Whose Fault?

The probability of a failure with loss of vehicle and of human life Working engineers: 1 in 100 Management: 1 in 100,000

Why such an enormous disparity? An attempt to ensure supply of funds from

government Lack of communication between

management and engineers

Summary

Duty versus Moral Obligation Quality Trade-offs Cutting-edge or Defective? External Influences on Quality Control“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for

nature cannot be fooled”