The F/A-18E/F is currently undergoing development flight testing as part of its engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) phase of the acquisition cycle. The development flight test program is under the responsibility of the Integrated Test Team, which consists of Navy and contractor personnel. The team also receives support from the Navy’s Operational Test and Evaluation Force. The F/A-18E/F development flight test program began in February 1996 at the Naval Air Warfare Center, Patuxent River Naval Air Station, Lexington Park, Maryland. The Integrated Test Team is using the seven test aircraft provided by Boeing (formerly McDonnell Douglas) under the EMD contract. The seven aircraft consist of five single-seat E models and two 2-seat F models. Boeing has also built 3 ground test article aircraft to use in conducting tests at its St. Louis, Missouri, facility, and General Electric Corporation, Lynn, Massachusetts, has delivered 21 engines for flight testing. The Navy plans to procure 62 low-rate initial production aircraft in 3 separate procurement lots. In March 1997, the Navy received approval to procure 12 aircraft under the first low-rate initial production lot. The decision to approve the procurement of the next 20 aircraft under the second low-rate initial production lot was scheduled for the end of 1997,and the decision to approve the procurement of the final 30 aircraft under the third low-rate initial production lot is scheduled for late 1998 or early 1999. The primary purpose of the development test program is to identify system deficiencies so they can be corrected and have a production representative aircraft ready to begin Operational Test and Evaluation in May 1999. As the flight test program progressed, delays were encountered due to events that normally occur during testing, such as inclement weather conditions and required equipment maintenance. Testing delays were also caused by unanticipated events. For example, in the summer of 1996, a 3-month machinist strike at the airframe contractor’s plant delayed the delivery of the last three EMD aircraft and, in turn, delayed the testing that was to be done on these aircraft. Also, in November 1996, an in-flight engine failure occurred at the Patuxent River test range, which stopped flight testing for 2 months on all but one EMD aircraft—an F model that was being prepared for initial carrier qualification flights. F/A-18E/F program management developed a revised flight test plan that will help cope with the delays in the original flight test program. Development of the revised plan began with an Integrated Test Team meeting in September 1996. According to the minutes of that meeting, the team reviewed flight test data and revised the original flight test plan by identifying areas in which testing could be reduced but essential program requirements and goals could still be met. At the time of our review, however, the revised flight test program was about 4 weeks behind schedule. Program documents predict that, although flight testing is behind schedule, decisions to reduce test points will enable the Navy to regain lost time. The documents state that the Navy anticipates completing development testing in November 1998 and begin operational testing in May 1999, as originally planned. In the meantime, program officials plan to conduct monthly reviews to identify additional areas that can be deleted from the flight test program. The Integrated Test Team and F/A-18E/F program management officials stated that, while the elimination of some data collection requirements might add some risk to the E/F program, the risk is at an acceptable level. The Navy’s F/A-18E/F Integrated Test team established a system for identifying deficiencies during the development program. That system, which is described in appendix II, identified over 400 deficiencies as of December 1997. The number of deficiencies changes constantly as some are resolved and others are identified. The deficiencies include problems with E/F flying qualities, structural concerns that could have a negative impact on the aircraft’s service life, engine deficiencies that could impact aircraft performance and engine life, and weapon separation problems that cause bomb-to-bomb collisions that require additional testing. The Navy also established a Program Risk Advisory Board. The Board identifies deficiencies from flight or ground test data and assesses the risk that the deficiencies represent to the program. Boeing also identifies deficiencies during flight or ground tests that it believes represent a risk to the program and develops mitigation plans for resolving these risks. As of September 1997, the Board and Boeing had identified 33 and 38 program risks, respectively. A listing of risk items and their assigned level of risk by the Board and Boeing is in appendix III. Although many of the deficiencies have not been resolved, Navy program management continues to project that the F/A-18E/F will be ready for operational testing as scheduled in May 1999 and that the aircraft will meet all operational performance requirements. On the other hand, the Navy’s Program Risk Advisory Board stated in July 1997 that the Navy’s Operational Test and Evaluation Force may find that the E/F is not operationally effective or suitable. According to program officials who are members of the Board, the Board’s assessment reflects the realization that the F/A-18E/F may not be as capable in a number of operational performance areas as the most recently procured C model aircraft, which are equipped with an enhanced performance engine. This issue was addressed in a classified December 1997 Operational Test and Evaluation Force report. That report was requested by the F/A-18E/F program office. The report is referred to as a Quick Look Report because it represents the Operational Test and Evaluation Force’s preliminary conclusions based on a limited analysis of data collected during its operational assessment completed in November 1997. The Quick Look Report identified 16 major deficiencies with the E/F, such as air-to-ground sensor performance, air-to-ground weapons, air-to-air sensor performance, and survivability. However, the report concluded that the F/A-18E/F is potentially operationally effective and potentially operationally suitable. The report also confirmed the Program Risk Advisory Board’s concerns regarding certain classified operational performance characteristics of the E/F compared with the operational capabilities of the F/A-18C. In addition, the report indicated that the Operational Test and Evaluation Force’s final report, scheduled to be issued in March 1998, will be based on more detailed analysis of available data and may contain modified conclusions. The following section discusses selected risk items that were identified by program officials and documents as significant concerns, including items discussed in our previous report on the F/A-18E/F program. These items are wing problems, new technology advances, engine challenges, weapons separation problems, and horizontal and vertical tail problems. In March 1996, during flight testing at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station, the F/A-18E/F experienced wing drop. The Navy and Boeing describe the phenomenon as an unacceptable, uncommanded abrupt lateral roll that randomly occurs at the altitude and speed at which air-to-air combat maneuvers are expected to occur. A joint Navy/Boeing team concluded that wing drop was caused by a loss of lift on one of the outer wing panels during maneuvering. According to Navy and Boeing officials, wing drop is the most challenging technical risk to the F/A-18E/F program. The deficiency has been classified by Boeing and the Program Risk Advisory Board as a medium technical, schedule, and cost risk to the low-rate initial production phase of the E/F program. Program officials consider wing drop to be a high-risk deficiency. The F/A-18E/F Integrated Test Team concluded that if wing drop is not corrected, it will prevent or severely restrict the performance of the F/A-18E/F during air-to-air combat maneuvering. The F/A-18E/F Program Risk Advisory Board concluded that this deficiency would cause the aircraft to be unacceptable for operational test and evaluation and could result in a schedule slip. Boeing and the Navy have continued their attempts to define the cause of wing drop and identify potential solutions. For example, 25 potential wing modifications have been tested in a wind tunnel. Flight hardware to test two leading-edge wing modifications have been designed and fabricated, and flight testing of the modifications has begun. One of the leading-edge wing modifications provided no improvement. The other provided improvement for turns above 20,000 feet, but improvements are still needed for air-to-air tracking tasks and turns at 15,000 feet and below. In September 1997, a Blue Ribbon panel concluded that an intermediate solution to wing drop would be to fix both the leading and trailing edges of the wing. The Blue Ribbon panel further proposed that a total wing redesign should be considered as the long-term solution to wing drop. In November 1997, the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition advised the Secretary of the Navy that the low-cost, quick fixes have improved aircraft performance but have not completely resolved the wing drop issue. The Assistant Secretary also stated that the best and worst case scenarios for resolving the problem ranged from a combination of software changes with simple wing modifications, which should not impact production and acquisition plans, to a more complex and lengthy wing redesign, which would impact production and acquisition of the aircraft. In January 1998, program officials told us that the F/A-18E/F will not require a major wing redesign. This assessment is based on their assumption that although wing modifications that are currently under investigation might not entirely eliminate the possible occurrence of wing drop, the modifications would reduce wing drop effects to an acceptable level. Until the Navy identifies and completes its flight testing of these wing modifications, their impact on such things as the F/A-18E/F’s speed and maneuverability, range, weight, and the planned reduced radar cross section of the aircraft to increase its survivability, will not be known.