What's new

F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016

JEFF

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
180
Reaction score
0
F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016

By Grace V. Jean

FORT WORTH, Texas — Inside a manufacturing facility so large that workers routinely bike and ride golf carts down paths named after fighter jets, preparations are underway to begin mass production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.








Lockheed Martin Corp. plans to assemble the stealth plane here on a moving assembly line using digital processes and automation techniques that are new to the defense aerospace sector, says Steve O’Bryan of Lockheed Martin’s F-35 business development team.

Though car manufacturers have built millions of vehicles on automated assembly lines, the concept of moving lines has not been applied to military aircraft since World War II.

Modern warplanes typically have been built in small quantities over the course of many years. The Navy’s F/A-18, which has been in production for more than 20 years, is being built at a rate of 42 aircraft per year. But the F-35 Lightning II is expected to be built at an unprecedented rate — as many as 230 fighters per year.

Lockheed has embraced the moving assembly line concept as the linchpin to produce the next-generation fighter in large enough quantities to satisfy U.S. and international sales.
The U.S. military is buying about 2,500 aircraft. Allied nations are purchasing an additional 500 or so. Lockheed Martin officials are expecting foreign military sales to hike the total number to more than 4,000 Joint Strike Fighters.

“You’re really looking at F-16-like numbers,” says O’Bryan.

Once the line ramps up to full-rate production — possibly as early as 2016 — the company estimates it will assemble about 21 fighters per month, or roughly one aircraft per working day.
The moving assembly line is the only way to reach that rate of production, O’Bryan says. The F-35 measures 51 feet in length. “If the plane doesn’t move 51 feet a day … you’re not going to produce one a day.”

There are three variants of the F-35: A conventional take-off and landing aircraft for the Air Force, a short take-off and vertical landing version for the Marine Corps and a carrier-based variant for the Navy.

Lockheed has completed the critical design reviews and last month the first flight of its short take-off and vertical landing variant for the Marine Corps took place.
The initial operating capability for that version is expected in 2012, followed by the conventional takeoff and landing version in 2015, and the carrier version a year after that.
Last December, the first F-35 variant, AA-1, was air-refueled. It will fly from Fort Worth to Edwards Air Force Base in California for preliminary testing.

Along with Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman Corp. and BAE Systems are involved in the manufacturing of the F-35. The $299 billion procurement program is the Defense Department’s largest.

Four years ago, the company had to redesign the structure for all three variants because the short take-off and vertical landing aircraft was overweight. The mission systems are 98 percent common across the three variants, says O’Bryan. “We’ve seen more commonality between the vehicle systems than what we predicted,” and that will only help in production, he says.

A good portion of the mile-long factory, which once built bombers, is still dedicated to manufacturing the F-16 Fighting Falcon. But by 2016, nearly the entire building will be producing the F-35.

“Things here are picking up quite a bit,” says O’Bryan. There are 19 prototype aircraft in production, and the first low-rate initial production aircraft also are in various stages of construction at the plant.

Lockheed has about 600 workers on the floor doing assembly work. That number will grow to more than 700 by the end of the year. The workforce will reach 3,500 at the peak of full-rate production, when three shifts will build the plane around the clock.

The company expects to produce more than 130 aircraft during the low-rate phase. In preparation for the expected uptick in production during the next few years, the company has invested more than $500 million in improvements to the factory floor. “Everything is always under construction here, and we continue to expand,” says O’Bryan.

The same equipment and production lines that have been assembling the stealth aircraft during its development phase will be used in the full-rate production. Typically, a separate line is built for production aircraft, but Lockheed Martin wanted to put both test and production fighters on the same line to increase efficiency and keep costs down.

Another unusual but cost-saving measure was to implement workstations that would accommodate all three variants of the aircraft interchangeably, says Gus Villanueva, deputy director of F-35 global production.

Unlike in previous fighter programs that required dedicated stations for each model, reconfigurable tools will allow the stations to handle any variant of the F-35. “That’s one of the big cost-savings to the program, because you don’t have to invest in all the tooling to support many different variants,” says Villanueva.

That concept will allow all aircraft components to come together on a single final assembly line in the center of the facility.

Bright yellow platforms will surround each plane as it moves along at a continuous pace, guided by a dolly. Big blue towers along the wall will swivel arms out above each aircraft to provide cooling, electrical and hydraulic power so that engineers can test systems as the rest of the fighter is being assembled.

For full rate production, officials expect to have at least 12 moving platform stations up and running. All three variants of the F-35 will be built on that moving assembly line, in any order.

That means a conventional take-off and landing jet for the Air Force might be followed in line by a partner nation’s conventional F-35, which could be followed by the carrier variant for the Navy, followed by the Marine Corps short take-off and vertical landing aircraft.

Not only is Lockheed Martin adopting the moving assembly line concept from car manufacturers but it is also using electronic 3-D models of the aircraft in almost every aspect of the production — from the tools and the machining to the components themselves. Engineers refer to this data as the “digital thread,” which allows the data to be shared by all subcontractors and suppliers. Doing so has improved the delivery time of different commodities by as much as 40 percent in some cases, says Villanueva.

“We’re working on a lot of different manufacturing technologies that are going to help us expedite the assembly process,” he adds.

In the past, workers would build the airplane and the external skins before “stuffing” it with the internal mission systems. “On JSF, we’re stuffing it before we enclose the structure,” says Villanueva. That reduces the risk of damaging attachments or substructures, such as doors or panels, if the interior systems require some sort of adjustment.

This new way of constructing aircraft also means that more automation can be incorporated into the production line. Lockheed is responsible for building the forward fuselage as well as the wings — the largest and most complex component of the fighter. Using auto-drive vehicles, workers are constructing the wings, which are held upright and surrounded by stands that move up and down. “We’ve never built a wing vertically,” says O’Bryan.

The ability to use auto drilling for the forward fuselage and wing structure keeps workers from having to spend several days manually drilling holes. Wings often have hundreds of holes; each JSF wing requires drilling more than 3,000.

“Now you get to do that in one pass,” says Villanueva.

Another innovation suggested by one of the company’s engineers automates the process of installing fasteners. A laser device is used by workers to match the correct fastener to the corresponding hole without first having to transfer that information manually from their design instructions

“It’s a big improvement,” says Villanueva, whose first job in aerospace was as a mechanic on a factory floor. “We didn’t have anything like that. We had a six-inch scale and a number-two pencil. We had to lay everything out. I remember using different colored markers for different types of fasteners.”

Villanueva later worked on Lockheed’s F-117 Nighthawk program for 24 years. Earlier this year, the final four F-117 stealth aircraft retired from service. Their retirement also marks the end of the company’s legacy of analog manufacturing processes, which have shifted to digital.

Workers today sign in at computer workstations that assign them daily tasks. Tools required for each job — the drill bits, the cutters — are already packaged in kits that workers simply pull from nearby vending machines.

“Because they have to swipe their badge and tie back to the system they’re using, we can do a better job in managing the inventory we need to support the build of that airplane,” says Villanueva. That means the company can track all the tools and replenish supplies with greater efficiency. Not having copious amounts of supplies stored in the factory translates into cost savings, officials point out.

To keep the line running steadily, Lockheed has been working to convince partner nations to increase their advance orders for the aircraft. That would reduce the price of the fighters for all potential buyers.

The United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Australia, Denmark and Norway all have pledged funds to help develop the aircraft. Singapore is said to be considering joining the program. Israel has proposed a five-year defense plan that includes purchasing 25 JSF in 2012.

“Nobody wants to buy the aircraft that are close to the beginning [off the production run] because they’re expensive,” says O’Bryan, drawing a timeline chart that extends from present day to well into the 2020s.

“That’s our great challenge — to stop people from going to the right” and waiting to buy the aircraft until after the company has hit full-rate production. He adds that the company is developing a flat-rate price that would cover all the aircraft.

The price tag of the F-35 remains a point of contention. The credibility of various cost estimates has been questioned by various government audits. Lockheed Martin says that the unit cost of the F-35A conventional fighter is less than $50 million, in 2002 dollars, when the contract was initially awarded. By the same accounting, the F-35B and F-35C are about $60 million per copy.

In an audit last year, however, the Government Accountability Office estimated that the F-35 could cost as much as $97.6 million apiece, in 2008 dollars. Norway recently asked the U.S. government to provide information on a potential buy of 48 F-35s for delivery in 2016. Lockheed estimated that, in 2008 dollars, each aircraft would cost $56.5 million, with an additional $2.2 million for auxiliary mission equipment, such as pylons, rails and the helmet-mounted display systems.

If the partner nations place early orders, those price tags could be reduced, depending on the timing and the numbers of aircraft, Lockheed officials say.

In preparation for a production ramp-up, Lockheed plant managers are working with suppliers to set up what could be a highly complex supply chain, with different parts and components arriving from various places around the world. Northrop Grumman is building the center fuselage at its plant in Palmdale, Calif. while BAE Systems is building the aft fuselage in Samlesbury, England. Those fuselages will arrive here at the factory with most of the systems installed.

Officials say that’s one of the challenges — ensuring all the pieces are arriving where and when they’re supposed to be to support aircraft production.

“I think we’ve pretty much figured what we’ve got to do here, how to tie all those countries into that manufacturing process,” says Villanueva.

If the production line is maxed out in Fort Worth, the company has plans to build a final assembly and checkout facility in Italy to help keep up with orders. Workers there will produce the fighters at a lower rate, but they will use the same tools found in the U.S. plant.

One controversial issue that has not yet been resolved is the engine of the F-35. The Defense Department selected the F-135 engine manufactured by Pratt and Whitney. The F-136 engine made by General Electric and Rolls Royce was chosen as the back-up engine. But Pentagon officials later decided to kill the GE engine to cut costs. Several members of Congress disagreed, and are pushing to keep the second engine.

Lockheed officials say they are neutral on the issue but stress that they don’t want any decision on the engines to add expenses or delay schedules in the F-35 program. “We can’t absorb that kind of cost,” says O’Bryan.

While Lockheed presses forward with preparations for full-rate production of the F-35, the program still faces political hurdles, including accusations by Pentagon auditors that the company is not properly managing the project. A November 2007 report by the Defense Contract Management Agency — which was first obtained by the Project on Government Oversight — found that Lockheed Martin’s military aircraft division was not compliant with contractually-required industry guidelines for tracking and managing costs called the “Earned Value Management System.” EVMS helps contractors and the government spot potential cost problems before they balloon out of control.

DCMA looked at how Lockheed was managing the F-35, F-22 Raptor and F-16 programs. The agency said Lockheed was non-compliant in 19 of 32 industry guidelines.

For example, the company used its “management reserve to alter internal and subcontract performance levels and overruns,” said DCMA. Management reserves are meant to be used to address unexpected issues, not to alter subcontractor cost overruns. The report said that the improper use of the management reserve ultimately led to a reduction in test planes and test flights in the JSF program.

The decline of Pentagon and contractor emphasis on EVMS was “an unintended consequence of 1990s acquisition reform,” James I. Finley, deputy undersecretary of defense for acquisition and technology, told POGO.

At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this month, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young said the DCMA report prompted an extensive review of Lockheed’s fighter-aircraft programs. He said the company agreed to a 12-step plan to address the issues that were raised by DCMA. “We will withhold $10 million for every milestone that Lockheed misses,” Young told the committee.

In response to questions from senators about the JSF, Young said the Pentagon faces some tough decisions. If the Defense Department chooses to slow down the program to conduct additional tests of the existing prototype aircraft, it could add time and costs. If possible, the Pentagon wants to transition to low-rate production and begin full production as currently scheduled, with the knowledge that there are always risks involved, Young said.:smitten::smitten::smitten:

F-35 factory: One aircraft per day by 2016
 
There is some doubt as to if congress will support the sale of the f-18 super-hornets to India. As the US has no interest in upsetting the balance of power in the region, you can rest assured that the f-35 is not up for sale to the IAF unless it is also up for sale to the PAF, who can't afford it. So no, I don't think this changes anything.
 
Pakistan not affording a platform is no longer a good enough reason to say NO to India. For the American side, the issue is no longer one of maintaining balance. Now the arms bazaar is open to both sides if they are willing to pay and live with US restrictions.
 
There is some doubt as to if congress will support the sale of the f-18 super-hornets to India. As the US has no interest in upsetting the balance of power in the region, you can rest assured that the f-35 is not up for sale to the IAF unless it is also up for sale to the PAF, who can't afford it. So no, I don't think this changes anything.

The Congress and Boeing are all gung ho about the sale of F-18s to India.

Lockheed Martin did gave a presentation on the F-35 to Indian Air Force officials; this is related to India chosing the F-16 (highly unlikely).
 
JEFF, what you say? Does this is going to effect the Indian MRCA decision in any way?

See as far as current trend is concern, I don't think this news would affect Indian MRCA because if we kept on thinking about F-35 then it would be pretty delay as far as our maintanance of force structure is concern because it would lead to depleation of our squadran level and hence we need MRCA as soon as possible. On the top of it, we already have inked $5 billion agreement for joint production of PAK-FA and also have ongoing MCA project in our own backyard.

Another think I would like to add over here is that, once PAK-FA or MCA or Chinese JXX or for that matter any other Non american fifth generation fighter plane up in the air which has a similar capability as a F-35 then under such circumstance US would not feel any problem in providing with this JSF's to India because history speaks for itself. Since when we asked them for Patriot SAMs system, they denied it and when tested AAD and PAD they quickly invited us to have a collabration for more advanced Patriot Sams and all other interceptor projects. So moral of this story is that is if American encounter with anything competitative for their own weapons system in the world then they can open a their gates of best technology for India.
 
There is some doubt as to if congress will support the sale of the f-18 super-hornets to India.

Truly said because Congress is supporting the sale of F/A-18SH and not F-18s. Morever now there is no need of congress because already Republican and Democrats are fighting hard.

As the US has no interest in upsetting the balance of power in the region,

You are still living under this misconception of balance of power.

you can rest assured that the f-35 is not up for sale to the IAF unless it is also up for sale to the PAF, who can't afford it.

If this is the case then you deceiving yourself because IAF has already shifted its attention from PAF to PLAAF. So atleast chinese J-XX can prompt US to trasnfer F-35 to India.

So no, I don't think this changes anything.

I think you should evaluate your premise.
 
There is some doubt as to if congress will support the sale of the f-18 super-hornets to India. As the US has no interest in upsetting the balance of power in the region, you can rest assured that the f-35 is not up for sale to the IAF unless it is also up for sale to the PAF, who can't afford it. So no, I don't think this changes anything.

Tang0 check this link

domain-b.com : Lockheed Martin offers the F-35 to India

F35 is in offering, but yes this might be just a sales pitch. Now we need to see whether this offer is included in response to RFP or not.
 
Tang0 check this link

domain-b.com : Lockheed Martin offers the F-35 to India

F35 is in offering, but yes this might be just a sales pitch. Now we need to see whether this offer is included in response to RFP or not.

Nitesh read the important part of the article.


They said if the IAF chose the Lockheed Martin world's best selling fighter F-16 fighting flacons, it could "position India to be ready to receive advanced technologies incorporated in the F-35's." Lockheed Martin officials said lot of new technologies being tested on F-35 would be leveraged in the new generation F-16 Block 50 fighters.

So basically its a sales pitch with the word F-35 thrown about a lot.
 
Nitesh read the important part of the article.


They said if the IAF chose the Lockheed Martin world's best selling fighter F-16 fighting flacons, it could "position India to be ready to receive advanced technologies incorporated in the F-35's." Lockheed Martin officials said lot of new technologies being tested on F-35 would be leveraged in the new generation F-16 Block 50 fighters.

So basically its a sales pitch with the word F-35 thrown about a lot.
oh yeah got your point so it is more of a sales pitch :)
 
It would seem my data is horribly out of date, apologies all around. Still though,just because Lockheed talks about selling the f-35 to the IAF, does not mean that congress or the administration support the notion.

I should do a little research before spouting off. Still, all signs point to India picking up another piece of Russian equipment to simplify the adoption process. That article was a sales pitch amounting to: "Hey, you should buy the F-16 because in a few years you are going to be looking for a really 5th gen aircraft, and as of yet, the Ruskies can't come up with one."
 
It would seem my data is horribly out of date, apologies all around. Still though,just because Lockheed talks about selling the f-35 to the IAF, does not mean that congress or the administration support the notion.

I am really sorry to say but Once again you are doing a similar mistake of misguided and hilirous statment. You are still bringing the congress into equation and on the top of it you don't even knew which administration you are talking about wheather it would be in the form of Republican or Democrats. Another thing is that do tell us why doesn't they gona support this notion?


I should do a little research before spouting off. Still, all signs point to India picking up another piece of Russian equipment to simplify the adoption process.

Do tell us what are those picking up points? Morever where did you seen simplification process with russian when you yourself has posted an article in this similar archive having the title of "Indo-Russian Ties under Stren" so you should once again examine your notion.

That article was a sales pitch amounting to: "Hey, you should buy the F-16 because in a few years you are going to be looking for a really 5th gen aircraft, and as of yet, the Ruskies can't come up with one."

I don't understand who kind of a irony did you seen in that sales pitch of F-16, nobody has proclaimed that IAF don't want F-16 or they don't like it, still chances are that for getting F-35, IAF can turn to F-16s. You should hold in your mind F-16 is still a vital contender of MRCA.
 
I am really sorry to say but Once again you are doing a similar mistake of misguided and hilirous statment. You are still bringing the congress into equation and on the top of it you don't even knew which administration you are talking about wheather it would be in the form of Republican or Democrats. Another thing is that do tell us why doesn't they gona support this notion?

US politics is finicky and situation based, perhaps they would, perhaps they would not. I cannot predict the future, and never claimed the ability. It was merely a statement of fact. A Lockheed Martin spokesman's opinion is not the opinion of the future US congress or administration. The PAF can attest to that with the F-16.

Do tell us what are those picking up points? Morever where did you seen simplification process with russian when you yourself has posted an article in this similar archive having the title of "Indo-Russian Ties under Stren" so you should once again examine your notion.

The IAF and navy does not have the money or technical ability to run a steam driven catapult carrier. As such, it can not use the F/A-18E/F in its intended role. There are too many other entries with various highs and lows to address here concisely. The IAF has over 40 years of experience with primarily Warsaw Pact aircraft, which are intentionally not interoperable with NATO aircraft. Many of the weapons and fuel system that the IAF currently posses would mount perfectly on the MIG-35. The MIG-35 could easily have a carrier version as well. Just upgrade the 29k and give it a new name. Those sound like pretty good reasons to keep with Russian equipment to me. Oh, and the IAF already operates dozens of MIG-29's, so has a pool of pilots who are familiar with the airframe.
About my thread: Just because the Russians want more money and are causing a fuss, does not mean they still are not significantly cheaper than the US, or that India will abandon them.

MiG-35: Top Candidate for Air Force MRCA Deal | India Defence
The article is old, so perhaps things have changed.

Also, if you want to get personal about it, it is "Strain", not "Stren".
Furthermore, perhaps you will recall posting this:
F-35 is not an aircraft US would like to sell to India, even if it willing then only it would come out with lots of strings attached.

Still, I revise my opinion. The US seems more than willing to sell to the highest bidder as the costs for the WoT skyrocket and US debt soars. The defense industries see possible slim pickings ahead, which is probably part of the reason the F-35 was a international effort. The sheer number of Nuclear weapons possessed by both sides seems to allow for the "Balance of Power" to be kept even with a significant conventional gap. This opinion is the result of about 20 minutes of thought, feel free to pick at it if you wish. I'm fairly fluid about these things.
 
US politics is finicky and situation based, perhaps they would, perhaps they would not. I cannot predict the future, and never claimed the ability. It was merely a statement of fact.

How does it now become statement of facts without any sufficient premise? moreover you have yet to bring anything substantial to make it as a fact.

A Lockheed Martin spokesman's opinion is not the opinion of the future US congress or administration.

So does this mean that whatever Lockheed Martin Spokesman's opinion were nothing but a plain invalid?

Let me tell you, When US administration as per your concept can offer India with Nuclear Technology, then I don't think Lockheed Martin has any problem any offering in F-35, because the reason for India's curosity of collabrating US for Nucler technology is nothing but its Spin offs in the form of both Civilan and Military Technology and hence F-35 is a one integral part of that spin off.

The PAF can attest to that with the F-16.

Now how does PAF came into equation?

The IAF and navy does not have the money or technical ability to run a steam driven catapult carrier.

Since when IAF need to run Steam driven catapult carrier?

Morever you should change your notion of restrictive ability of both IAF and IN in terms of Money.

As such, it can not use the F/A-18E/F in its intended role.

If this was really the case then Boeing weren't pitching so hard for MRCA.

Morever IN chief himself has stated that he would like to have a F/A-18s in Navy provided having sky jump role and hence technology factor is now a thing of past.

There are too many other entries with various highs and lows to address here concisely.

Do mention me those entries?

The IAF has over 40 years of experience with primarily Warsaw Pact aircraft, which are intentionally not interoperable with NATO aircraft. Many of the weapons and fuel system that the IAF currently posses would mount perfectly on the MIG-35.

IAF not only want to User friendly quality but also cutting edge technology like AESA, Air to ground ammunition etc. I can assure you AESA version of Mig-35 and its air to ground ammunitions are still anywhere nearer to what F/A-18EFs would bring in to us.

The MIG-35 could easily have a carrier version as well. Just upgrade the 29k and give it a new name. Those sound like pretty good reasons to keep with Russian equipment to me. Oh, and the IAF already operates dozens of MIG-29's, so has a pool of pilots who are familiar with the airframe.

May I ask you a question, why do you want IAF to operate Naval version of Mig-29's?


About my thread: Just because the Russians want more money and are causing a fuss, does not mean they still are not significantly cheaper than the US, or that India will abandon them.

I repeat What kind of a simplication process did you seen with Russian for India when relationship between both the countries has suffering some turbulance?

The problem is not here about cheap equipment but Cutting edge and sophisticated technology.


MiG-35: Top Candidate for Air Force MRCA Deal | India Defence
The article is old, so perhaps things have changed.

Yes it is old, but still doesn't shade light upon what you have admitted so far.

Also, if you want to get personal about it, it is "Strain", not "Stren".

Strange, what spelling mistakes has anything to do with getting personnel.


Furthermore, perhaps you will recall posting this:

Still, I revise my opinion. The US seems more than willing to sell to the highest bidder as the costs for the WoT skyrocket and US debt soars. The defense industries see possible slim pickings ahead, which is probably part of the reason the F-35 was a international effort. The sheer number of Nuclear weapons possessed by both sides seems to allow for the "Balance of Power" to be kept even with a significant conventional gap. This opinion is the result of about 20 minutes of thought, feel free to pick at it if you wish. I'm fairly fluid about these things.

Now how does your Nucler weapons has anything to do with F-35 when both the nations also possess sheer number of BMs to take up that Job?
 
Back
Top Bottom