"As these aircraft roll off the line there are engineering changes that have been proposed and funded but they have not been implemented, and when they get delivered to use, we are projecting that we will be a part of that initial modifying of that aircraft."
Friday, November 4, 2011
F-35 depot process to repair production mistakes after delivery
Part of the new business plan that surrounds any fielding of the F-35 depends on employing people--via rent-seeker demand--to repair the under-developed and immature combat system after delivery.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
I am for putting these jets straight out of the line in a huge hangar and waiting till testing maybe after a year of service is done AND then fixing them.
Maybe I am being paranoid here but why do I feel we are going to pay LMT or however fixes these jets to fix them then fix them AGAIN and maybe AGAIN after that?????
What is the bet that none of this happens? i.e. no fixes are done and the jets rot in a warehouse.
Considering the sad state of leadership at USAF, Graeme, I am afraid you might be right, they would just keep them out of sight. As has been discussed here before, these first LRIPS are going to be seriously handicapped and it makes you wonder what USAF is going to do with them, pass them on to ANG after a quick stint in active forces just to look good?
Feel sorry for foreign partners stuck with these lemons though.
Concurrency is common to most fighter programs.
Going back to the F/A-18 classic program of the late 70s and early 80s, many of the early build F-18s (i.e. before the 'F/A' prefix was given) never entered service with active squadrons, most going on to become training, flight test and chase aircraft with the USNTPS, or with NASA Dryden.
Similarly, the F-22 program has 40-50 aircraft out of 177 that are not and are unlikely ever to be combat coded, and will thus always be relegated to training and OT duties at Tyndall, Nellis and Edwards.
No doubt a few dozen F-35s will see a similar fate.
Andrew
Concurrency is normal in most modern fighter programs except that the JSF Program is NOT normal by any stretch of the imagination.
None of the previous legacy fighters such as the F/A-18, F-16, F-15, were 12-15 years into development with 8+ million lines of code still to be written.
Throw in the new structural and stealth materials, electrohydrostatic actuators, several thousand moving parts for the F-35B lift system, the now notorious integrated power pack (IPP), and the most powerful single engine ever built the F135 and we have the MOTHER of concurrency.
Even at the current reduced production rate within two years there will be well over a hundred semi-functional F-35's barely flight worthy in some cases, and totally unable to drop a bomb, fire a missile, etc.
Sounds just like the perfect fighter for Australia - NOT!
Cocidius
You mean 10 years (and one week) into development with four million lines of code to be written don't you?
Andrew
"...within two years there will be well over a hundred semi-functional F-35's..."
No, within two years there will be about 80 F-35s.
Why do people defend the indefensible?
Not defending, just adding REAL numbers and adding context.
I could reasonably ask why do the haters find it impossible to accept that others have a different point of view to them?
You really have outed yourself.
"hater"? how shallow.
Are you not some sort of journo?Puts your professionalism in doubt.
Andrew -
A bit confusing and no doubt so to others.
Could you please explain what you mean by and the examples you have given for 'concurrency'.
In particular, what you mean about the F-22 and the F/A-18 programs.
For instance, how many aircraft were built before the development and testing phases of these programs were completed?
How do these numbers compare with the JSF program plans as they were, originally, and as they are, today?
Will leave it up to you to use the correct DoD5000 terminology.
Cheers,
Peter
Hi Eric. I know you've been around a bit. I read the story at the link to get the context of the quote. How would this be different than lots of programs where post-production mods are necessary? Witnessed it with F-14, H-60R/S, F/A-18, etc., where they go to a mod hangar for ECP/TD updates after delivery, prior to delivery to the fleet. Not unusual at all in this context, which is what I believe the Havelock discussion was focusing on. These aren't "production mistakes".
Key words: "engineering changes that have been proposed and funded but...not... implemented"
Very often through no fault of the builder. Kit or component procurement delays by government. Schedules. Lots of reasons.
bc (that was my anon posting above; sorry, didn't see the Name/URL option.
I understand that this happens, didn't the F15 begin in the early part of service without engines and they had to park them until PW had some fix for F100? So yes, it happens but I think the confidence level was higher for the F15 and some of the programs cited that they were going to be produced in quantity so a few jets that really weren't combat ready and where really never meant to be was no big deal.
If you look at F22, well, if it is true that 40 to 50 aren't really combat coded, that's a quarter to a third of your FLEET! Do we want the same thing with F35? If you believe DOD will buy 24443 JSFs than a few LRIPS that don't have everything working or don't get all the refits is no big deal but only proF35 crowd and people on the take still believe 2443 JSFs are coming there way.
Horde,how long will it be before Andrew mentions the F111.
By the way, Andrew your publication has been sadly lacking since Carlo Kopp stopped writing for you, never bought it again.
Nico, Gobsmacked and All:
To an Engineer, the term and resulting behaviours associated with "concurrency" are an anathema to good Engineering, particularly when applied to a product that is to be produced in large numbers.
When pushed by people who don't know what they don't know but hold positions of power, you end up with nonsense like mantras such as "Excellence is the enemy of good enough", CAIV and TSPR dominating management processes while critical thinking and established best practices get thrown out and those who understand such things ignored
We all saw this with the GFC, when the corporates on Wall Street took the prudential financial management handbook and threw it out the window into the Hudson River.
So it is with the JSF Program and this is why I have asked Andrew to tell us all what he means by "concurrency" 'cause I reckon, like many, he doesn't fully appreciate what the term means in relation to the JSF Program and what dire effects it has on programs like this.
Let's see what he comes back with.
Horde
Last seen on DT, with "friends"
As someone(BS) once said"Except on Defencetalk, where lurks a far more dangerous Internet bacillus known to medicine as "ignoramus apocalypticus". No cure for that one."
Fits the person?
This will sound lame, but so be it...
Peter - you know I am not familiar with DoD5000 terminology so I hope you feel superior that you do.
haters - I agree, probably an unprofessional and silly word to use, and I regret doing so.
I usually only check in with this and other blogs/fora on weekends, but unlike some, I have neither the time nor the inclination to write mega replies nor get into flame wars.
As the one-hit wonder 80s hit goes, 'I shoulda known better...'
I'll stick to ADBR and AA, and if you choose not to read these, then so be it.
Andrew
Andrew:
No, I didn't know that.
In fact, having read some if not most of your writings on the Hornet Program and some, I figured you to not only have a good handle on the DoD5000 acquisition system but were in a far better position to explain them to those that don't, given you journalistic skills and all that.
Pity.
Would still like to understand what you mean by 'concurrency' since I feel many in your profession may, once again, find yourselves being led down to the bottom of the garden, so to speak.
Cheers,
Peter
Magoodotcom:
Why as a certified card carrying F-35 "HATER" please let me reply:
"You mean 10 years (and one week) into development with four million lines of code to be written don't you?"
A: The JSF Program was officially started in November 1996 when both Lockmart and Boeing were given $750 million dollars each to develop JSF prototypes. This is November 2011 the last time I checked which means the F-35 has been in development at least 15 years. When we throw in the latest IOC estimate of 2016 that translates to 20+ years of development IF they can stick to the present SDD.
Moving onto the code issue, perhaps you're not aware of the interview with Ashton Carter in April of this year when he admitted that there is MORE then 8 million lines of code to be completed. This is what the GAO had to say about the topic late last year:
The program estimates it will have 11.6 million effective software lines of code (ESLOC). ESLOC measures the effective size of reused and adapted code, and is adjusted to its equivalent size in new lines of code. This is not a deliverable product. The program will have over 18 million software lines of code (SLOC), which is a measure of the total raw size of software.
Are you sure that you want to stick to the latest sound-bite "facts" from Lockmart and company?
Moving on to your your next vapid comment.
"No, within two years there will be about 80 F-35s."
A: Here's the latest production schedule going out 2+ years NOT counting the aircraft already produced and flying at this time:
FY12 FY13
CTOL 19 24
CV 7 12
STOVL 6 6
Total 32 42
If we add this to the roughly 28 existing F-35's (including the ground test/durability aircraft) we get 101 F-35's! Thanks I'll stick to my numbers.
"I could reasonably ask why do the haters find it impossible to accept that others have a different point of view to them?"
A: No I don't have a problem with you having a different view point, and I also don't have a problem telling you that you're a moron and don't have CLUE.
Cocidius and others:
If Andrew is the professional I believe him to be, he will come back and acknowledge that not all he wrote was correct.
He will also admit that his previous writings on the JSF Program have been proven to be incorrect but borne of the fact that, like so many, he was misled by the marketing spin and hype of Lockheed Martin and others similarly misled.
Sadly, many of those others were just not doing the job for which they were being paid but rather fancied themselves as part of the LM JSF marketing team.
As to whether Andrew does any of this will be a true test for him, as it will be for many like him.
However, I am confident he knows what is really at stake and hope he will do what is right and what is best.
If not, then there would be a better than even chance that history, and those who record it, will not treat those of this world who don't very kindly.
Never a truer comment . However flick over to DT and see some of his postings, and you will garner the true extent of his lack of bias?His love of the "friends" is some what unpalatatable.Grovelling?
And look out he still has not mentioned the F111 and Carlo Kopp.Beware.
Post a Comment