A rather long bit of news... but... Construction plans for the F-35 are planned for One per DAY.
News below:-
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.