|
<b>NG Begins Work on JSF Center Fuselage</b> (Posted: Thursday, May 20, 2004)
[Antelope Valley Press, May 19, 2004]
By ALLISON GATLIN
Valley Press Staff Writer
PALMDALE - The first pieces of the next generation of fighter aircraft and fighter aircraft manufacturing are coming together in the massive hangar at Air Force Plant 42, the birthplace of an earlier generational leap in aerospace technology, the B-2 stealth bomber.
Northrop Grumman's Antelope Valley Manufacturing Center is beginning production of the center fuselage for the F-35 joint strike fighter, using revolutionary new manufacturing techniques.
"It's a very major leap forward in technology," said Steve Briggs, Northrop Grumman vice president and F-35 program manager, of the new tools being employed to build the cutting-edge fighter...
The new technology is drawing the next generation of engineers to the program. Northrop Grumman aggressively recruits on college campuses to bring in the skilled work force it needs.
"We drain colleges," said Ed Linhart, Lockheed Martin vice president of F-35 production operations, recruiting hundreds of newly minted engineers to the industry.
"They take to these new design tools like fish to water," Briggs said.
The aircraft under construction in Palmdale will be the first 14 test planes, part of the initial development of the F-35. The joint strike fighter will be modified as adjustments are made in response to flight testing of these early vehicles.
Some of those adjustments may have to do with reducing the aircraft's final weight, an issue that has begun to dog engineers as the F-35's design has progressed...
<b>The X-35, however, was a concept demonstrator to prove the technologies, not a prototype of the fighter. Additional engineering and designing has been needed to come up with the operational design.
As the numerous operational systems have been added to the basic airframe, designers have encountered problems in exceeding the weight limit for the airframe.
At this early stage of the program - the third year of a 12-year development process - the problem is only an estimation, based on computer models and predictions of what the components actually will weigh, Lockheed Martin spokesman Smith said.
"That puts us in a great place, because we're so early in the program," he said. Such weight issues are typical of aircraft development programs, but usually don't appear until flying hardware is ready. This time, the problem was identified much earlier, thanks to the sophisticated design tools being used, officials said.</b>
The first F-35 flight is expected in 2006, and the aircraft are expected to enter operation in approximately 2012. Flight testing will take place at Fort Worth, Edwards Air Force Base and Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md...
"Commanders in the field want an airplane that not only works but is cheap to operate," said Marine Col. John Rader, director of systems engineering for the JSF Program Office.
The commonality across armed service lines is intended to cut costs and make the aircraft easier to support.
The F-35 has common "guts" in the three versions, with variations to meet the needs of the individual services, Rader said. Approximately 70% of the aircraft is common to all three versions.
With the conventional take-off version as the basic design, the carrier version has the slightly larger wings and sturdier landing gear required for carrier landings.
The short take-off-vertical landing version is probably the most different, with a unique lift-fan system to provide the vertical thrust needed. The body of this version is slightly fatter to accommodate the lift fan. It also has the least range of the three versions, because the lift fan system takes the space that would be used by internal fuel tanks. However, the 450 nautical-mile range is still twice as far as the Harrier it would replace.
<b>"We've had some real challenges in keeping that commonality," Rader said. "That's part of keeping it affordable - make lots of them and make them alike."</b>
Even with the variations, flexible tooling will allow the same assembly lines to manufacture all the parts. Common features include weapons, avionics, the same basic engine and similar flight envelopes, Rader said. The fighters will have a range of 450 to 600 nautical miles, a 1.6 Mach speed limit and stealthy characteristics.
"All of the services are clamoring for replacements of their older aircraft," which are becoming more and more expensive to maintain, he said.
The Air Force eventually intends to purchase 1,763 of the conventional take-off version to complement the F/A-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 and A-10.
The Navy has plans to purchase 680 of the carrier and short take-off-vertical landing version. These would complement the F/A-18E/F in the Navy's arsenal and replace all fixed-wing aircraft for the Marine Corps.
The United Kingdom, the primary foreign partner, expects to purchase 150 of the same version for the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to replace the Sea Harrier and GR-7.
More than 2,000 additional aircraft are expected to be purchased by the program's other foreign partners, Rader said.
Nine countries have joined the United States in supporting the joint strike fighter program in varying degrees.
The United Kingdom has the highest level of involvement. Other countries involved in the design are Italy, Netherlands, Turkey, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Australia. Israel and Singapore have signed on at a lower level of involvement.
Sharing a common weapons system among allies will allow for true joint operations in the future, Rader said.
<i>This is more Pollyanna news coming from a company cheerleader that is depressing to the people actually trying to make this thing work. Draining colleges of bright students will not acheive success. Those people need leadership from "Graybeards" who have been there and done that. Otherwise, they will go over old ground and use up precious time and money learning hard lessons.
At least they are showing the trial baloon - "The X-35, however, was a concept demonstrator to prove the technologies, not a prototype of the fighter". The Congress needs to be educated that the prototypes were not anywhere near the weapons of war the F-35 should be. It might soften the news that they are doing a second prototype now, and it is not a useful weapon either.
Everyone can see that Commanders in the field need things that are simple and cheap to operate, but they have to be effective too. The F-35B is none of those things, and may never be considering how they are going about it.
There are normally three sets of books kept on airframe weight. They are the parametric or "estimated", the "calculated", and the "actual". These books are monitored by senior management on a daily basis during detail design. The estimated is used as a target weight during detail design so everyone knows how they are doing relative to the "calculated". The calculated value is based on released drawings of parts that everyone agrees should function as required. Modern electronic tools (i.e. CATIA) make this calculation somewhat easier but it has always been done as accurately as possible, taking into account every little detail including sealant, fasteners, shims etc. The actual weights are the measured weight of the "as built" flight hardware part, which should be real close to the calculated if the weights engineers are doing their job. It is a misleading statement to say that the F-35 program has more accurate weights earlier in the program so they have more time to fix it compared to other programs. I don't see how that could be true. I ask you, is it reasonable to say that you won't know you are 15% overweight until the aircraft is built when there are billions of $$ at stake. That's not reasonable for a P-47 much less an F-35.
Now here is the depressing part. They have not yet acknowledged that commonality must be sacrificed to save this program. Commonality is the noose around their necks that is getting tighter and tighter. They are finding out that the engineering, manufacturing and equipment required in the STOVL to make it work are very expensive. To preserve commonality, the other versions are stuck with expensive things they can't afford and don't need. The leverage of "make a lot of them and make them all the same" is working in reverse. The program will be more expensive if commonality with the STOVL is enforced, not less. Either way, the projected cost of the program is in error by a wide margin. They are stuck with a flawed management philosophy that sold the program in the first place. I don't see a face saving way out of this mess.</i>
Edited by - a10stress on May 20 2004 5:24 PM
_________________
????
|
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
