F-35C makes first carrier landing on USS Nimitz

[PLC1966]

You know the saying folks, buy cheap buy twice. Once operational, this will have a thirty to forty year service life. It will work out decent value.

Besides which, once again for the hard of reading, our carriers will not have Cats and Traps, therefore we can only have an F-35B to launch off of the big ol' boats we are building.

[Procopius]

If it helps, pretend it's the P.1154.

[Slater]

The F-111 can't be compared to the F-35 as in reality it was a USAF bomber from which a fighter was supposed to be developed. As a bomber the 111 did very well in the end and it's not true that it was quickly binned, it was replaced by a more modern type when it was already quite old.

The F-35 has been developed from the start as a type capable of operating from carriers and land bases, although with not small differences between the two versions.

Speaking of budgets, this may be the most expensive military program ever, but should be put in the right contest: It's an aircraft supposed to replace many types and to serve for many years in large numbers. Anything designed to similar specifications would require an expensive development program!

Maybe we should also look back in time and see what other programs have coated! The B-52 for example had huge costs and this for a relatively conventional aircraft. The B-58 program costed a lot of money too and generated 100 aircrafts retired after 10 years. All in all those 3.5 bln. Dollar were wasted way more than the money spent on the F-35

But of course old aircrafts were all successful and cheap, doesn't matter if some never worked as hoped during their whole life

I suppose it's a matter how one defines "quickly". Many (if not most) F-111's were gone from USAF service by 1992, with the last "F"'s leaving by 1996. By USAF standards, that's a reasonably rapid withdrawal from service, although admittedly they weren't exactly new airframes by that time.

[John B]

Additional video and photos to be seen here -> SD_Union-Tribune_Article.

I've seen the F-35 departing out of MCAS Miramar for about a year now. They seem to be flying them "very conservatively" around the local traffic pattern. (As opposed to how local F/A-18s (and F-14s in the past) and visiting F-15s/F-16s depart/arrive Miramar.)

[rich2010]

My only wish is that they hadn't binned off the Harriers until these things were up & running effectively. My other only wish is that they hadn't messed about flip-flopping about which variant to have, and butchering the carriers to suit. My final only wish is that they had stayed on budget... not much to wish for really

My one final wish... My two final wishes... Amongst my final wishes are...

Oh I'll come in again.

[Norman]

I just watched the two part doco on the selection/testing process again , and with hindsight it is easy to see why Lockheed Martin won...... in my opinion that is, i wonder what happened to the Boeing X32's ? does anyone know, and i reckon it would be great if someone did a 1/48 kit of it i wouldn't care if it were plastic,resin or vacuform i'd buy it for its unique lines and comparison with the F35's

I have warmed to the aircraft especially now there are great HD utube clips and Hi Res U.S Navy pics etc available , so have begun building an A in 1/48 scale and will finish her in R.A.A.F markings that i have just acquired

I find the whole programme fascinating , i wonder do Lockheed Martin have the production facilities to build the required amount for all nations in the programme ? or will others join in ? i realise small amounts of work will be done by contractors in home countries but its an awful lot of airframes to build, anyone have knowledge of this ?

[Alan P]

Norman, the manufacturing process is so specialised and tailored to the airframe that production will only be carried out at two plants - Lockheed Martin at Fort Worth and Northrop Grumman at Palmdale.

But like most modern aircraft, parts will be sourced from all over the place and shipped into the plants for final assembly.

[-Neu-]

I find the whole programme fascinating , i wonder do Lockheed Martin have the production facilities to build the required amount for all nations in the programme ? or will others join in ? i realise small amounts of work will be done by contractors in home countries but its an awful lot of airframes to build, anyone have knowledge of this ?

No, the industrial design basically is to bring together as much of the final assembly into one facility as possible. This occurs in USAF Plant 4, which is run by Lockheed Martin. Its a massive complex, which sits just above the runway in this photo:

Anyway, consolidating all of the production to one facility facilitates learning curve effects and economies of scale. The Former can be best described, as when your workforce becomes increasingly familiar with building an item, they discover efficiencies and improved production techniques. A couple of years ago I made this graph to illustrate the learning curve effects.

The basic assumptions here are:

#1: all the fighters are produced are the same

#2: the workforce is the same.

All aircraft production could have a similar curve, but they don't really obtain these benefits for a variety of reasons. Many programs are too small: SAAB will largely split production between Sweden and Brazil of the Gripen, Dassault will produce less than 200 Rafales. Eurofighter broke up the production into four facilities, and then interrupted tranche 1 and 2 production so it lost all of its learning. As for the Plant 4 facility, after 2019 the US government will be receiving 130 aircraft a year, with capacity for about 20~30 more aircraft a year for foreign buyers. With the exception of the Japanese, they will all be produced at Fort Worth, though Italy has a final checkout facility being built there.

In addition to learning curves, there are problems with economy of scale. Dassault basically only builds one Rafale a month compared to 12~15 a month for the F-35. Items can be purchased in large production runs, overhead costs are lower across a wide range of activities. Greater automation can be invested in, since companies can expect long, large contract runs. All of this helps drive down the cost. The difference is that a lot of fighters programs look like large artisanal manufacturing, whereas the F-35 is a massive mass production line.

What's also different about the production scheme is how the subcontractors are organized. For most aircraft, states try to keep as much production within their state as possible. Large programs are attempts to keep a national aerospace industry operating. This means you have a lot of inefficient industries that are actually producing higher cost items. With the JSF, basically partner states industries were asked to bid on contracts, with no guarantee of winning.

What this attempted to do was to harness foreign technological expertise and industrial capacity to provide the best possible component for the F-35. Many countries, like Canada, Australia, Turkey, UK, Italy and Netherlands, have very strong 2nd and 3rd tier manufacturing suppliers, that are as good or even better than their american counterparts. Thus in competitions, they could win contracts that would not necessarily have access to in a more traditionally run program. That is a massive change from how defence items have been produced. It follows civilian aerospace and automotive best practices on manufacturing, which has hitherto not been seen in military aerospace.

If you're interested I can explain some of the areas more in-depth, but that generally covers the basic aspects of the production side.

Edited November 7, 2014 by -Neu-

[Norman]

Neu

I am no engineer, but you have briefly explained how this will work in terms i can understand, thanks to you i now have another vital piece of the jigsaw in place , the scope of the project is awe inspiring in its size, so a big thank you for going to the trouble like i said i find it fascinating,

My grandfather was a Royal Marine and fought in both wars , i remember growing up and being with him when we went to airshows or army parades and he was always totally amazed and intrigued by the rapid advances in technology, when we saw a Boeing 747 for the first time he was stunned, he told me once how when in the trenches in the first war he saw a dogfight in progress above him, he had never even seen an aeroplane up close before ! Aircraft have come a long way since !

I tend not to get involved with the wave of discontent and absolute sea of 'armchair experts' and their personal negative opinions as it is nothing more to me than that aspect of human nature of grandstanding that has always been around these type of high profile projects, i live in Australia and am old enough to remember the F111 and its life in our Air Force, at the beginning the press and public made huge negative noises about the thing from costs to wether we needed it or to wether it would actually work and much was made for years of this, we eventually got an aircraft that served brilliantly and became much loved and was only recently retired, technology caught up with it but we got our moneys worth out of it, and the doomsayers disappeared and moved on to something else,

Thanks once again any other info you have is always appreciated as my grandfather once told me 'Never underestimate an engineer' and there seems to be a lot of that going on at the moment

Cheers

[-Neu-]

Neu

I am no engineer, but you have briefly explained how this will work in terms i can understand, thanks to you i now have another vital piece of the jigsaw in place , the scope of the project is awe inspiring in its size, so a big thank you for going to the trouble like i said i find it fascinating,

My grandfather was a Royal Marine and fought in both wars , i remember growing up and being with him when we went to airshows or army parades and he was always totally amazed and intrigued by the rapid advances in technology, when we saw a Boeing 747 for the first time he was stunned, he told me once how when in the trenches in the first war he saw a dogfight in progress above him, he had never even seen an aeroplane up close before ! Aircraft have come a long way since !

I tend not to get involved with the wave of discontent and absolute sea of 'armchair experts' and their personal negative opinions as it is nothing more to me than that aspect of human nature of grandstanding that has always been around these type of high profile projects, i live in Australia and am old enough to remember the F111 and its life in our Air Force, at the beginning the press and public made huge negative noises about the thing from costs to wether we needed it or to wether it would actually work and much was made for years of this, we eventually got an aircraft that served brilliantly and became much loved and was only recently retired, technology caught up with it but we got our moneys worth out of it, and the doomsayers disappeared and moved on to something else,

Thanks once again any other info you have is always appreciated as my grandfather once told me 'Never underestimate an engineer' and there seems to be a lot of that going on at the moment

Cheers

Not a problem. Yes the scale is staggering and is really not well understood by people who are not aware of what this area entails.

I think many compare the F-35 with its competitors based on its performance.... and think that because it is a "stealth fighter" that it must be more expensive than older simpler fighters. But the industrial production methods applied to the F-35 are so different from that of other aircraft that it makes it cheaper to produce it than less technically complex aircraft.

I can give you another way to visualize just how different they are. So Plant 4 is the long thin building at the top.

This is another photo it.

The runway is about 3.6km long, so the production building is at least 1.2 km long... which is kinda evident from this interior shot:

This is an early photo, and they don't use the entire facility. However it can facilitate a very large production scale.

Now This is the Eurofighter final assembly facility near munich Germany. It produces mostly Luftwaffe destined fighters.

I think this view shows about 2/3rds of the production line, there is a couple of station behind the camera. So the facility is probably only 300 meters long. It basically produces two to four aircraft a month.. That is probably a more efficient pace but its probably the facility's limit and nothing like the moving line in Fort Worth. There isn't really same level of automation either. Now there are other reasons for this. First, Eurofighter gave nations a greater responsibility for large sub-assemblies in order to decrease the loss of learning with four final assembly plants. If that photo was to be panned left, you'd see the centre fuselage production area for all Eurofighters. But still there is a limit to the level of automation possible. Then there is what Lockheed martin is undertakes in its GA Facility.

Certainly you'll see some similar automation in the centre wing production for the Eurofighter, but its not really on the same scale.

As a final note I was recently watching this academic lecture about the the Battle of Kursk and the second presentation is on tank production techniques and WWII. I think it gives a parallel in some way to what I'm talking about. the entire video is interesting but the relevant portion starts at the 26 minute mark. Enjoy.

Edited November 8, 2014 by -Neu-

[Norman]

Neu

Mate thanks so much

PM inbound

Cheers

[magwitch]

Top posts from -Neu- in this thread.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I certainly enjoyed the Kursk/Tank Production presentation.....I felt that the particular suitability of Soviet tank designs to their purpose, especially their optimisation for the sort of extreme-weather which crippled their German counterparts, was somewhat underplayed TBH. Also the fact that the Soviets developed these vehicles under the German's noses in the late thirties and early forties, yet the Germans apparently remained oblivious to the T-34 & KV-1 until they encountered them in combat.

I also felt that the commentators did the humble Sherman a bit of a disservice, as contrary to the statements in the video the M4A2 was reasonably popular with the units it equipped and there are plenty of photographs of them in Sovet service. He also kept referring to the Soviet or American M3 Lee as a Grant, which is just sloppy.....What the Soviets actually called it was "A Coffin For Seven Comrades".