Posted on 02/26/2010 6:45:03 PM PST by GOPGuide
Pentagon Reports Document Continuing Lockheed-Martin Failures
Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the CDI Straus Military Reform Project has obtained almost two years of monthly reports from the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) on Lockheed Martin’s production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The documents do not paint a pretty picture, explains Straus Military Reform Project Director Winslow Wheeler.
The Defense Contract Management Agency’s (DCMA) most recent reports cover the months July through November 2009. The full reports are available below. Their major points, as summarized by Winslow Wheeler, are as follows:
The F-35 assembly line at Forth Worth, Texas is being cannibalized for parts to support flight testing. This may be the first time an assembly line has been cannibalized for parts. See the summary of the August report below.
The continuing and sometimes deteriorating nature of the delays at Lockheed-Martin’s (L-M) Fort Worth plant refutes the L-M contention that things are getting better, and that the F-35 program learned from the past and with new design techniques is avoiding the kinds of problems experienced by “legacy” aircraft programs.
The cause, nature and implications of the “stand-down” mentioned in the November report could well be important, but are unreported by the press and are a matter looking for explanation.
July Report: Page 4 talks about a new DCMA estimate to complete System Design and Development, but the numbers are redacted. DCMA calls the L-M estimate “inadequate.” This DCMA estimate is before the Pentagon’s second independent Joint Estimating Team (JET II) estimate was finished and available, and is presumably independent. Most importantly, it clearly was available for Defense Secretary Gates' Forth Worth visit in August. Was it briefed to him? If so, why was Gates so positive about the program at that visit; if it was not, is this the reason why the F-35 program manager, General Heinz was fired due to troubling information not getting to Gates on this high visibility program.
Page 4 also mentions without further discussion a "BF-4 STOVL Upper Lift Fan Door incident." The context is the rising costs of the overall system, but there are no details. Given that the Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) F-35 B is on a short schedule to deployment, is this a problem that will further complicate the schedule for the F-35 B?
Page 4 identifies a "Corrective Action Plan" to address "EVMS," the “Earned Value Management system,” or the system that L-M uses to measure and report execution of the program and its budget. I understand it to be the core method DOD uses to monitor and manage the program. Results of the plan are due to DCMA in August. (The October report states that the plan was submitted, but no specifics are reported. It is only stated that “a more focused Review will occur in three to five months by the DCMA….” [Page 4 of October report.]) There has been some reporting on the failure to meet EVMS criteria in the press. The threat to L-M is that it will have to maintain its “certification” to perform EVMS calculations - if it is lost, L-M could end up not legally eligible to be a contractor to the federal government.
August Report: L-M is cannibalizing the production line to provide spare parts for the flight test program (pp. 3 - 4). These cannibalizations are “causing significant workload to supply chain personnel and are disrupting the production line." There is no further discussion or explanation. This may be the first time a development aircraft’s production line was cannibalized for spares.
September Report: "Execution of the Flight Test Schedule continues to be a significant Program concern." (Page 3.)
“The volume of major CR’s [Change Requests] is projected to continue.” “…the number of major changes has exceeded projections. Additionally, the impact of timing these changes and the disruption to the floor were not anticipated.” (Page 3.) This would seem to be exactly the kind of thing that L-M promised would not happen: i.e. that they had learned from previous programs and with the benefits of advanced computer design, the F-35 would not have the kinds of design disruptions so common with “legacy” aircraft.
Page 4 addresses another delay issue: ''Wing-at-Mate" problems. These, I understand, have to do with the decision to mate the wing to the fuselage before the wing is “stuffed.” The plan was to mate the completed wing to the fuselage. But, because of delays, L-M decided to add wing components after mating, which – being inefficient -- slows things down more.
"Composite production is not meeting the demands of the production operations - composites for the AFT and Empennage assemblies are paced by the availability and quality of composites." (Page 4.) Again, the modern design feature of composites, said to not just reduce weight (of the overweight aircraft) but to facilitate design and fabrication is proving to be a source of delay and complication.
October Report: Flight test schedule still "a significant Program concern.” "AF-1 continues to be in a maintenance period as of this report, progressing towards taxi tests and first flight." (Page 3.) This is an example of a problem addressed in earlier DCMA reports: aircraft coming off the production line incomplete and incapable of flight. They are sent to adjacent hangars for post-production production. This pre-first flight “maintenance” would seem to be a misleading misnomer.
Report also mentions that the program is about to get its "sixth schedule revision." (Page 3.)
More details on the "Wing-at-Mate overlap" which appears to be improving. (Page 3.)
November Report: Due to the need for the sixth schedule revision - coming in early 2010 - "Recent Program summary charts, scorecards and management briefings do not consistently depict performance to the master schedule baseline." (Page 3.)
The graph on page 6 shows Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) aircraft delivery rate is on average 80 days late. The rate significantly deteriorated in April and stayed at that deteriorated rate. Individual aircraft deliveries are significantly above that: AF-6 will be 92 days late; AF-7 will be 142 days late. A sentence presumably explaining the increased delay was redacted. (Page 6.) This category is rated “red” by DCMA. On the other hand, DCMA confirms public reports that while LRIP 1 and 2 aircraft are months late, the “risk” that LRIP 3 aircraft will be late is rated as “low.”
Suppliers' Delivery Rate (Page 8.) is also getting worse, now down to about 75 percent on-time. This category is also rated “red” by DCMA.
The Management Reserve of money is gone, "further straining the financial management of the Program." Amounts are redacted. Given DOD Undersecretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Ashton Carter's decision to use LRIP production money for SDD, how much of that will go to L-M’s management reserve slush fund, rather than directly to SDD activities?
A section is titled “Maintenance and Quality Verification Stand-Down,” immediately followed by several redacted lines. Later the section states “This incident triggered a maintenance and quality verification stand-down to determine systemic root causes for increasing aircraft impoundment and suspension of operations incidents to date.” And later, “The focus areas are Software, Rework/Repairs, System Check Out Procedures (SCOPs) and Aerospace Equipment Instructions (AEIs).” (Page 4.) The discussion in the section titled "Improve Software Productivity" refers to "F-35 stand-down events" and explains that a “Joint Process Review” effort to address software issues was “postponed until further notice as it was overcome by F-35 stand down events that took precedence.” (Page 18.)
This “stand-down” would appear to have some significance, but has not been reported to the public by L-M or DOD. It has also not been addressed by the press as far as I am aware.
I hope I didn’t sound too harsh, didn’t mean to. Just asking a question.
Developmental programs rarely go smoothly. The primary reason programs before the ‘90s went as smoothly as they did is the lack of advanced technology as compared to today or they were classified and had no oversight so we don’t know.
There are problems, that cannot be denied. But there are efforts being made to correct them. It’s not like folks are sitting back letting this thing fail.
However, there are many who’re already trying to bury the program under an avalanche of bad press and doomsday scenarios. That’s what torques me off.
Give the plane a chance to prove itself.
Give me a bloody break.
Only reasons that programs during that time didn't get sh**canned was the lack of dumba$$ democrats occupying the White House and a corresponding reduction in the REMF's running procurement programs and/or backshooting the deal on the side.
Ever hear of the B1A? Program started in the late 60's, swing-wing, fly-by-wire, every tekky bell and whistle you can think of and all the public heard about the bird was EXACTLY THE SAME LINE OF CRAP THEY'RE GETTING RIGHT NOW ABOUT F-35.
While I was working at Rockwell during the early 70's, it used to be almost comical; Senator Whatisface or Representative Blowhard would come through El Segundo for a VIP Tour, drop off the latest list of Products From My Big Donors That Damn Well Better Be On This Airplane, rush to make it back to the TV studio where he'd bitch and moan about the cost and how it was "going to be obsolete before it ever flies" and then fly back to DC so he could gut the funding in favor of some feelgood BS for his next election campaign.
When I first saw this thread and the bit about cannibalizing the production lines, I almost ROFLMAO, because after Carter took office, some very cold calculations took place in B-1 Land so that right after we got AV4 (the last prototype) moved down the production line, we were stripping every tool, jig and fixture out to mothball them out in the desert for the hoped-for time when some adults would take charge in DC.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if L-M hasn't doing that very thing themselves, and, for that matter, the F-22 line hasn't been cocooned since last January.
Yeah, I'd like to see someone "Give the plane a chance to prove itself", too. Only problem is we've got an awfully entrenched apparat inside The Beltway and around the country that: 1) Doesn't like industries in general and defense contractors in particular; 2) Doesn't lack for anything but principles and concern for the country in their opposition.
Best things to hope for is the full-scale production of the F-22 and F-35 **BRAVO** models starting up in February 2012, and the answered prayer that we don't need them before that date.
I’m still unclear as to the reasons for that particular house-cleaning.
You are right. I was being overly simplistic, sorry about that.
Look at the Presidential helicopter program and you will see a modern example of exactly what you’re talking about.
I don’t recall PD ever supporting Rudy or RINOs in general. He used to not give a flip about illegal immigration, but he came around on that topic.
Absolutely correct! Too much consolidation!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.