brar_w wrote:I do not understand, are you saying that the industry would self fund a ramp up that they cannot sustain for a prolonged period of time?
The only reason the industry is doing what it is doing now is because there is long term stability when it comes to a gradual ramp up followed by a sustained high rate of acquisition. Reassuring the industry is one of the purpose of the block buy.
No I'm saying the DoD will fund the ramp to a sustainable rate of production, which will be achieved one way or the other.
Block buy essentially firms up delivery dates much quicker as compared to ordering each and every year. You would have added capacity anyway, but by doing a block buy you are guaranteeing to a set amount of 2-3 years. This assures the suppliers that there would be a constant order stream without the uncertainty that can accompany defense procurement, and in return they can offer up to 10% discount over the last purchase on an annual basis.
^This is a definition of a block buy. It does not however disprove the basic point here - supplementary can be placed over and above what's included in the block buy. Which makes the 'block buys' irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
So if you 90 slots in 2018, and 100 slots in 2019, and you book them all in advance in 2016 you have limited wiggle room as to how many of those slots that are available (NONE). Its essentially a commitment by the customers.
Where does it say that the block buy will cover every last bit of capacity in the entire system (spanning three assembly lines)?
Consider this an educated guess. Also they won't support anything just for the sake of it. As I said earlier, I can claim that Lockheed can produce a 1000 F-35s a year if they had orders (in 2020) and no one here or elsewhere could show me a "document" a "report" or proof that they cannot.
I'll consider it
your opinion. Until supporting by facts. All evidence produced thus far suggests that the LM's production is to peak at about 250 units per year, so a claim of 1000 per year cannot be accepted at face value.
Ashley Carter is an actress, Ashton Carter is the SecDef
.
Never heard of her. Obviously a typo.
Using your same argument I can ask you for a "document" to substantiate this -
If India were to request the F-35 contingent on delivery in a time frame competitive with the Rafale, it would be done. Period
That doesn't even require an educated guess. Its just plain commonsense. You're building 20 aircraft
per month. Global orders for the aircraft are still... lets say, a work in progress. You want to cement ties with India particularly in the defence sector. India requests a quick delivery of a mere 30 odd aircraft over 3 years.
Only a stupid or supremely incompetent set of individuals cannot make that work, and the individuals in question are neither stupid nor incompetent.
There are many things different with the Rafale ramp up in production. First, they have done it before and are only going back to something that they have delivered, secondly the production is stable and the aircraft itself is well understood (manufacturing). Lockheed is still on a learning curve and introducing concurrency changes along the way (will do so till 2018 or so), and the current LRIP constraints still apply to both it and Pratt. Both Lockheed and Pratt would be adding 30-40 jets over (2-3 years) to an already fairly risky and ambitious ramp up plan while Rafale would be adding a 2-3 Rafales per year to a stable production program that was itself downsized by the same amount.
With all the experience in the world, there is still a lead time involved in any ramp up. Unlike LM's subcontractors who've been gearing for a 'normal production' rate of 240 aircraft per year, Dassault's subcontractors have settled for a long term production rate of 11 per year. Any increase in production would still take 2.5-3 years to implement (with normal lead time for fighter production being 2 years).
either the Americans have stopped wanting to export the F-35
That is hardly the case. If someone says, we want 50 F-35's but we want them in 2016 or we won't buy them that is likely to be a NO from the JPO. On the other hand export orders are obtained through sustained negotiations and both parties are well aware of what the capability (timeframe) and delivery timelines are.
No one is asking for anything as ambitious as 50 F-35s by 2016. The debate is around a very modest proposal.
As I said, if the IAF or any other force puts a firm position down that they will only buy if they get 30 by 2020 or so, then the JPO would have to resort to some creative shifting of delivery slots from some of its customers. Increasing production to a level that cannot be sustained, for the short term would be fairly last on their solutions for these sort of problems.
I'm not suggesting that the production rate should ever exceed the 240/yr planned for the program. If the set production hasn't been achieved (not an unlikely situation), it can be supported by an export order. If on the other hand they are at max rate, then yes they'll come to some of 'creative' solution without any particular regrets.
Its a waste of time because its analysis on a unlikely scenario where we need to agree to disagree.
Unlikely, not impossible. On the same lines, what part of the thread do you think is 'productive' (as opposed to a 'waste of time')? Very little in my opinion, once India is excluded from the equation. When the meter gets from improbable to impossible, I'd be happy to see the thread locked and retired. I don't think we're there yet, in
my opinion of course.
The peak annual production post-SDD is estimated to be 240 units (20 per month) incl. output in Italy & Japan The peak annual production post-SDD is estimated to be 240 units (20 per month) incl. output in Italy & Japan
Those are just US domestic orders which form just 50% of the aircraft to be delivered over the next five years.
To support a planned production ramp-up that calls for exponential production growth before 2019, the company must boost its monthly production rate to as many as 17 jets at the Fort Worth facility, plus two more from a new factory in Italy and one more from Japan.
Lockheed's entire operation is gearing up for full-rate production in 2019, before which the number of jets is set to expand from 62 in LRIP 9 to 98 and 168 in lots 10 and 11, respectively. Production levels should continuing rising to a full-rate production of 240 jets per year.
Lockheed is already preparing for what officials call "rate". The firm expects to increase the production rate by about 50% each year until it is churning out 20 F-35s a month in 2019, including those from Japan and Italy, Kinard says.
The production line now has eight electronic mating and alignment system (EMAS) stations, where the forward, centre and aft fuselage sections of the three jet variants are joined in a virtual environment before physical mating. The system allows for the precise measurement of joined surfaces necessary to create the smooth outer surface of the very-low-observable stealth aircraft. A single soft-mate station supports assembly of components that do not require the precision of EMAS.
To support a rate of 17 jets per month, the facility will need at least 15 EMAS and five soft mate stations, Kinard says. Whereas the Fort Worth production line currently has 10 final assembly stations – where control surfaces and systems are joined to the fuselage – it will need at least 25 at full rate, he adds. -
Flight Global
^
As the latter part along with some elementary arithmetic suggests, the LM line is already building up to a fair bit of slack in the system. Everything one reads about the production suggests that LM can't afford to turn down new orders. And that need for more firm orders is also borne out in its public statements.
Italy and Japan are FACO's for a fixed number of customers. Italy takes care of the Italians and the dutch and perhaps something down the road would be negotiated to extend that to a few more potential european customers if Italy can't afford its original number. Japan is producing for itself and obviously won't be exporting anything in the immediate future.
I think its well known that Italy can't afford its original number (at least over the short term) even though it has no other way of recouping the (close to) billion that its sunk into the FACO line.
Japan too hasn't yet officially signed contracts for deliveries beyond the original 40 units (slightly over three years worth production) and with the whole Abe-Modi thing going strong, may be amenable to exports.
Its still far from given that total orders placed by the US DoD will meet that 20 per month quota. Even a minor amount of slack in the system (5-7%) is more than enough to accommodate a small (relative to the scale of production) export order.
A production order in 2016, would have to find slots in the 19 and 20 production process that takes it to a greater than 15% production boost. In 2016 they would be delivering LRIP VII and VIII jets, in 17, VIII and IX and the bulk order deliveries would be completed for IX and X in the end of 2018. Lets give them a benefit of the doubt that they can pull a rabbit out of the and manage 2018 production.
If by 2019-2020 they haven't achieved the expected rate of production (20/month), they will have three full years of lead time to accommodate (a minor) production increase with the aircraft delivered 2019-21.
France is expected to begin delivering the Rafale in 2-2.5 years.
The first 24 units will go to Egypt. The last delivery to the IAF will still likely go past 2020. Maybe early 2020, if they up the production rate.
This obviously totally discounts the fact that there is no F-35 IN version yet, and whatever the IAF plans to substitute has to be developed, integrated and tested where it directly competes with ITT priorities, unless the IAF wants to do something like what the Brits are doing i.e acquire their own test birds and do the integration (ski ramp).
There's no Rafale IN either. That too will need to be modified with BEL supplied equipment. In addition, they might want the Litening G4 & HMS certified. In the F-35's case, they'll be able to piggyback off some of the customization being performed for Israel.
). This is a virtual given, and something that is not entirely their fault (its the nature of the ramp up, size of the effort and the complexity of making a 5th generation aircraft).
........ ("the aircraft will be designated F-35I, as there will be unique Israeli features installed in them".)