Covering
military aviation is a big part of my job, but it's not the only part. I also
write about commercial aviation. So I've had a front-row seat to observe the rise,
severe fall and ongoing recovery of the once-celebrated 787 production system.
Relating commercial
and military aircraft programs can be very tricky, but I can't help make
connections between the 787 and that other major aircraft production programme with
global aspirations also launched earlier this decade: the Lockheed Martin F-35
Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), which is also called the Lightning II by the
For those
who are not airliner watchers, Boeing's more-electric, mostly-composite 787 (pictured) is
innovating beyond mere systems and materials. In the aerospace industry, the
787 is also a fascinating experiment in globalization. Six major structural
producers in three different countries -
By
comparison, the F-35 industrial blueprint seems modest, but is nonetheless a
great leap even for an international defense program. The F-35's three major
structural producers are the
Both
aircraft are being initially packaged as a family of three variants built on
the same production line. (Interestingly, the fate of the short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing
F-35B is yet more secure than even the short-haul 787-3, which has now drifted
off Boeing's public delivery schedule.) Both aircraft were selected by their
respective industries to embrace globalized supply chains in new and radical
ways.
After each
program began after 2001, both have experienced roughly equal setbacks: first
delivery of the F-35 has slipped 18 months after a weight problem forced a
redesign; first delivery of the 787 has slipped 15-18 months after the experimental
production system basically had a meltdown. Weight remains a design "challenge"
for the 787, but the problem has not been severe enough to force Boeing to redesign
the jet.
Most
importantly perhaps, neither airframe has proven itself in flight. Although the
first non-weight optimized F-35 prototype flew in December 2006, Lockheed has
still only scratched the tiniest surface of a 6,000-hour flight test phase. The
first 787 flight test aircraft is now scheduled to fly in the fourth quarter of
this year to launch a roughly 3,000-hour flight test phase.
Over the
past two months, I've interviewed the head of the
How well Lockheed's
industrial team applies the 787's lessons and avoid its mistakes will soon be
determined. The F-35 must soon prove itself in the air. But, if Lockheed fails
to execute, even an effective fighter can be sabotaged on the ground by a 787-like
production meltdown.
on August 18, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply
For even more giggles, you should add the A400M project to the list of late & over budget aircraft projects.
Summer is almost gone and another milestone is about to slip into the mists of over-blown rhetoric from Airbus Marketing types.
The question now isn't if the A400M will fly in 2008, it is now if the C130 testbed aircraft will get off the ground in 2008.
on August 18, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply
Do I sense a note of bitterness, perhaps, Mr. Canuckistan? Canada got screwed on the A400M engine, as I recall.
Think there's any chance that Sarkozy et al may cut their losses and beg PWC to bring back the PW800?
on August 18, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply
Bitterness ? Nah, that's schedenfrude, served up with big smile. Yoo Hoo :)
The irony that the Euro political decision to go with a Euro engine team instead of PWC is beyond sweet - now that their program is "grounded" because they can't get the engines to work and there hints that the FADEC software is N/S. Looks like the Euros can screw the pooch on big projects just like Boeing & Lockheed.
AB/EADS injected themselves into Canadian plans to revitalize the Air Force with C 17s & Jercs and our government had the good sense to tell them to go pound sand. The 17's are in service now and the Hercs are on order. We'll be flying them before any A400M's are In Service.
By the way, as someone who has spent time on the DEW Line back in the Day, I love your Blog title. Appreciate the early warnings on aviation topics.
on August 18, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply
This blog is humbled by your presence, sir! An actual DEW Line vet!
on August 18, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply
"Do I sense a note of bitterness, perhaps, Mr. Canuckistan? Canada got screwed on the A400M engine, as I recall."
Kind of puts Europeans now constant harping about American protectionism into perspective, doesn't it?
on August 18, 2008 6:31 PM | Reply
Well, maybe. Except I think that most European countries embrace non-protectionism in the defense market as an economic necessity, and a convenient one since their foreign policy doesn't really justify a standalone defense industrial base. France and Sweden stand apart as the only two European countries that have refused to outsource combat aircraft purchases. In that way, those are two the most like the USA, which has refused to outsource any modern combat aircraft except for the AV-8B, and, most recently, the AC-27J.
on August 18, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply
Did the U.S. approach to combat aircraft occur because of protectionism, or because it wanted the best aircraft for its needs at the time the aircraft were procured? I'm not up on all the history of combat aircraft, but what would the European-sourced alternatives to the F-16 and F-15 have been at the time of selection? Or for the C-17? Or for the A-10? (those aren't rhetorical questions, either- I'd be interested in knowing whether viable alternatives existed at the time any of these aircraft were bought by the U.S.).
on August 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply
I know there's a raging debate about which fighter is better: the F-16 or the Mirage 2000. Both were on the market at roughly the same time. I don't think there's any hint that the USAF ever considered buying the Mirage, rather than develop its own fighter even if some think the Mirage may be slightly better. (I don't think that, but it's at least open for debate.) Is that protectionism?
Two decades later, there was an attempt by the Eurofighter consortium to sell the Typhoon to the USAF as an F-16 replacement, but that of course went no where.
on August 20, 2008 3:29 AM | Reply
I think the companies should be penalized...just like in construction when you do not make a deadline. What happened to the days when planes were drawn up by drunken men after work in a bar on a napkin, Designed with slid-rules and calculators and they were able to fly and deliver the plane under budget and before the deadline.
You would think with all this technology that something would go right...
Hell (yes, bitter) Look at the C-130J....not even that great of a leap. A 50+ year old design and they still managed to make it worse then the original and on top of that, over priced and way late. Now over ten years old, they are still trying to fix the problems.
on August 22, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply
Modern technology?
Which aerospace project has been on time and within budget since the introduction of he CAD systems in use today.
There is also a huge emphasis on project managing and engineer’s specialization and the use of machines.
In era C130 was conceived the emphasis was on getting the most from skilled craftsmen and operators with incentive bonuses. All we have today is directors, managers and CAD jockeys whom are happy to sit around the table and talk the project to death without anyone wanting to make a decision; thus we can’t deliver on time or to cost.
on August 24, 2008 10:21 PM | Reply
I was surprised by the article to compare these aircraft but on reflection it is well considered. They both represent the best AND worst of todays aerospace. A few good men have taken bold steps forward to advance the development of aircraft, their leadership has been inspirational and the many would not believe the magnitude of their impact on the industry. At this stage of the projects however the industry has failed to recognise the importance of the few and directed them elsewhere to hand over to those who on paper are more 'right' for this stage of the project but do not have the dedication and background. For Boeing this is the result. I hope F-35 will fare better. Both terrific aircraft, both the result of the tremendous dedication of a few good men. For Airbus I'm afraid the 400M lacks these special individuals who have made the 787 and f-35 the best pieces of kit on the planet, not for today but for tomorrow.
on August 25, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply
"Fascinating experiment in globalization... major producers... are not just building up parts [but are] endowed with the unprecedented responsibility to design, build and certificate complete aircraft sections.."
I thought that was an outstanding innovation too, when I saw it in Toulouse in 1975.
on August 25, 2008 4:17 PM | Reply
Mr. Sweetman,
I'm an American, so anything Airbus does doesn't count!