The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - December 3, 2008

Dunnigan's and Bay's Latest

Advertisement



New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Squad Battles: Winter War
2.Silent War
3.Manoeuvre
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Online Giving

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies

Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Procurement Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Who's Tired of Whinges About the Production Lines?
Nichevo    7/25/2007 10:19:24 PM
Keep the C-17 alive, keep the Saturn V alive, keep the F-15 alive, keep the CVN alive, keep this alive, keep that alive, meaning buy more so your vendor doesn't junk the dies and fire everybody. Oops, A-10 is dead, F-14 is dead, this one's dead, that one's dead.

Screw that! I think part of government procurement contracts ought to encompass preservation of the production facilities. Not the building, mind you, but the tooling, the blueprints, the techniques and skills.

You all remember how the Russians moved whole industries east of the Urals in WWII to keep them from the Germans. If those lumps could do that in 1941, why can't we pick up everything you need to make new Warthogs or Tomcats and store it at AMARC until someone finally declares it worthless?

The cost should be pretty much negligible IMV, compared to the entire scope of the contract. The most perishable thing would be worker skills - you would have to make videos and CBTs or something like that, or use motion capture to record workers' movements - but this seems to be chiefly used as an excuse to make the US buy new stuff.

There might be some tie-in with new technologies, e.g. engine programs, to spend a little money designing in compatibility with these mothball platforms (i.e. the new TF40 and successors should spend a few hundred grand in R&D to ensure they can be plugged into the A-10).

In fact, engines seem to be one thing that need mothballing. E.g., the B-52, KC-135 are hard to re-engine now. Of course I would rather replace 'em with the newer commercial plants but the option should exist.

Why not? Too easy? Too simplistic? Running out of room at AMARC? I wouldn't expect manufacturers to propose this, of course; like I said, they would rather design and make and sell new stuff. That's not my problem.

For just one example: The A-4 Skyhawk can do any combat mission existing in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the bunk to use SH to truck bombs, F-15 to do gun runs. And we are told these precious airframes are wearing out, etc.

Turn on the juice in the A-4 Room (or ship the boxcars full of tooling back out to Long Beach) and crank out another dozen, then pack it back in the cosmoline and put it back to sleep. Since you spent a little extra to keep the program fresh, it has new engines, new avionics; can drop PGMs, fire AIM-9X, use Link 16, LANTIRN, etc.

As stuff recedes farther into the past (e.g. AD-1 Skyraider) you can decide to keep it on hand, in the flesh, or archive all the tooling to files which will let you recreate the physical plant needed to make the a/c. That will keep as long as you run backups and maintain your SAN storage properly.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Nichevo    Wow, dead air   7/30/2007 1:31:51 AM
At least 36 people havr gone so far as to READ the post.  Well, if no one has opinions or interest, maybe someone could contribute some facts.  Are there any analyses of the cost and effort involved in mothballing such a production line? 



How much tooling and other distinctive equipment is needed to build an F-16, F-15, F-18?  Is any of it not of a portable or at least mobile nature (earthworks)?  Would it surpass the ability of trains and rails to carry, in size or weight?  Does any of it depend on a particular geographical location?

If the Russians did it in WWII, ISTM we should be able to manage it.  In fact, during an actual war, plants might be hit or sabotaged, so the capability to reconstitute production quickly from plans and/or stored equipment seems valuable.

 
Quote    Reply

John Barry       8/1/2007 8:59:31 AM
IMO for what it's worth,  it sound like a good idea, if you can do it. 
 
Wouldn't you also need to preserve all stuff at the sub-contractor level and the sub-sub contractor level- etc etc?  It may start to get to be more trouble than it's worth. 
 
Also how fast could a production line be setup?   It may be faster to design and put into production a low cost "Skyhawk type" aircraft from off the shelf parts.   
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       8/1/2007 10:37:42 AM

IMO for what it's worth,  it sound like a good idea, if you can do it. 

 
I think that if it were written into future contract provisions, it would be manageable.  Harder, but not impossible, to backfit, where the TTP still exists. 




Wouldn't you also need to preserve all stuff at the sub-contractor level and the sub-sub contractor level- etc etc?  It may start to get to be more trouble than it's worth. 

 

Well, take the F-16.  GD (now Lockheed) built that fighter and got the contract.  If they farm it out to Detroit Diesel, say, for the APU, and Honeywell for the radar and Martin Baker for the ejection seat, GE/P&W for the engine...well, these people all supplied GD with detailed specs; or rather GD supplied them with what GD wanted.  Somewhere along the line full information should be available.  I don't see how they could be built; it's not organic.

If you mean evolutions of the production process, that is more work to keep updated; but again, contract specifications should address this.  The modern TQM methods - kaizen, Six Sigma, ISO 9000, CMM, etc. - are all about capturing processes and pushing for optimization.  Someone should have this information as well. 

Very simply, to get the bid, to be eligible for the work, it should be contractual for all this info to be updated in the Procurement Ready Reserve database, for a new tool to turn the bolts in half the time to be duplicated or spec'd; and for this to be compensated, of course.

But even if you had to go back and copy stuff from samples - you tell me that (engines aside) China couldn't build A-10s if they had a working copy. 

In any case, one day we may have a big war and need lots of pieces of Eqpt. X.  Or, we may need to fake something up for a covert operation.  Or, we may need to equip allies with the means of production. 

Everyone knows that the Russians moved whole factories out of the combat zones of 1941-42 and back behind the Urals.  I'm not sure anybody realizes what a miracle that was.  I don't know how they did it; I only wonder if we could do it today.



Also how fast could a production line be setup?   It may be faster to design and put into production a low cost "Skyhawk type" aircraft from off the shelf parts.   

The A-4 is just the sort of a/c I had in mind.  However with certifications and all kinds of formalities, it seems quickest to duplicate an existing type where possible.  If all the parts of a Skylark are available on the open market from fresh production  - seems unlikely in the case of the airframe, less so in terms of all the bits and pieces - then that's fine; one merely needs all the part numbers, toll-free numbers, assembly directions, etc. 

But it seems likely that at least some metal-bending capability must be retained.  CAD/CAM/CNC can see to this more readily if planned in advance. 

Meanwhile, to make something as simple as a .50 BMG, as suggested on another thread, it shouldn't be so very damned hard to have a couple (or a couple of hundred) of packing crates with the necessary gear, ready to be shipped off to the nearest machine shop(s).
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       8/1/2007 10:50:50 AM

Keep the C-17 alive, keep the Saturn V alive, keep the F-15 alive, keep the CVN alive, keep this alive, keep that alive, meaning buy more so your vendor doesn't junk the dies and fire everybody. Oops, A-10 is dead, F-14 is dead, this one's dead, that one's dead.

Screw that! I think part of government procurement contracts ought to encompass preservation of the production facilities. Not the building, mind you, but the tooling, the blueprints, the techniques and skills.

You all remember how the Russians moved whole industries east of the Urals in WWII to keep them from the Germans. If those lumps could do that in 1941, why can't we pick up everything you need to make new Warthogs or Tomcats and store it at AMARC until someone finally declares it worthless?

The cost should be pretty much negligible IMV, compared to the entire scope of the contract. The most perishable thing would be worker skills - you would have to make videos and CBTs or something like that, or use motion capture to record workers' movements - but this seems to be chiefly used as an excuse to make the US buy new stuff.

There might be some tie-in with new technologies, e.g. engine programs, to spend a little money designing in compatibility with these mothball platforms (i.e. the new TF40 and successors should spend a few hundred grand in R&D to ensure they can be plugged into the A-10).

In fact, engines seem to be one thing that need mothballing. E.g., the B-52, KC-135 are hard to re-engine now. Of course I would rather replace 'em with the newer commercial plants but the option should exist.

Why not? Too easy? Too simplistic? Running out of room at AMARC? I wouldn't expect manufacturers to propose this, of course; like I said, they would rather design and make and sell new stuff. That's not my problem.

For just one example: The A-4 Skyhawk can do any combat mission existing in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the bunk to use SH to truck bombs, F-15 to do gun runs. And we are told these precious airframes are wearing out, etc.

Turn on the juice in the A-4 Room (or ship the boxcars full of tooling back out to Long Beach) and crank out another dozen, then pack it back in the cosmoline and put it back to sleep. Since you spent a little extra to keep the program fresh, it has new engines, new avionics; can drop PGMs, fire AIM-9X, use Link 16, LANTIRN, etc.

As stuff recedes farther into the past (e.g. AD-1 Skyraider) you can decide to keep it on hand, in the flesh, or archive all the tooling to files which will let you recreate the physical plant needed to make the a/c. That will keep as long as you run backups and maintain your SAN storage properly.

Some very SPECIFIC comments.
1. Turing engines
2. CNI
3. Reprogrammable industrial robotics
4. Von Neuman machine.
5. You still need men for the ART of putting it all together and the bulk assembly, but you design your manufacturing base to universals now. 
 
"We need A-4s!"
"Blueprints?"
"Need new engines for them!"
"Design them."
"Which plant do you want to use?"
"How about the Boeing Wichita complex?"
"Have to divert Sabreliner production."
"Do it."
 
Sound fantastic-production on demand??
Not with template manufacture, it isn't.
 
Herald  
 
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy