It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New CH-53K issues found

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 11:28 PM
link   
The CH-53K is going to miss its IOC date by at least five months according to current estimates. The Navy initially planned for IOC in late 2019, or the start of 2020. That date is now projected to be May of 2020, depending on how the restructuring goes. Several significant issues have been found during development testing, forcing a major restructuring. Among the issues are exhaust gasses being pulled back into the engine, gearbox parts having a shorter life than planned, issues with the tail rotor and drive shaft, and delays with redesigned parts being delivered. The current projected unit cost is $139.5M per aircraft.


Lockheed Martin Corp.’s $31 billion King Stallion helicopter program for the U.S. Marine Corps is likely to miss its key milestone -- initial combat capability a year from now -- because of technical flaws found in development testing.

Resolving the problems is forcing a major restructuring of the program, with its development phase “taking longer than planned” as “additional test failures or issues” are discovered during flight tests, the Defense Contract Management Agency said in a statement.

The King Stallion, designated CH-53K, will be the same size as its predecessor, the Super Stallion, but will be able to externally lift 27,000 pounds (12,200 kilograms). That’s “more than triple the external load carrying capacity” of the CH-53E, according to a Lockheed fact sheet. The Navy’s plan to buy 200 of the copters for the Marines was a prime motivation for the contractor’s $9 billion acquisition of Sikorsky Aircraft from United Technologies Corp. in 2015.

www.bloomberg.com...




posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 07:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

With all the much touted high tech computer aided design capabilities the companies claim to have it really is amazing how they can still screw stuff up and the government ends up paying tax dollars to correct manufacturing defects or just shoddy engineering... Business as usual



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Zaphod58

With all the much touted high tech computer aided design capabilities the companies claim to have it really is amazing how they can still screw stuff up and the government ends up paying tax dollars to correct manufacturing defects or just shoddy engineering... Business as usual

At the end of the day (most) all parts are made by the lowest bidder and thus it’s a race to gain a leg up up on other contractors to produce the minimum viable quality to eek out as much profit margin as possible and stay competitive in bids.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

There's a surprising number of large dollar contracts that are now going to "Not to exceed" pricing. That means our risk is pretty limited, and anything over the award amount comes from the manufacturer's pocket. The initial production contract for the CH-53K is a $303M, Fixed Price Incentive Firm, Firm Fixed Price, Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee contract. That means there's not a huge risk to the taxpayer with all the overruns. The development was probably Cost Plus, and that hurt, but the production won't be.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

I do computer 3D design and finite modeling for a living. It can get you close, but, you are never sure until you actually build your design and test it. It's main advantage it that you can try multiple iterations fairly quickly. We still have a lacking in some areas of material science.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 04:06 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499

Even with physical models tested in a wind -tunnel or flight tested, things don't always scale the way you suspect, parts wear out quicker than suspected, etc. There's always something.

But it's also frequently compounded by poor project management on the side of the contractors or customer.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499
Definitely.I do both design and hand fabrication and there is a difference between both.



posted on Dec, 20 2018 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert
Definitely,


But it's also frequently compounded by poor project management on the side of the contractors or customer.

Which is exactly why as Zaphod pointed out in another thread the B-21 should give people hope as its one of the best run programs in decades. We dont need another JSF debacle.



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 08:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: thebozeian
We dont need another JSF debacle.


If that's the case, we need to keep Congress out of it. One of the main problems with the JSF and the V-22 for that matter, is the way that construction was spread out to different areas to get Congressional support. This raises number of people working on the project but also increases the cost.

Take a look at Kelly Johnson's "14 Rules of Management" and then look at how these programs were run.
en.wikipedia.org...(engineer)#Kelly_Johnson's_14_Rules_of_Management



posted on Dec, 21 2018 @ 08:36 PM
link   
a reply to: JIMC5499
Yes I'm aware of what screwed up projects like JSF, V-22, LCS etc, Congressional pork barreling as well as services that kept moving the goal posts constantly. Ed Heinemann was another who lived by a set of rules that meant his project teams delivered quickly and comparatively cheaply. Hardly surprising when you consider Ed and Kelly were very much contemporaries of each other.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join