Behlman Blog

The second annual Manufacturing Day arrives on October 4, and we’ll be quietly celebrating the achievements of American manufacturers by manufacturing some of the finest power electronics in the world. It’s not that we don’t care (we do!); it’s just that we’re busy.

Just this month, we received orders for the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy for power supply equipment that we must deliver in a timely manner.

Just because we aren’t openly participating in the activities surrounding Manufacturing Day this year, we don’t want to dampen the enthusiasm around such a worthy cause. As a manufacturer, we take pride in the work we do and appreciate the hard work that other U.S. manufacturers do.

Begun just last year, Manufacturing Day was launched to address common misconceptions the public has about manufacturing. “By working together during and after Manufacturing Day, manufacturers will begin to address the skilled labor shortage they face, connect with future generations, take charge of the public image of manufacturing, and ensure the ongoing prosperity of the whole industry,” the organizers wrote. Sponsors include: the Alliance for American Manufacturing, the Fabricators and Manufacturers Association, the Manufacturing Institute, the National Association of Manufacturers, the National Institute of Standards & Technology, and the Precision Metalforming Association.

The goal of Manufacturing Day is to educate the public as to:

• What modern manufacturing facilities are really like these days.
• What companies located in your community make and who they sell to.
• What kinds of jobs are available in manufacturing.
• What skills and education are needed to qualify for today’s manufacturing jobs.

Last year, over 240 organizations hosted events in 37 states that attracted more than 7,000 visitors. This year, organizers expect to double those numbers. We wish them well in their efforts.

And maybe next year, we’ll have the opportunity to join in the celebration fully.

Originally, Kennedy had been a firm advocate of the U.S. going it alone to achieve history’s greatest feat of exploration. Just two years earlier, he had given a very different speech that had roused the public during the height of the “space race” with the Soviets. “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard,” he argued.

Yet, in his 1963 speech, Kennedy proposed that the two world superpowers cooperate in mounting “a joint expedition” to the moon. “Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure?” It was a controversial stance to take in the middle of the Cold War; but it was realistic (even the Soviets thought so).

As we all know, history intervened two months later, and the notion of major nations cooperating to share their engineering and scientific expertise in space would have to be shelved for years. Eventually, though, Kennedy’s more clear-eyed stance on space exploration became the model for international efforts in the “high frontier.” First, the Americans and Soviets cooperated on a project called Skylab (one of the world’s first space stations) in 1973, which was quickly followed by the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission of 1975. Then they opened participation to all willing nation’s in 1993 with the announcement of the International Space Station (ISS).

Today, we still have individual nation’s making major strides in mastering the technology needed for manned spaceflight, but we also have many programs in which a variety of countries (and even private enterprises) work together to get things done up there, such as equipping the ISS. And this is likely to be the favored model for most future spaceflight breakthroughs going forward.

We were thinking about all this, because the folks here at Behlman have had some small measure of participation in the U.S. space program. Several years ago, we supplied some of the power supplies used to test the electronics associated with the launch rocket.

All these decades later, space exploration still has the power to fascinate us, as well as to remind us that we all share a very small planet.

In our last blog post (please see Form-Fit-Function Solutions: A Modest Proposal for Defense Department Cost Savings), we discussed a method in which replacement parts can be customized to supply the same functionality (or better) of an old part that may no longer be in production or may have become obsolete. While preparing that blog, we came across an article in New Electronics that discussed further problems with obsolescent technology and steps that can be taken to reduce the risk that it poses.

In the article Dealing with the Problems of Obsolescence, Graham Pitcher (an editor at New Electronics) writes that his magazine’s readers listed obsolete electronics as one of the biggest problems facing their businesses. The head of the Component Obsolescence Group (COG) told Pitcher that projects that need to “keep something in the sky or under the sea for 30 years” are increasingly experiencing problems with obsolete components. While designers today feel the pressure to shorten the upgrade cycle of their offerings, project managers are feeling the equal-but-opposite pressure to extend the life cycle of their ventures.

“While military projects were an early driver of obsolescence management, COG is now dealing with issues in the oil and gas, rail and nuclear industries, amongst others,” COG Chairman Stuart Kelly told the magazine. “These industries face the same issues, as do any with long-life projects.”

Kelly noted that the best approach to the problem is to meet it head on. COG’s website states: “Most companies deal with obsolescence in a reactive way, where they suddenly find that a component is not available. COG promotes proactive management where tools and procedures are put in place which monitor the life cycle of components and aim to have as much information as possible available on their bill of materials.”

Here at Behlman, we provide solutions to the problems of dealing with obsolete power supplies for a variety of applications. If you find yourself facing a problem involving obsolete power electronics, contact us for a potential solution.

As the federal budget sequester rolls along with no end in sight, pressure mounts on the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to trim its spending. Recently, the Senate Armed Services Committee warned that unless the Congress and the White House could agree to a long-term plan to reduce government spending that the Pentagon would be looking at $450 billion worth of spending cuts over the next nine years.

That got us to thinking about ways in which the DoD has actually been using some common-sense approaches to the difficult task of balancing cost savings with military preparedness in recent times. One of these methods is called COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) requisitioning (please see our previous blog entry Best Practices for Choosing a COTS Power Supply Vendor). Another method is referred to as FFF (form-fit-function) replacement. Here’s some background on how we view this second approach to practical cost savings in defense requisitioning.

Some of the military’s weapon, communications and support systems can date back half a century, and may need replacement parts that no longer exist. The original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) may even have gone out of business. We often find that electronic parts used by the original power supply manufacturer have become obsolete, printed wiring boards and castings are no longer available, or original schematics no longer exist.

When the military faces system obsolescence or costly, temporary repairs of existing power supplies, Behlman may be asked to create form-fit-function replacements. The result is a newly manufactured power supply designed to match the “form” (shape, materials and interfaces), “fit” (size and all connectors) and “function” (delivering the same output power from the appropriate input power) of an original power supply. These meet the specifications of the original but also present opportunities to address defects or shortcomings in the original design, as well as improvements in performance and reliability through the application of modern technologies and manufacturing techniques.

For example, an aerospace equipment manufacturer needed a form-fit-function replacement for a 30-year-old power supply used in Air Force E-3 AWACS systems. Over 300 units were extant in aircraft, and the power supply failure rate had become unacceptable. By utilizing existing modules and circuits to replace those used in the original AWACS power supply, Behlman kept development time to a minimum and delivered two qualification units in record time. We also integrated several upgrades that improved performance, maintenance and manufacturability. This economical solution enabled the AWACS to perform its mission long after it would otherwise have become obsolete.

While we can only speak for power supplies, there can be little doubt that electronic and mechanical form-fit-function solutions of all kinds can greatly extend the useful life of military systems. And, due to advances in technology, design and manufacture since the original equipment was produced, it is reasonable to expect a replacement part to significantly outperform the original.  To achieve this higher level of performance, vendors must have the ability to:

• Identify and outline all alternatives and options, as well as explain the pros and cons of each
• Look beyond the provided specifications and make recommendations to improve performance, manufacturability and cost
• Draw from and implement a wide array of proven COTS technologies
• Ensure that the replacement meets all appropriate standards introduced since the original was manufactured (in power supplies, for example, MIL-STDs for shock and vibration or EMI/EMC compliance standards).

While limited program funding has made sustaining legacy weapon, communication and support systems more challenging than ever, taking the time to research and select the right replacement vendor is well worthwhile, as it can definitely keep our nation’s armament on the front lines long after the OEMs have vanished – and all on budget.