backtop


Print 119 comment(s) - last by MrPoletski.. on Aug 6 at 9:14 AM

GE/Rolls-Royce F136 JSF engine in jeopardy

Purse strings in Washington are tighter than they have been in years meaning funds for some defense projects are harder to get.

The Senate has voted for an amendment to the annual defense authorization bill that could eventually block the proposed second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: the F136 from General Electric/Rolls-Royce. Aviation Week reports that Congress has earmarked unrequested funds for the F136, but the Senate adopted the amendment on July 23 that would require proof that the F136 engine would cut costs for the program overall. The program currently relies on the F135 engine from Pratt & Whitney.

The amendment was written by Sen. Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut who said, "The Department of Defense has long said that it neither wants nor intends to use an engine other than the one currently produced by Pratt & Whitney."

AviationWeek reports that Lieberman's claims are not entirely accurate. The Pentagon and Air force Leadership have been rejecting calls for the F136 alternative engine, but program leaders for the JSF have stressed that an alternative engine isn’t a bad idea. The bill will have to be amended in the House version if the F136 engine is to continue to be an option. Money for the F136 has been earmarked already in the House's defense appropriations bill.

GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said, "The funding battle over the GE Rolls-Royce F136 fighter engine for the JSF is far from over. The argument for an engine competition for the JSF, the largest fighter program in US history, is simply too compelling."

President Obama has threatened to veto a bill that comes to him promoting a second engine with a chance of disrupting the program. The Senate has already voted against more funds for the F-22 Raptor program.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

What's that sound I hear?
By ipay on 7/27/2009 11:23:06 AM , Rating: 5
Is it Barak Obama flushing America's air superiority down the toilet?

Or maybe it's the noise that a defenceless welfare state makes, I dunno.




RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Xed on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Parhel on 7/27/2009 12:42:40 PM , Rating: 4
I think I want to volunteer for that study. For the good of the country of course.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBungle123 on 7/27/2009 11:32:13 AM , Rating: 5
Hey! Hey! Hey! Don't you know that if we stop developing more advanced military hardware the rest of the world (our enemies inclueded) will follow suit? Besides no one would *ever* attack America.

/sarcasm


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By redeyedfly on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBungle123 on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Tsuwamono on 7/27/2009 1:37:12 PM , Rating: 3
"Maintaining a military is one of the few things our government does that it is actually constitutionally obligated to do"

And thats whats scary about the US. All other countries maintain their military for defensive purposes and keep it in line with what would be required to defend themselves.(for the most part)

USA on the other hand have a military that could defend half the globe. Not really needed and it makes USA look more like an aggressor.

I guess now its time to get rated down.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Jimbo1234 on 7/27/2009 1:45:12 PM , Rating: 3
That's not too far from the truth. The US government's military spending is about 50% of the world's military spending.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Atheist Icon on 7/27/2009 2:42:44 PM , Rating: 5
When you are protecting Britan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabi, and Kuwait, it's really not that hard to spend a lot of money on defense.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 3:58:21 PM , Rating: 5
What I find hilarious is that for all of this spending and protection that we provide, we hardly are ever appreciated for it.

The Military is a thankless job. :-| I'll just use this posting space to say: "Thank you!" to all our brave men and women. I thanked a guy in the airport the other day coming home from Iraq. They need to hear it.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By ImEmmittSmith on 7/27/2009 4:28:41 PM , Rating: 1
+1 if I could! Right on the money. America has always been willing to die for other countries just so they can be or remain free of tyranny or oppression. America does more good than the media gives us credit for. Just talk to any soldier that has come back from IRAQ who has been around civilians. The people really like what we are doing and have done for them, but the power mongers want us out!


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 8:54:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
America has always been willing to die for other countries just so they can be or remain free of tyranny or oppression.


Just like in 1953 when Britain and the USA organised a military coup to overthrow the democraticly elected Iranian government in favour of military style dictatorship responsible for numerous atrocious human rights violations?

Your claim is laughable given even a small amount of historical reading. I feel sorry for the troops being used as pawns in a big game of chess.

You think the USA acts benevolent like you say because you believe the rubbish the politicians cite as the reasoning for their military intervention.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Atheist Icon on 7/27/2009 6:54:19 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The Military is a thankless job. :-| I'll just use this posting space to say: "Thank you!" to all our brave men and women. I thanked a guy in the airport the other day coming home from Iraq. They need to hear it.


How true, I thank my wife everyday I talk to her while she is in Afghanistan and while I was in Baltimore, I individually shook every service members hand before I left to come back to San Antonio. It seems like a small gesture, but it is the greatest when you are recognized.

I am prior USAF, disabled Vet, someone just saying thanks caused a tear to come to my eye.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 8:47:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What I find hilarious is that for all of this spending and protection that we provide, we hardly are ever appreciated for it.


Yeah, because you would appreciate a European military the size of your own installed all through your states wouldn't you.

Who the hell asked you for your help anyways? this isn't WW2 anymore.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By maxcue on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Lord 666 on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Atheist Icon on 7/27/2009 6:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
Forgot about Australia and us bailing them out in WWII.

I thought Canada was part of the US, isn't it the 51st state?


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By glennc on 7/28/2009 2:31:35 AM , Rating: 2
you need us just as much as we need you. you guys need all the political support from other countries you can get because of the media. 2 way street. you are not protecting us because you are just a bunch of nice guys, it has advantages.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Gladius777 on 7/27/2009 9:02:25 PM , Rating: 3
We would defend our selves if the Aus government didn't take away most of our guns....Anyway its in the US's interest to defend us so we don't become a big commie or terrorist base. We can be yours instead!
We have the same problem with left leaning governments as you folks do..."No, no." the lefties say, the Islamic extremists won't try to hurt us, if we just put down our weapons, they won't bring on another 911 or Bali bombing etc......Gullible fools!

- yes we can bark like dogs too ;)


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Harinezumi on 7/27/2009 7:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe it's about time we let those countries' taxpayers foot the full bill for their defense?


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 8:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe it's about time we let those countries' taxpayers foot the full bill for their defense?


We already do thanks, we have our own military, any additional help form US forces is not required. Appreciated I guess but not required. Don't act like we'd all fall apart if you weren't around because we wouldn't.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By lagomorpha on 7/27/2009 11:26:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you are protecting Britan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabi, and Kuwait, it's really not that hard to spend a lot of money on defense.


Which is kind of sad considering France, Britain, Japan, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, and Poland have the 3rd-7th, 10th, 12th, 15th, and 20th highest military budgets respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and...


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Atheist Icon on 7/27/2009 11:34:16 PM , Rating: 3
The really sad thing is that the all of Europe spends less then half of what we spend of what we do, so they can lean on us whenever they need to.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 9:04:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The really sad thing is that the all of Europe spends less then half of what we spend of what we do, so they can lean on us whenever they need to.


The only military force that's been leaning on any other for help recently is the USA trying to get us to go help with your illegal war in Iraq.

When was the last time a European country (out of the aforementioned list) found itself under threat and asked the USA to come help out because it couldn't handle the military logistics by itself?

We spend half as much money (probably less) on military as you because we don't go around invading countries to maintain our economic prowess.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By jadeskye on 7/28/2009 12:13:14 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
When you are protecting Britan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabi, and Kuwait, it's really not that hard to spend a lot of money on defense.


Excuse me sir but i believe you are mistaken. The combined military force of Europe is more then capable of defending itself. I cannot speak for saudi arabia and japan for it's outside my military knowledge and i think you'll find theres more then one country occupying and protecting kuwait, among other regions of the middle east.

Don't be so quick to assume that the united states is the only country with defensive capabilities.

Not to mention the only reason that news stories like this reach the ears and eyes is because the american media is the most sensationalist in the world by far.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 8:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
When you are protecting Britan, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabi, and Kuwait, it's really not that hard to spend a lot of money on defense.


*AHEM* (cough)

We don't need your 'protection'.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Solandri on 7/28/2009 6:00:26 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
The US government's military spending is about 50% of the world's military spending.

It's actually 47% of nominal spending (obviously a much smaller portion of PPP - you have to remember that a dollar spent in a U.S. factory buys a lot less than a dollar-equivalent spent in a Chinese factory).

As a percent of GDP, U.S. military spending was 4.06% in 2005. About the same as China and Russia. World average was 2.6%.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/mil_exp_per_of_g...

From 1999-2001 (i.e. before 9/11), it dipped below 3.0% of GDP. France actually spent a greater portion of their GDP on their military (3.1% IIRC) than the U.S. did in 2000, and the U.K. spent about the same.

http://www.factcheck.org/demos/factcheck/imagefile...


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Spuke on 7/27/2009 3:38:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
USA on the other hand have a military that could defend half the globe. Not really needed and it makes USA look more like an aggressor.
The thing is that's the position our allies want us to be in. There seems to be a prevailing expectation for us to be the "world's police". Most Americans that I know have NO desire to be in such a position. Most of us would prefer to be self sufficient and relatively isolated from everyone else. But our government seems to think otherwise and we keep electing these clowns back into office, ad nauseam. I do honestly think we will have a much smaller world presence after we leave Iraq and Afghanistan. I wouldn't be surprised if this F22 business is just a prelude.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By BZDTemp on 7/27/2009 4:28:48 PM , Rating: 3
I do not think it is the US allies as much as it is the US itself!

I think your government is very keen on influencing the rest of the world and one of the major means is military power.

Fx. it is pretty clear the US needs the Middle East for it's oil and with a desire to also be friends with Israel that requires a big stick to pull off.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Spuke on 7/27/2009 6:28:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fx. it is pretty clear the US needs the Middle East for it's oil and with a desire to also be friends with Israel that requires a big stick to pull off.
No big stick needed with the Middle East and they'd sell us oil regardless cause money talks. Besides most of our oil comes from Canada and Mexico.

quote:
I do not think it is the US allies as much as it is the US itself!
When I say US allies, I'm talking about the governments of said countries. If the people in those countries don't want us being the "world's police" then they should elect officials that support that position. Trust me, the average American could care less if we lost that role.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Ranari on 7/27/2009 6:29:54 PM , Rating: 5
There are a couple of things people need to take into consideration here. I believe that the US Senate scaling back funding for the F-22 and F-35 is merely a product of our current times. However, both sides of the coin are correct here, and these things are:

1) The current wars that the United States is fighting are relatively low technology in scale. Terrorists are fighting us with ingenuity and dedication, not rail guns and super lasers. The need for high jet fighters like the F-22 and F-35 in Iraq/Afghanistan is absolutely zilch.

2) When you stop and consider, who are the players who can actually combat the United States in terms of military capability, or combined military capability? England, France, Russia, and China? What do these nations all have in common? They're all nuclear players. So the question is here, is it really necessary to develop high tech jet fighters in an environment that ensures mutually insured destruction anyways?

3) Let's take nuclear weapons out of the scenario. The earth is mostly covered by water. It was the British who stated that those who controlled the seas controls the world, and they're right. The United States commands the largest and most powerful navy in the world. We have power projection capability across all the Earth's oceans, and are the only world player capable of doing so. When China rattles their saber and threatens to retake Taiwan, it's not a single F-22 that's moved into the region, it's an entire U.S. Navy carrier group. And, well, no one wants to put a $130+ million dollar plane on a carrier cause of the risk of losing one.

But let's look at the flip side here. I think Pro-F35 individuals make solid points as well:

1) Unlike the F-22, the F-35 is an export capable aircraft. Any R&D we fund into the program is bound to return investment across the world export market; England, France, Israel, Australia, etc have all expressed interest in purchasing the fighter aircraft. Capital investment by our government may appear to be very high, but returns later on down the road will more than make up for it in investment.

2) R&D always leads to something. Even projects that might seem to go nowhere have some benefit to the overall field that is science.

3) The U.S. economy is dependent on its ability to project power. As a counter-argument to my previous #3 scenario, that Navy carrier group owes its projection capability to the fighter craft that land on it. If we were still launching Mustangs and Corsairs off our carriers, then we'd have the worlds largest, and ironically most mobile, aviation museum.

With all that said, I'm still hesitant on what direction I really feel we should go.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/28/2009 7:57:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maintaining a military is one of the few things our government does that it is actually constitutionally obligated to do
False. Or at least a half-truth. Have you read the Federalist Papers? A standing army was considered a bad idea, and the Constitution was supposed to prevent just such a beast by forcing Congress to authorize spending on an army at least every two years. A standing navy was acceptable, though, since it couldn't be assembled quickly when needed. But we're talking about the Powers of Congress here - that is how they are described. Things Congress has the power to do. They are not obligations. The government isn't Constitutionally obligated to maintain a military. It is certainly morally and ethically obligated to provide for the common defense, but 'provide for the common defense' and 'maintain a military' are not necessarily the same thing, and a legal obligation and a moral obligation are certainly not the same thing.

Of course, all this talk about first principles ignores the simple facts of this specific case. We are developing a new jet. It's got an engine. The JSF project heads feel it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a second option for its engine. The DOD is aware of their concerns, but still feels that one engine is sufficient. Congress (at least the Senate) and the President listen to the subject matter experts on National Defense. I can't see where the problem is. If the DOD had recommended a second engine, and they had decided that they would only authorize one, then we should expect them to explain their reasoning - what other national interests are they weighing against the DOD's recommendations to come to their conclusion? But that's not happening in this case.

When Bush said he would take the advice of the Generals in Iraq, that was a good idea. When Obama takes the advice of the Generals in planning National Defense, that's suddenly a problem? Partisanship. Pure partisanship.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By teldar on 7/27/2009 2:37:01 PM , Rating: 2
While I cannot argue against the lack of 'morals' (as seen from the point of view of the taxpayer and someone who has so far stuck to the idea of "only buying what you can pay for") on the part of the large corporations, I do have an issue with something here.

I don't believe they are pushing up the cost for no reason. One of the things about the JSF is its flexibility. It can be remade and upgraded almost continuously. I believe this is what is happening. Instead of building them all exactly the same, I would believe part of what is happening is the following:
"We now have the technology available to do THIS. Isn't THIS much more cool than THAT? And it will allow the pilots and planes to do WHATEVER much much better. Unfortunately THIS is more expensive than THAT was because THAT is older technology."

An example of this being good, however, in my opinion, were the subs which were commissioned to be built by the Navy. The initial contract was made in the early 70's but they were not all built until the 80's. But the government was tired of being screwed by being nickle-and-dimed. So they made the contract bulletproof about how the subs were made. They required particular models and specs of all the electronic hardware.
The result? We got subs made in the 80's with 60's technology. The after-result? The Navy had all the old garbage ripped out and installed newer shtuff. And spent another pile of cash in the process.

The upshot?

I'm all for flexible construction contracts. They'll eventually save money even though they may cost more short term.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By F4iHorn on 7/27/2009 3:26:21 PM , Rating: 5
Of course defense contractors are greedy. Every company is greedy. Every person is greedy, even poor people. I'm greedy about the air I breathe. I'm sure GE is trying to get an extra buck here. But that's their job. To win contracts! But that isn't the main reason companies like these keep upping the price. At least in recent history the price for military equipment is going up from the original quote because congress keeps decreasing the production run. I'm sure you are aware that each B-2 cost over 1 billion and each F-22 cost about 300 million. The original contract for the B-2 was 100 planes. They only built 21. The original contract for the F-22 was somewhere around 400 (enough to replace the F-15). Now they're stopping production at 162. So you can see how the price keeps going up. Northrop Grumman didn't spend less on R&D because the production run was less than expected. That cost is static and already spent. The F-22 was especially frustrating, because congress reduced the production run multiple times. Each time they used the excuse that the plane cost too much. And each time they cut the numbers the cost per unit went up. Imagine that! I believe the original cost per F-22 was less than 100 million, still a lot of money to be sure. But hell, the F-14 cost 60 million in the seventies! So to me, that doesn't seem too far off given inflation.
And who isn't telling you that companies are very very greedy. Congress, the President, the media? I hear it every time I turn on the TV.

Now with all that said. F--k GE!


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By 91TTZ on 7/28/2009 12:44:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The original contract for the F-22 was somewhere around 400 (enough to replace the F-15). Now they're stopping production at 162. So you can see how the price keeps going up. Northrop Grumman didn't spend less on R&D because the production run was less than expected. That cost is static and already spent. The F-22 was especially frustrating, because congress reduced the production run multiple times. Each time they used the excuse that the plane cost too much. And each time they cut the numbers the cost per unit went up. Imagine that!


You're exactly right. Politicians are playing the "funny numbers" game. The actual cost to produce the F-22 is about $138 million per plane. But people often cite the amortized cost which includes R&D, so the less aircraft that are produced the more the quoted cost per unit will be. Then they use that new figure to justify cutting the number even further, which makes the cost go up... rinse, lather, repeat. It's a snowball effect that's mostly political, and what you end up with is a huge R&D project that only results in small numbers of units.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By BansheeX on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By BansheeX on 7/27/2009 1:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree that some deterrents would be needed to dissuade harassment. Lots of ground to air stuff, some decent planes, and a navy large enough to protect from pirates. Most of our spending is unnecessary, unless you consider securing foreign resources, or dollar reserve status, a necessary national defense function. Frankly, that wouldn't have become an excuse if our energy and monetary policy wasn't so defunct.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Bryf50 on 7/27/2009 2:43:51 PM , Rating: 2
1812


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Ratinator on 7/27/2009 2:46:46 PM , Rating: 2
You may want to read up on your history.....the War of 1812.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By croc on 7/27/2009 7:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
1812? Wasn't that the year that the British tried for a second time to rid it's territories in the New World of the Terrorist plague that had existed since the mid 1600's? Read your history...


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By foolsgambit11 on 7/28/2009 8:24:54 PM , Rating: 2
Does it really count when America started it? We tried to invade Canada (then still a British Territory), and the British retaliated.

Granted, we has our reasons to start the war. Never the less, we started it.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By justniz on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By osalcido on 7/28/2009 7:30:09 PM , Rating: 2
Then why stop at a 2nd engine?
Why not a 2nd wing design? 2nd navigation computer? 2nd Pilot?

I'm all for defense but with the economy the way it is, it's time to be sensible.

In case you didn't know, we have a $10 Trillion dollar debt already thanks to Reagan and Shrub.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Spivonious on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By dr4gon on 7/27/2009 11:47:16 AM , Rating: 3
It's just part of defense. It's a mind game and this acts as a deterrent.

"Walk softly and carry a big stick."


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By taber on 7/27/2009 4:52:22 PM , Rating: 3
We might need to work on the walk softly part.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 11:55:48 AM , Rating: 4
Ummm...are you joking? Going into Iraq both in 91 and 2003 and Afghanistan in 2002, it was our air force that paved the way for ground troops. By the time our troops got there in 91, there was hardly anything left of Iraq's ground forces.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 12:33:32 PM , Rating: 5
Wait, I thought we did have cash to burn. We gave a lot to ACORN. That isn't burning cash? :-|

You can't be serious about winning a war due to our Air Force. If you are - you are quite delusional. Granted, Vietnam was not won because of our Air Force - they were wasted and squandered thanks to McNamara's incompetence, but aside from that our Air Force/Navy/Army air pilots have all made significant contributions to either winning the war, or at the very least (in Vietnam) keeping them alive.

There was this little war back in 1940-1945... something called World War II... Hmm, historians say that aviation changed the way wars were fought forever because of it. The Pacific Theater? Nope, that must not have been won due to our air superiority. We just loaded up explosives on our PT boats and rammed them into the Japanese vessels? Give me a break. The whole Pacific theater was won due to our air superiority. Sure, it took Aircraft carriers to get us there, but I dare say it would have turned out much differently if we _had_ skimped on our naval air superiority.

The European Theater in WW II, nope, our air force made no difference. We made not one contribution to that war because of it. That is totally ignoring the fact that the average life expectancy of a bomber crewman was less than that of a foot soldier. Our relentless onslaught of the German supply lines, their factories, fuel depots and other infrastructure played a key role in our victory. Sure, Patton was a machine, but, he couldn't have done it alone. Our aviators played a pivotal role there.

Korea? They played a huge part in that war as well. Desert Storm - they all but obliterated the ground forces. The current gulf war - once again our air superiority allowed us to hit targets hard and fast thus allowing our ground forces to close in. Sure, there came a point where ground forces were needed - the point is our air superiority saved lives. Just look at Afghanistan. The AH-64 attack chopper is a beast that is feared by ALL terrorists. You should take some time to read the novel "Apache" if you want to know more about it - the AH-64 is a savior to all ground forces and has extensively changed how special forces conduct their operations. It is a tremendous aid.

Oh, but air superiority is a waste of time? These tax dollars are better spent on ACORN and all the other nanny-state programs that will coddle our citizens? At least with military spending we take boys, enlist them into the ranks of the military and make MEN out of them. They learn how to bust their butts and make something of themselves. Of course, some of the socialists around here would argue it is better to spend it on welfare and keep people on the dole rather than being self sufficient. What a pile of crap.

These engines for the F-35 are a good thing. Sure, we don't need them now, but we plan on marketing the F-35 abroad, unlike the F-22. Just like the F-16, there will come a point where we will need to do a mid-life-cycle update. The A-10 just underwent this and they have transformed a flying tank into a flying beast because of it. The F-16 had its engines updated in order to handle the increased weight that the additional computers and instruments that were put into it. The F-16A is completely different from the F-16C/D Block 40, 52 and 60 /w/MLU updates. The updated engine allowed it to take all of this equipment on.

There is a saying in the aviation engineering community regarding base military airframes that are built empty. It goes something like "the military will always find a way to make them heavier and fill in all that empty space." In order to do that, you need engines to keep up the performance envelope rather than relegating the airframes to the third lines, or requiring a 4 ship of F16's to have a 4 ship of F-22's or F-15's to provide additional air coverage, when those resources could be used diverting the support packages to other areas of need.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Sureshot324 on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 1:50:01 PM , Rating: 1
Just because we are eating Kabobs and Felafels today doesn't mean we won't be eating Kung Pow, Ramen or Hot n' Sour tomorrow. At one point we could have been eating lots of Caviar.

Be Prepared. There is no other way. If the enemy sees your big gun and is scared, perhaps they will be deterred from acting. If the enemy sees you have no gun at all, they might try and come kill you. If the enemy sees you have no gun but you secretly have a gigantic one, you might fool them and kill them when they try and come kill you.

Either way, it is better to have that big gun than not. Aircraft technology is so advanced nowadays that there is no feasible way to spool up production lines and crank out wonders such as the F-22 in rapid fashion should a large-scale conventional war start. At least, not right now. By having these planes now, we get that extra edge we need should the situation arise.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Sureshot324 on 7/27/2009 2:51:51 PM , Rating: 3
I don't disagree with this point, but it's all about numbers and you have to draw the line somewhere. Why stop here? Why not double the defense budget immediately so you can be even more safe from aggressors?

The probability of the US being defeated in a war in the near future is low enough, and the US's current financial situation is poor enough, that cutting wasteful programs such as the F22 and a second engine for the F35 is the right choice.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Harinezumi on 7/27/2009 8:10:35 PM , Rating: 3
It's important to be prepared, but what the US has been doing for the past decade is ripping off its balls to cover its ass.

China owns us, and to a large extent that is due to massive deficits brought on by chronic military overspending. What is the point of having the world's best military if your biggest geopolitical rival can destroy you economically without firing a shot?

Massive military spending made sense during the Cold War, because failure to keep up in the arms race was an invitation for the nukes to start flying. Outspending the rest of the world now makes absolutely no sense, and damages our overall national security by making us more economically vulnerable to foreign interests.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By ianweck on 7/27/2009 3:18:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Investing hundreds of billions in cutting edge aircraft is a complete waste at this point considering the kind of wars that are being fought.


If the choice is between overkill and underkill, I'll take overkill.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 9:14:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the choice is between overkill and underkill, I'll take overkill.


But that's not the choice, the choice is overkill or supermegakill.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By helloseth on 7/27/2009 3:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You guys are missing his point. Of course the airforce is crucial to recent wars like Iraq and Afghanistan. But we could have used WW2 planes for that and it wouldn't make a difference. These countries are not even challenging our airforce, effectively reducing the role of our planes to transports for our bombs. The guidance technology in the bombs themselves is much more important then the planes.


So you're suggesting that if US forces used B17 and P51's, the outcome would be the same?

Could it be that perhaps the reason "These countries are not even challenging our airforce" be that we do have a sufficently advanced air capability that if they try to setup SAM sites and paint our planes, we blow them off the map? That's the whole point of air superiority.

I seem to recall that the Soviets used somewhat more advanced aircraft that existed in WWII, and had heavy losses.

The bottom line is that air superiority is what makes enemys not respond to air superiority. Think Bosnia in the '90s. The US bombed the crap out of them and they did fight back (I recall one downed F117) but eventually they capitulated.

You never want a 'fair' fight in times of war...


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By yomamafor1 on 7/27/2009 12:50:32 PM , Rating: 2
How about WWII? Without air superiority, Allied's ground assault would have been much slower, at a much higher cost.

How about the first Iraq War? Air force acted as a first assault wave which took out most of Saddam's armor forces, so US forces can move in with little resistance.

How about the Vietnam War? How about the Pacific War? Even, how about the Cold War? The truth is, US relied a lot on air superiority to gain an upperhand in battles, an advantage our enemies didn't have.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 11:54:26 AM , Rating: 4
This doesn't really hurt our air superiority. What it does is potentially stifle international interest in the plane. The idea behind developing the 2nd engine is that some international customers for the jet might want a European designed engine in the plane. The two engines are completely swappable without any modification needed. It doesn't increase or decrease the performance of the plane.

The international cooperation and interest in the plane is what is supposed to make it cheaper. That could be partly in jeopardy now.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By TSS on 7/27/2009 9:58:12 PM , Rating: 2
i hardly think so. our dutch kabinet has been pouring money into this thing as well while everybody knew from the start it would seriously go overbudget. they've been using the "in for a penny in for a pound" excuse for quite a time so i don't expect this time to be any different. nor for any of the other countries that signed on.

you guys best finish this thing before 2012 though. we have our next elections then, things are looking to be shaken up quite a bit. so i wouldn't count on those funds much longer.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2009 6:21:13 AM , Rating: 1
Well if the current trend in Europe continues, more conservatives will get elected.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By WoWCow on 7/27/2009 11:55:26 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I will ask what are the benefits of this engine over the current one?

This article did not include any information other than the manufacturer and the fact the engine is an "alternative" to the current one.

Of course, was there a reason why the damn thing was earmarked in the first place? smells like some fishy politician fixing the bills again.

There are conflicts of interests involved if you ask me involving the senator who earmarked it, the program leader stressing the alternative, and Lieberman for opposing a competition.

quote:
AviationWeek reports that Lieberman's claims are not entirely accurate. The Pentagon and Air force Leadership have been rejecting calls for the F136 alternative engine, but program leaders for the JSF have stressed that an alternative engine isn’t a bad idea.


More money for the program, why wouldn't the program leader stress an alternative?


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 1:11:49 PM , Rating: 1
Read my post above yours.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By stubeck on 7/27/2009 12:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
We are defenseless? When did that happen?


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Steeljester on 7/27/2009 2:13:29 PM , Rating: 3
1/20/2009


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/27/09, Rating: -1
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Atheist Icon on 7/27/2009 2:49:46 PM , Rating: 3
hehe


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By stubeck on 7/27/2009 5:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
We're doing pretty well considering we've been defenseless for 6 months and haven't been taken over. Would have thought the Mexicans would have taken over by now.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2009 6:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
They don't have to take over with a military. They'll just slowly bleed us dry through social programs they shouldn't have access to to start with.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By stubeck on 7/28/2009 11:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
Who is they? And if "they" don't need to take over with a military, then shouldn't we just drop the military all together? Save us $500 billion all at once! Maybe the news would report it as a boost in the military spending budget too, since they were so wrong last time with the "huge cuts" in the military spending which actually was spending more money.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Pythias on 7/27/2009 3:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
q:
quote:
We are defenseless? When did that happen?


a:
quote:
1/20/2009


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Brutus1234 on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrFord on 7/27/2009 1:21:27 PM , Rating: 2
True, true, Obama just canceled all development fund for the JSF and since other countries are almost ready to deploy their new next-generation combat aircraft... oh wait, the JSF is still on it's way, and it's the same fighter that other countries are planning to buy, too. Well I guess they will all flock to the Sukhoi PAK... oh wait, they most probably wont.

You know of a lot of military aircrafts available with 2 or more engine manufacturers? Even in commercial aviation, this is not a widespread thing, and it started to be available only in the '70s (excluding the RR Conway on 707-420s and DC8-40s).

You should be glad that your taxpayers money will not be used to fund an engine that either wont be popular, or only used on foreign market F-35s. If that aircraft was designed to be a common base for the Air Force and the Navy, you bet they will buy from the same engine manufacturer too.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By boldingd on 7/27/2009 1:21:33 PM , Rating: 1
He'd have to do a lot of damage to "flush our air superiority down the toilet." Especially given that we're not seriously competing with anyone at the moment. The only people who are even remotely competing with the U.S. are our allies, and they're miles behind anyway. At this point, with this economy, restraining government spending is a good thing, and blocking frivolous military spending isn't a bad way to do it; besides, it's not like he's canceling the JSF program itself.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By justniz on 7/27/2009 4:14:10 PM , Rating: 1
>>> and they're miles behind anyway

Um nope. Eurofighter could easily go head to head and win against F22s and F35s.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 5:21:05 PM , Rating: 3
I think saying it could easily win is pushing it. The Eurofighter is a darned nice aircraft but I'll leave it at that.

I suggest you go watch an F-22 at an airshow at least one time in person and you will be in complete awe of the plane. You will be in even MORE awe of the plane if you have an extensive understanding of aerial combat engagements, tactics, fundamentals and the mechanicals of how it plays out both tactically and structurally from both a conceptual execution and the raw physical execution with the airframe as it applies to the fluids of our atmosphere.

I have seen the F-22 do some crazy stuff in a 32-Ton airframe that not even Patti Wagstaff can quite pull off in an Extra 300s and that is saying a lot (I have seen both in person). The maneuverability granted by thrust vectoring is just astonishing. Think extremely high AoA's at extremely low airspeeds - much higher AoA's than an F-18 can pull off. Higher AoA at low airspeed equates to a much larger window with which to take a shot with guns or lock on a heater, either caged or uncaged leading to a kill.

The Typhoon has no thrust vectoring. It can, however pull high g's in a sustained turn for a long duration. This will help tremendously but the high AoA ability of the F-22 makes it a tossup at best for the Typhoon. But - you might argue, most engagements are BVR. Well, the Typhoon, while having a small RCS, lacks the definitive stealth technology that the F-22 has. The F-22 is built for stealth. The F-22 also has superior radar technology compared with the Eurofighter. However, this may have changed more recently. The stealth, along with more powerful radar, makes BVR a potential win with the F-22.

The F-22 can supercruise, and per Gen. Jumper:
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123009594

Can go up to Mach 1.7 without afterburners. That is very, very impressive. The savings on fuel flow alone will give it sustainability in a hostile environment consisting of non-BVR engagements. Think - engage and perhaps save enough fuel to make it to primary and back.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 5:27:44 PM , Rating: 3
He flew both. Result - comes down to pilot vs. pilot skill, not plane. Stupid word limit. Can't finish post.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By 91TTZ on 7/28/2009 12:51:21 PM , Rating: 3
As far as air superiority goes, the Eurofighter is about on par with the JSF, but can't compete with the F-22.


By Major HooHaa on 8/2/2009 12:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure that combining Stealth technology with Beyond Visual Range air-to-air missiles would give the American planes the advantage.

Anyway, I don't think the Eurofighter was designed to go up against the F-22. Pilots who have flown the Eurofighter say that it is a big step up from the Tornado.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By adiposity on 7/27/2009 4:23:21 PM , Rating: 1
Dick Cheney also tried to kill the F-22 program. The military doesn't want it.

-Dan


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By ggordonliddy on 7/27/2009 8:05:04 PM , Rating: 1
We don't need ANY defense. We have BARACK OBAMA (all hail him!) as our Commander In Chief. So many people worship him as their god, that they must be right. Why fight it; you must bow down before him, as one might pray toward Mecca.


By Major HooHaa on 8/2/2009 1:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
I saw Barack Obama's recent speech in Egypt(?) on the BBC. I was very impressed with that speech. The man has a deep insight into the bigger picture (world politics and an understanding of people), what he doesn't say is as important as what he does say. He seems to leave bits out and trusts in the listener to be able to fill in the blanks. He may make the odd mistake, but hey, don't we all?

I have grown quite cynical about politics, politicians and those in power over the years. He has challenged those views. A person can make a difference, even though they are just one person, for a brief time on this earth. As he pretty much said himself in that speech (I'm not quite sure if I have the wording right there, so I won't call it a quote).

Oh and talking about the truth’s that are at the heart of all the major religions takes courage and intelligence.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Mithan on 7/27/09, Rating: 0
RE: What's that sound I hear?
By jonmcc33 on 7/27/2009 11:52:38 PM , Rating: 3
Air superiority? The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter. It's a ground attack aircraft. It replaces the F-16, A-10. F/A-18 and AV-8B Harrier. Those (with the exception of the F-16 multirole aircraft) are all ground attack aircraft.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By Thuban on 7/28/2009 4:28:03 AM , Rating: 3
I got to say that I'm real tired of these short article on DailyTech with barely any relevance information at all. What's worst is all the ignorant commenter's replying to the article saying stuff like Obama is trying to destroy America.

In this specific case, if you do a quick google search for the F136 engine, you'll find article like this one.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f136-engin...

You'll find in the that the Pentagon has been trying to kill this program since 2006, way before Obama was in office. It's Congress that has been trying to keep it alive. You'll also find in the article a statement from a Democratic Congressman about why we should have a second engine program. Are you guys going to post about how evil is it for the Democratic Congress to keep this alive and waste money now?

It was the same way with Obama "killing" the F-22 program.


RE: What's that sound I hear?
By MrPoletski on 8/6/2009 8:39:56 AM , Rating: 2
You still spend more on your military than the rest of the world combined, so stop whining about air superiority and start thinking about priorities.


Gee
By Oxonium on 7/27/2009 11:26:12 AM , Rating: 5
A senator from Connecticut trying to prevent competition for Pratt & Whitney, which is based in Connecticut. Nothing shady about that, no sir....




RE: Gee
By keegssj on 7/27/2009 11:32:59 AM , Rating: 2
That was my first thought also...


RE: Gee
By WoWCow on 7/27/2009 11:45:36 AM , Rating: 3
Joe Lieberman is the worst kind of politician we can ask for.

Spineless and without principles.

"I agree more often than not with Democrats on domestic policy. I agree more often than not with Republicans on foreign and defense policy."

There you have it; he'll scream about our national defense while cutting it at the same time.


RE: Gee
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 1:14:46 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Gee
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 1:44:10 PM , Rating: 3
I can't tell if he's being serious or making a joke out of it. The crowd seemed pretty quiet.

All congressmen in support of this healthcare reform should be required by law to use nothing but this same healthcare that they are proposing. This is the only surefire way any effective measures could be passed - and - at the same time, way for the public to see there is no cost effective way to pass it.


RE: Gee
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 2:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. During one of Obama's speeches, he almost bragged about how he and every member of Congress have great health care. If what they're proposing is so great for us, shouldn't they also have to use it? Just an example of the nobles seeking to impose poverty on the rest of us while they live the life of luxury.


RE: Gee
By omnicronx on 7/27/2009 3:32:58 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know whats more sad, how far out of context you are taking this, or the fact you actually believe what you are saying.


RE: Gee
By Spuke on 7/27/2009 4:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't know whats more sad, how far out of context you are taking this, or the fact you actually believe what you are saying.
Either way, Congress and the President should be required to use the new healthcare system.


RE: Gee
By GaryJohnson on 7/27/2009 7:23:31 PM , Rating: 2
That would be fair and logical if they were requiring you or me or every other U.S. citizen to use it, but they're not.


RE: Gee
By MrBlastman on 7/27/2009 7:38:13 PM , Rating: 2
Then they shouldn't try and cram it down our throats and make us foot the bill for it. We pay their salaries, if they feel so darned righteous they should be willing to suck it up and take one for the team.


RE: Gee
By FITCamaro on 7/28/2009 6:26:14 AM , Rating: 2
You, like most of congress, apparently haven't read the bill. Should try it sometime. While not immediately, it DOES kill off private health care in 5 years. After 5 years all private plans have to match the government's. And immediately once its signed, private insurance companies can no longer accept new customers. So even if the first thing weren't true, that would slowly kill off private health care since if you change jobs or lose your job, you're on the private system and can never go back.

Read the freakin bill. Maybe then you won't be such a drone who blindly believes everything Obama tells you.


RE: Gee
By Hrntphxr on 7/27/2009 10:12:36 PM , Rating: 1
GE Headquarters are in Fairfield CT, P&W in East Hartford.


RE: Gee
By Oxonium on 7/27/2009 10:51:35 PM , Rating: 3
But the GE Aviation Headquarters is based in Ohio.


sooo...
By MrPoletski on 7/27/2009 11:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
what's so good about this new engine that makes the old one worth replacing?




RE: sooo...
By Dribble on 7/27/2009 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's more what's bad about the first one. If you are going to have 1 fighter to do everything and buy lots of them then you obviously want the best engine you can get.
Competition:
a) should force both engines to be of a higher quality.
b) gives you an alternative if one company screws up potentially delaying the project several years and costing $$$ while it's fixed.


RE: sooo...
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 1:15:35 PM , Rating: 2
Your point b is more valid and an actual reason for it.


RE: sooo...
By Dribble on 7/27/2009 1:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Point (a) is how America functions. Competition builds better products. Take away the threat of a competitor stealing your sales and you have a lot less incentive to produce something good.


RE: sooo...
By theapparition on 7/27/2009 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
But point A is not how all developement projects are funded. There's not going to be a huge market for F35 engines. So why would a company pay billions of dollars for R&D if they can't make it up in sales. Simple, the government pays for that R&D. The government paying multiple sources for multiple R&D's is just not going to happen in this economy.

On the flip side, when a government pays for the design, they also own it and are free to move the design to another manufacturer if necessary.


RE: sooo...
By knutjb on 7/27/2009 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ut point A is not how all developement projects are funded. There's not going to be a huge market for F35 engines. So why would a company pay billions of dollars for R&D if they can't make it up in sales. Simple, the government pays for that R&D. The government paying multiple sources for multiple R&D's is just not going to happen in this economy.


Companies use research from that R&D and apply it to their own commercial designs saving them money in other areas. Will it happen in this economy? Depends on Pratt's reliability because the WH has cutoff further F22 production so the F35 must work and be reliable plus the F35 is a global sales aircraft unlike the F22 which is US only. The F22 is the replacement for the F15 and the F35 replaces the F16. They are different aircraft for different purposes.

quote:
On the flip side, when a government pays for the design, they also own it and are free to move the design to another manufacturer if necessary.


Not necessarily so, Lockeed stopped the Air Force from doing what it wanted to when they retired the SR-71, they dictated the conditions those aircraft had to be in to put on display to protect their proprietary designs. They even forced the AF to seize up the motors by operating them without oil and stripped out screw heads so they couldn't be accessed.

You don't simply take away an engine from one manufacturer and have another make it instead you use the other manufacturer's engine. The only other way is if it's licensed to be built by another manufacturer. Proprietary designs are held closely.


RE: sooo...
By Kyberesh on 7/27/2009 2:04:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not totally true for the Defense industry. Once designed and tested, they will simply produce the original 135 engine in its current design. If a new design is required they will preposition the DOD and seek additional funding. After working on the engines personally when I worked for P&W I can tell you they don't revise designs unless they have lots of money and over 5 years of runway; an additional engine manufacturer won't drive quality or price for years, if ever.


RE: sooo...
By FITCamaro on 7/27/2009 2:28:54 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant is rarely are airplane engines poorly designed. Especially ones for our fighter planes. The cost of an airplane crashing is far higher than just developing a better engine.


RE: sooo...
By knutjb on 7/27/2009 2:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know what issues are going on with the Pratt motor for the JSF but I do know the Pratt's on F15s and (16s too I think) we being replaced with more durable GEs. While the Pratt's were very powerful they had some serious reliability issues. Some times those issues take a little while make themselves known and being such a key component the program managers might be aware of some problems that can't be discussed publicly. Another engine doesn't necessarily mean more job security for the program managers, it's the end results that do. It's awfully expensive when they run out of power in the air.


RE: sooo...
By Hrntphxr on 7/27/2009 10:16:43 PM , Rating: 2
The engines in the F-15 and F-16 are not interchangeable among manufacturers. The airplane must be built for either a P&W or GE engine. You cannot take out a P&W engine and stick a GE engine in it's place.


RE: sooo...
By justniz on 7/27/2009 4:18:08 PM , Rating: 1
Its built by Rolls Royce instead of Rattle & Whiney.


RE: sooo...
By Hrntphxr on 7/27/2009 10:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
The "new" engine as you say is a couple of years behind the "old one" in design and thousand of hours behind in testing. The "old one" while experiencing growth issues, as all programs do, has performed above expectations. No technical reason can be found to encourage continuing to develop a "new" one.


Tight Purse Strings?
By Goty on 7/27/2009 1:43:25 PM , Rating: 4
Purse strings are tighter than ever in Washington? Says who? I'd say an extra trillion dollars added to the national debt in 100 days gives the lie to that statement.

It would be more correct to say that purse strings are tighter than ever when it comes to things that actually might help defend our citizens at home and abroad, but more loose than ever when it comes to frivolous, doomed to failure government programs.




RE: Tight Purse Strings?
By adiposity on 7/27/2009 4:26:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Purse strings are tighter than ever in Washington? Says who? I'd say an extra trillion dollars added to the national debt in 100 days gives the lie to that statement.


No, it's BECAUSE of those dollars that purse strings are tight. Same reason blue dogs won't support the health care bill. We've already spent too much.

-Dan


RE: Tight Purse Strings?
By Goty on 7/27/2009 8:12:32 PM , Rating: 2
You, sir, make a very valid point. Bravo!


By etherreal on 7/27/2009 11:22:16 AM , Rating: 4
"Why build one when you can have two at twice the price?"




Why maybe it doesn't matter...
By Gladius777 on 7/28/2009 12:11:25 AM , Rating: 2
When a small missile, launched from a container ship, can place an electro-magnetic pulse a couple of hundred miles up, near the centre of the US and knock out 80% of everything electrical, will it really matter? EMP is the easiest way to knock out the US and too many people know it....

see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A577...

for more info...




RE: Why maybe it doesn't matter...
By 91TTZ on 7/28/2009 12:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When a small missile, launched from a container ship, can place an electro-magnetic pulse a couple of hundred miles up, near the centre of the US and knock out 80% of everything electrical, will it really matter? EMP is the easiest way to knock out the US and too many people know it....


You watch way too many movies. A small missile launched over the center of the US will definitely not knock out 80% of everything electrical. If you believe that you're a fool.


By Hrntphxr on 7/27/2009 10:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
Neither engine is of European design. Rolls-Royce is responsible for design ownership of the Lift System on the STOVL airplane, under contract to P&W. Again, P&W delivers the Lift System to the US Gov't. GE and Rolls-Royce are partners in the F136 engine, of which I believe GE is 60% supplier.

The primary reason the alternate engine (F136) exists today, is to keep pricing inline. If you go back to the "Great Fighter Engine Wars" of the 80's you will see the reason. P&W tried to get the DoD to pay for design issues(shortfalls) in the F100 engine, and was trying to strong arm the USAF. In stead of taking care of business they tried winning the fight on capital hill, and lost. GE was given a contract to produce an engine to compete against the F100. The engines now compete head to head, with P&W still winning most of this business. Both companies produce good engines, both experience problems. How you handle these problems is the key to winning more business.
The F135 won the competition fare and square, but due to previous concerns about cost, it was decided that to keep cost inline it would be cheaper to have two engines. There is absolutely NO evidence that proves having two separate engines is less exspensive than one. Basic economies of scale as indicated in previous posts, if you build less of a product the unit cost for each will be higher. Take into consideration the training, spares, logistics and these are all added twice. May not be exactly double, but none the less, significantly more expensive than one.




Idiots
By toyotabedzrock on 7/28/2009 11:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
The F-35 is a slow POS. The designers know it is not good enough without F-22s around to back it up, thats why they want the second engine which is more powerful.




By hashish2020 on 7/27/2009 3:42:29 PM , Rating: 1
Are the admins for the PROJECT ITSELF---who only say it isn't a BAD idea---talk about coving your ass...

I personally think all defense projects should be pay for product----we pay X and you give us the product---if you cannot meet specs and prices and still take the contract, when you FAIL we reappropriate the money and simply run another bidding process

And for those saying we need TWO engine designs because of competition---it ISN'T competition if the government is footing the entire bill for both designs no matter what, it is simply redundant waste

For those that say we need a 700 billion plus defense budget because we defend our allies---well if you include our allies spending our "side" has almost all the advanced tech we need and aroun 70% of the world's defense budget

Talk about government waste




"We basically took a look at this situation and said, this is bullshit." -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng's take on patent troll Soverain

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki