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

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!


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA

Related Articles













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