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

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.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki