-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
'Gates Against 2nd Engine Manufacturer For F-35'...
- Thread starter Panther_99FS
- Start date
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
He's been fighting against this from day one.
It is Congress who keeps pushing it.
Ken
It is Congress who keeps pushing it.
Ken
JorisVandenBerghe
Charter Member 2010
I'd say it's a good thing, just to prevent cost-overruns since they'll have to compete to get the best engine for the money.
JSF.mil (JSF program office):
"The U.S. House Armed Services Seapower and Air-Land Forces subcommittees today each marked up the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136). Recognizing that the competition created by dual-sourced engines for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) drives cost savings and reduces operational risk, both subcommittees voted to authorize $485 million in continued funding of the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine for the JSF."
JSF.mil (JSF program office):
"The U.S. House Armed Services Seapower and Air-Land Forces subcommittees today each marked up the National Defense Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 2011 (H.R. 5136). Recognizing that the competition created by dual-sourced engines for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) drives cost savings and reduces operational risk, both subcommittees voted to authorize $485 million in continued funding of the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine for the JSF."
K
Ken Stallings
Guest
I completely agree with you!
I think far too many decisions have been made in defense acquisitions that were done for short term savings without consideration for the effect of driving away future competion.
Ken
I think far too many decisions have been made in defense acquisitions that were done for short term savings without consideration for the effect of driving away future competion.
Ken
JorisVandenBerghe
Charter Member 2010
That's my main complaint about many politicians...they look if everything's 'ok' in the short term, but never in the long term.
Oh, well. Curious to see what's going to happen next.
Oh, well. Curious to see what's going to happen next.
Sundog
SOH-CM-2025
I think canceling the F-136 would be penny wise and pound foolish. Anyone who remembers the introduction of the F-100 engine remembers it was beset with problems, many never solved until GE started competing for engine business. Also, the F-135 has it's problems and it is over cost as well. The competition will keep them both honest, and IIRC, Britain prefers the GE engine with it's greater thrust capability for their STOVL variants for obvious reasons.
I've also read reports/presentations where GE talked about growth versions of the F-136 with a thrust rating of 60,000lbs. I'm assuming that's with a new/uprated hot section and a new fan. Still, that engine has a lot of potential designed into it and it would be a shame to shut it down now. If they need to save that much money, just trim it from the entire program. Because I haven't any doubt, that in the long run, two engines competing against each other will save more money than a monopoly supplier would save with the entire run.
Also, having the two engines would keep some airframes in the air in the event there is a major problem with either of the engines.
I've also read reports/presentations where GE talked about growth versions of the F-136 with a thrust rating of 60,000lbs. I'm assuming that's with a new/uprated hot section and a new fan. Still, that engine has a lot of potential designed into it and it would be a shame to shut it down now. If they need to save that much money, just trim it from the entire program. Because I haven't any doubt, that in the long run, two engines competing against each other will save more money than a monopoly supplier would save with the entire run.
Also, having the two engines would keep some airframes in the air in the event there is a major problem with either of the engines.
deathfromafar
Charter Member
I agree with Sundog 100%, nail on the head. I know a machinist at GE Aircraft Engines Castle Hayne Plant. As he mentioned, the process of the power upgrade also has a lot to do with the design and strength of the engine casing as well as the hot section and fan components. They are working 24/7 on that engine and as I understand, there are pre-orders coming in for the components as well as the plans the ship those components to the Thermal Spray(Plasma Gun) contractor.
Though it seems quite a few in their ivory towers are selective with their views of what violates Sole Source Procurement Law and what doesn't. Gates is a "Yes Man". Follow his career back a while and you see the same pattern. He's following what rolls downhill.
Though it seems quite a few in their ivory towers are selective with their views of what violates Sole Source Procurement Law and what doesn't. Gates is a "Yes Man". Follow his career back a while and you see the same pattern. He's following what rolls downhill.
Wing_Z
Charter Member 2011
Actually, if the alarm bells weren't ringing over at Lockheed Martin before, the demise of the second engine will set off some serious clanging.
It's got nothing to do with common sense, at all - just numbers.
The original JSF programme would have allowed 3.000 – 3.600 P&W F135 engines and 2.000 – 2.400 GE/RR F136 engines. These numbers provided economies of scale sufficient to build both.
If Gates kills the second engine, it means there aren't the numbers.
If there aren't the numbers, it means the partner nations have postponed hard enough to make it look like a cancellation.
If Rolls Royce doesn't get a slice of the engine pie, the industrial offsets in the UK don't kick in, and the money sums no longer work.
What then?
The talk of the "Fighter Gap" is no longer theoretical.
The partner nations are going to have to muddle through somehow.
Perhaps all the partner governments are hoping by postponing and delaying things, it won't be them that has to pull the plug.
My prediction?
UCAVs will be pressed into action as the "True" 5th-gen fighters.
It's got nothing to do with common sense, at all - just numbers.
The original JSF programme would have allowed 3.000 – 3.600 P&W F135 engines and 2.000 – 2.400 GE/RR F136 engines. These numbers provided economies of scale sufficient to build both.
If Gates kills the second engine, it means there aren't the numbers.
If there aren't the numbers, it means the partner nations have postponed hard enough to make it look like a cancellation.
If Rolls Royce doesn't get a slice of the engine pie, the industrial offsets in the UK don't kick in, and the money sums no longer work.
What then?
The talk of the "Fighter Gap" is no longer theoretical.
The partner nations are going to have to muddle through somehow.
Perhaps all the partner governments are hoping by postponing and delaying things, it won't be them that has to pull the plug.
My prediction?
UCAVs will be pressed into action as the "True" 5th-gen fighters.
