Comments on: Badly Installed Sensor Shut F136 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/04/badly-installed-sensor-shut-f-136/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 15:21:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: DensityDuckhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/04/badly-installed-sensor-shut-f-136/#comment-13903 DensityDuck Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:42:44 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=9478#comment-13903 Also, hindsight is 20/20. While the F136 hasn't seen any cost growth, is that because it was budgeted properly from the get-go?The article quotes a Pratt source describing percentage increases in "engine procurement costs", but the source doesn't cite any actual figures. I'd also question the comparison of "development costs" to "procurement costs", because the latter includes a lot of bureaucratic nincompoopery.For example, if the customer decides halfway through that they have a completely new risk-tracking software that they want to use, then the costs of switching over the entire book-keeping system go into "procurement cost increase". A new contractor who was told to use that software from the get-go wouldn't have to switch anything, resulting in a "cost savings" that's entirely on paper. Also, hindsight is 20/20. While the F136 hasn’t seen any cost growth, is that because it was budgeted properly from the get-go?

The article quotes a Pratt source describing percentage increases in “engine procurement costs”, but the source doesn’t cite any actual figures. I’d also question the comparison of “development costs” to “procurement costs”, because the latter includes a lot of bureaucratic nincompoopery.

For example, if the customer decides halfway through that they have a completely new risk-tracking software that they want to use, then the costs of switching over the entire book-keeping system go into “procurement cost increase”. A new contractor who was told to use that software from the get-go wouldn’t have to switch anything, resulting in a “cost savings” that’s entirely on paper.

]]> By: ReconTeamhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/04/badly-installed-sensor-shut-f-136/#comment-13883 ReconTeam Mon, 07 Sep 2009 00:15:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=9478#comment-13883 The F120 developed for the ATF program by GE was by most accounts an excellent engine even if it was thirstier than the P&W F119. With such a basis, why is GE having so many complications with the F136? The F120 developed for the ATF program by GE was by most accounts an excellent engine even if it was thirstier than the P&W F119. With such a basis, why is GE having so many complications with the F136?

]]> By: Colin Clarkhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/04/badly-installed-sensor-shut-f-136/#comment-13859 Colin Clark Sat, 05 Sep 2009 01:11:16 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=9478#comment-13859 irtusk,Thanks. Too many airplane stories... Fixed. irtusk,

Thanks. Too many airplane stories… Fixed.

]]> By: irtuskhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/04/badly-installed-sensor-shut-f-136/#comment-13857 irtusk Fri, 04 Sep 2009 22:23:49 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=9478#comment-13857 F135 and F136 (no dashes) F135 and F136 (no dashes)

]]>