Home » Air » ‘Dings and Nicks’ Shut F136 Down

‘Dings and Nicks’ Shut F136 Down

By Colin Clark Wednesday, October 7th, 2009 5:24 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy

UPDATED: JSF Program Office Details Damage to Engine

The engine war plot thickened Wednesday as GE/Rolls Royce, builders of the F136 alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, stopped testing the engine this week after a routine inspection revealed “dings and nicks” on the turbine blades.

“This weekend, GE/RR were about 75 percent through a test engine phase in the test cell in Cincinnati that included extended operation at maximum power, normal operation and controlled shutdown,” GE spokesman Rick Kennedy and his counterpart at Rolls Royce, George McLaren, said in an email.

The companies performed a boroscope inspection and “found dings and nicks on the turbine blades. At the time of the shutdown, the engine was running normally with no signs of issues,” they said.

The companies decided a “thorough” engine inspection was warranted. Kennedy and McLaren added that there “was no sign of damage in the compressor or fan.”

Here’s what the JSF program office said:

“During the planned routine borescope inspection after completion of testing on Oct 4, Fighter Engine Team found several High Pressure Turbine Rotor (HPT) blades with impact damage on Ground Test Engine 005 (second SDD ground test motor). Further inspections revealed Stages 1, 2, & 3 of the Low Pressure Turbine (LPT) rotor also sustained impact damage on the leading edges of several blades. During borescope of the Combustor/Diffuser/Nozzle (CDN) assembly, 2 combustor diffuser inner panels were found with distress and missing material.

Wait a few days and more will be known.

“The GE/RR issue wasn’t an engine failure, but we’ve got to make sure we know exactly what happened,” they said.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Aurora October 7th, 2009 at 10:49 pm I wonder what the reaction from the aviation-defense-“reporter”- “illuminati” will be? Most reacted with unrestrained glee when Pratt had a stoppage with the F135 recently. Gee, do you think developing cutting edge technology could occasionally veer from plan?
	stephen October 8th, 2009 at 12:13 am “The companies decided a “thorough” engine inspection was warranted.“ Ya think?
	Cappy October 8th, 2009 at 3:24 pm It’s rumored that GE is using advanced materials for their turbine section. I wonder if it’s just that the material isn’t fully developed?
	Curt October 9th, 2009 at 7:59 am From the announcement (who knows how accurate that is) the high pressure turbine doesn’t seem to be the problem. Sounds like the Combuster/Diffuser/Nozzle (CDN) assembly had a partial failure and was the source of the material that damaged the turbine. At least they didn’t (hopefully) suck in anymore test equipment!
	Joe October 9th, 2009 at 1:56 pm Cutting edge technology? Nothing about the capabilities of the aircraft is cutting edge except the aesa radar. If a fighter pilot can’t out maneuver his enemy then he sure as hell can’t kill him. We were building jets that perform better in a dogfight in the 60’s. And this is the fighter jet of the future? They went with the JSF thinking every war we get into we will decimate the air power in the first few days of fighting? What if we don’t? Russia has jets that can defeat the JSF every time, odds against the F-22 are a lot lower. Seems like in a real war where the enemy has a capable air force we will see millions of JSF dollars burning on the ground wishing we had further invested in the F-22.
	Mike October 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pm Wow. I had heard it was just an instrumentation FOD, but if the combuster is coming apart, that’s significant. This makes it sound as though the assembly of one piece? I’ve never heard of that for a hot section part, especially since the cumbuster exit nozzle bears the brunt of the force. Good thing they caught it when they did.
	CPD October 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pm One always appreciates how program managers can state a serious issue in a benign manner: “The GE/Rolls Royce issue wasn’t an engine failure, but we’ve got to make sure we know exactly what happened,” Sounds good in a progress report, but it appears what happened is a ‘hot’ section component was in the process of failing, [probably during the “extended operation at maximum power” portion of the test] and the test operator made a “controlled shutdown” before anymore material passed through the turbine. If, as member ‘Cappy’ suggest; “that GE is using advanced materials” then this problem is liable to cause significant delays in GE/RR’s test and validation program. Having ‘been there/done that’ on several advanced Gas Turbine Engine programs this is like old home week!
	pfcem October 10th, 2009 at 6:10 am What are you smoking? First & foremost, the days of needing to point the nose of your aircraft at the enemy in order to shoot them down are long gone. MISSILES do the hard manuevering these days. But even ignoring that most important truth…a COMBAT LOADED F-35A’s flight performance will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16″. Few COMBAT LOADED fighters can do that & not fighters built in the 1960s come even close. Russia has NO jets that will have a positive kill ratio vs the F-35. The only Russia jet with any chance is the PAK-FA & it is still several years away from being operational. But, of course, defeating the PAK-FA is what the F-22 is for — the F-35 can more than handle anything else for quite some time to come.
	Phil White October 10th, 2009 at 4:18 pm Whatever your stance on this debacle this is cause for concern.
	Chief Houston October 10th, 2009 at 9:01 pm I hope it is not that Titanium alloy that had problems with fatigue in the new submarines on hinges and torpedo tubes. It seems a corrosive environment and pressure caused the titanium to become brittle before the subs could even get in the water. Dings and nicks are not stress fractures, maybe it is as simple as some one’s pen getting shredded in the intake and passing through in pieces? We all know what the intake vacuum force is like a full power!
	Cappy October 13th, 2009 at 1:37 pm This is primarily an air to ground aircraft. It was never intended to be an air to air vehicle. Your comments are correct however your perspective is a bit off.
	Buster October 13th, 2009 at 1:43 pm This is a problem for GE. There are rumors that parts of this engine will wind up in their future commercial products (think F101 / CFM56). I hope this engine gets straightened out for the sake of their commercial business.
	ConcernedCitizen October 15th, 2009 at 1:02 pm I hope for all of our taxpayer’s sake that the Government isn’t being asked to keep the F136 afloat just to develop advanced materials that will be used to improve their commericial products for use on the new Chinese (COMAC) Single-Aisle A/C! This was recently announced. Isn’t their something called export control?
	ConcernedCitizen October 15th, 2009 at 1:03 pm I think the delay in the announcement of the GE/RR F136 “wasn’t an engine failure, but we’ve got to make sure we know exactly what happened,” is also very telling. The hot section FAILURE happened on October 4th. It was not publically released (for a week) until the afternoon after the House/Senate subcomittee’s recommendation vote to continue funding of this not-ready-for-prime time engine. Let me tell you right now, there are BILLIONS of pending OVERSPEND dollars just ready to be spent on trying to develop this prototype engine with materials that are not ready for prime-time. Meanwhile, the F135 CTOL/CV/STOVL flight qualified engine is being panned in the the press for a fan tip manufacturing defect during a rigorous 2,500 hour AMT test. And the F135 has already proven to deliver more than the required thrust, MUCH more fuel efficiently than the F136 ever will be capable of (with its smaller F119 core). Give me a break.. stop wasting money on the F136!
	ConcernedCitizen October 16th, 2009 at 5:04 am Gates Warns He Will Ask Obama to Veto Defense Bill Over JSF Roxana Tiron The Hill October 15, 2009 Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he’ll recommend that President Barack Obama veto the 2010 defense spending bill if it includes funding for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. He made the threat in a letter sent Wednesday to Reps. John Murtha (D-Pa.) the chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, and Bill Young (R-Fla.), the panel’s ranking member. “The conference bill should not provide funding for weapons that are not working or are no longer needed,” Gates told the lawmakers. The House included $560 million for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine, which is built by General Electric and Rolls-Royce. That engine is in direct competition with the primary engine built by Pratt & Whitney. Gates recently stressed that fully funding the alternate engine will cost billions more over several years and that the engine currently in development is behind the primary engine by about three years.
	irtusk October 16th, 2009 at 6:53 am OMG LOL talk about selective quoting! any credibility you had worked to build up just went byebye! what an AMAZING edit job you did on that article here’s what the article ACTUALLY says see if you can spot the differences: http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63263-... > [[[Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he’ll recommend that President Barack Obama veto the 2010 defense spending bill if it includes funding for a]]] new presidential helicopter. > Gates said he’ll also recommend that Obama veto the bill if appropriators include money for a [[[second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter]]], if those funds end up “seriously” disrupting the entire fighter jet program. oh yes, let’s conveniently leave out the whole ‘if those funds end up “seriously” disrupting the entire fighter jet program. and since the funds were added from outside the program, it won’t, so it’s a moot point, it’s not getting vetoed
	irtusk October 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm no, that’s not what the article says http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/63263-... Gates said he’ll also recommend that Obama veto the bill if appropriators include money for a second engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, IF THOSE FUNDS END UP “SERIOUSLY” DISRUPTING THE ENTIRE FIGHTER JET PROGRAM. since the funds came from outside the F-35 program, there will be no disruption of the f-35 program and thus there will be no veto
	ConcernedCitizen October 17th, 2009 at 1:31 am The Presidential Helicoptor Program is another waste of taxpayer money and was NOT relevant to the discussion at hand (especially when this forum limits the size of what I can paste and comment on). You are correct, Gates was referring to both, but I DID NOT CHANGE the intent of what he said. The subcommitte tried to play a sleight of hand by fully funding the F-35 to justify inclusion of the F136 and the VELO (an addition unneeded $1B expenditure). Gates was clear that this is not fooling the administration (note that he wrote the note to Murtha AFTER the recommendation you refer to was made) and that if the appropriators kept this in that they were at risk being vetoed by the President.
	ConcernedCitizen October 17th, 2009 at 1:38 am Regardless of you trying to change the subject, what IS relevant here is two items: the F136 combustor and turbine material technologies are not at the appropriate technology levels to even survive a max power 100 hour test! Conversely, the F135 CTOL/CV/STOVL flight qualified engine which has already achieved over 12,000 hours of testing is being panned by you and others for a fan tip manufacturing defect during a rigorous 2,500 hour AMT test. Pick on my editing, but I’ll let the engine (and flight) testing results speak for themselves. The F135 has already proven to deliver more than the required thrust, MUCH more fuel efficiently than the F136 ever will be capable of (with its smaller F119 core). Its control of thrust split and thrust to split coupling will take years to match by the GE/RR team. It is the right choice for this aircraft.
	irtusk October 17th, 2009 at 2:07 am > but I DID NOT CHANGE the intent of what he said BS you said ‘veto if the F136 is included PERIOD’ he actually said ‘veto if the F136 is included AND it seriously disrupts the F-35 program’ that is a huge distinction > The subcommitte tried to play a sleight of hand by fully funding the F-35 to justify inclusion of the F136 it wasn’t sleight of hand, it was doing exactly what Gates said, not disrupting the funding of the F-35 > Gates was clear that this is not fooling the administration (note that he wrote the note to Murtha AFTER the recommendation you refer to was made) if he meant what you said, he would have said what you said ‘veto if the F136 is included PERIOD’ but that’s not what he said and words have meaning he repeated it because while the proposal was for full funding, it wasn’t final and he wanted to ensure that they didn’t try to cut the F-35 program in committee since a VERY similar edit to the very same article was made on the f135engine.com, it makes me think you are less a ConcernedCitizen than a PW shill a very bad shill who should know better than to blatantly alter a story to fit your slant because you’re going to get called on it if I were PW, I would fire you on the spot for a stunt like that
	Rocky D October 17th, 2009 at 5:27 am Our government in action!! God help the tax payer continue to fund their waste!!!
	ConcernedCitizen October 17th, 2009 at 9:08 am The why would he say all this AFTER the Senate and House appropiators had voted IN FAVOR of the recommendation to continue Presidential Helicoptor, F136 funding and full F35 funding? YOU MAKE NO SENSE other than you are a current or former GE Employee posing to be an unbiased poster? You are way to combative to be an objective person on this forum. The only thing I took issue with was you on originally was your false accusation that the F135 STOVL machine had not achieved a statement of flight qualification. I provided proof of this and then you proceeded to follow around any posting I made on this site and try and pick it apart.. somehow continuing to avoid the fact that the F135 has MANY HOURS of testing on it and achieved every program milestone set for it, and the other does not. Period. This is why I think the F136 is a waste of money. BTW — I also believe that continued funding of the F22s is a waste of money as well (too few future acquisitions to have made a substantial difference from the current 187 planned deployment). Wow — I must be a PW shill! So stop slandering others and get back to the subject at hand.
	ConcernedCitizen October 17th, 2009 at 9:16 am BTW, Irtusk — I do think the proposed A/F Tanker that has been stalled is necessary, since without it we have a modern warfighter that has ancient A/C fuel support? I would rather see funding of this critical program. That is why I am against funding of unnecessary elements such as the F22/F119, F136 and the VELO. What is your opinion on this?
	irtusk October 17th, 2009 at 3:30 pm > YOU MAKE NO SENSE the only thing that makes no sense is your insistence that the clause ‘if those those funds end up “seriously” disrupting the entire fighter jet program’ is meaningless the meaning is very clear and i’m not sure how you can pretend otherwise > other than you are a current or former GE Employee posing to be an unbiased poster? fortunately i’ve been around long enough and fought enough other fights that it’s clear i’m not on GEs payroll > then you proceeded to follow around any posting I made on this site and try and pick it apart then don’t give me anything to pick apart namely editing articles such that their entire meaning is changed > somehow continuing to avoid the fact that the F135 has MANY HOURS of testing on it and achieved every program milestone set for it couldn’t have achieved EVERY milestone because it’s still in testing > I do think the proposed A/F Tanker that has been stalled is necessary, since without it we have a modern warfighter that has ancient A/C fuel support? I would rather see funding of this critical program. That is why I am against funding of unnecessary elements such as the F22/F119, F136 and the VELO. What is your opinion on this? the tanker program is independent of those other programs the problem with going forword on KC-X isn’t financial, it’s legal and political not to mention that F136 is such a small amount that it is basically a rounding error
	ConcernedCitizen October 17th, 2009 at 4:30 pm All right. We all agree that we disagree on the need for the F136. You think it is necessary for the competition, and I do not. In my opinion, our federal budget deficits are going to have to make us prioritize what we spend our money on to get the most bang for the buck. All I am saying is that if you are hoping for competition, the GE/RR team has miles to go to catch up with PW, especially w.r.t. STOVL Engine and A/C integration, and the billions required to complete it will far exceed what is being bookept and disclosed today. If this is just about producing an engine with a 10% larger core and worse fuel efficiency that is targeted for the higher volume CTOL/CV market then this defeats the whole purpose of a common design JSF program. On the other hand, if we are keep the F136 around to help develop and advance GE’s technologies, the recent downselection of GE for ADVENT (100’s of millions of $) should more than allow them to develop the next generation of engines, with no competition from RR or PW…