Rumors Fly About JSF Second Engine

Rumors Fly About JSF Second Engine

Rumors flew last week that GE faced the prospect of having to redesign its cumbustor and that the engine is in such deep doo doo that it would be off the test stand for at least six months.

GE’s usually responsive spokesman, Rick Kennedy, was on vacation last week (after all, they made it through the defense authorization bill.…) but he did find time late Friday afternoon to tell me that he was “positive no analysis has been done.”

Then Loren Thompson, uber-source for many defense reporters, put out an item this morning summarizing the rumors: “The repeated failure of the GE engine has given rise to rumors that its combustor — the vital component that burns a mixture of fuel and compressed air — will have to be redesigned. One version of the rumor has GE giving up all its testing time at the Air Force’s Arnold Engineering Development Center until next April — the kind of lengthy delay typically associated with a design problem. If true, this would put the GE team in a financial bind, because it has already expended 70% of funding for the current phase of development.”

Loren’s comments were so close to what I heard last week that our sources might be the same… including the claim that the GE engine has “only managed to run for 52 hours and had four failures. At the same stage in development, the competing Pratt & Whitney engine had undergone 700 hours of SDD testing with no failures.”

After Loren went public, stuff started hitting fans. Congressional aides began pressing GE for answers. One said the company had to come up with answers today.

All this, of course, came after a routine inspection in early October revealed “dings and nicks” on the turbine blades, forcing GE/Rolls Royce to pull the engine off its test stand.

So far no one has hear back from GE. As soon as someone hears something solid, we’ll let you know.

Join the Conversation

I’m always for doing things that will save money, thats the intended goal of having two viable engine designs. How much cheaper will the F136 have to be and how much would Pratt and Whittney really have to come down on the price of the F135 as a result of that competition to make the pay off? Or what type of improvement in performance is worth the amount of money thats been dumped into a failing design.

Some supporters point to the F136’s possible superior temperature margins, but the question is if Pratt and Whittney had been given the additional dollars the F136 has recieved, maybe they could have made improvements to match it? At least they’d be starting from a design that works.

The f136 has multi-national content and therefore multi-national support. I suspect this is key.

Jeff, are you suggesting the F135 design doesn’t work? It’s based on the F119 powering the F-22, which seems to be working quite well (at least in that application).

as you would know only to well,the moment you start to wring the engines neck you will obviously start having serious issues with the “lifed items” carried over from previous design parameters of Raptor eng, certain components of this eng are not able to handle higher workload stresses. These issues must be resolved before delivery. Rgds Arth.


NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

AdChoices | Like us on , follow us on and join us on Google+
© 2015 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.