Comments on: GE Strikes Back on F136

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 15:38:37 +0000

I'm not saying it's "your" problem they didn't offer an engine for the F18, but you made the claim it was a competitive process though. The real reason why Pratt didn't get a contract on the F18 is because the Navy didn't like Pratt at the time (with very good reason) and they didn't think Pratt would be capable of getting the thrust to weight ratio needed for the F18, they thought they were going to fail like they did for the later versions of the F14. The F119 - F120 competition was what decided this whole debate way back when they chose the F22 over the F23. The F119 was the chosen engine. The F135 is a derivative of the F119. GE didn't have an engine in the mix when the JSF program first started because the F119 was in full production and it allowed for Pratt to offer an (derivative) engine a lot quicker. And I disagree on your other point, the short sightedness of our politicians is due to the fact that they will not cut ANY low-hanging fruit at all, give congress a credit card and they'll max it out and then come back and ask for more. That's what's wrong with this country.

By: gof136

gof136 — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:45:36 +0000

The problem with this country and the fiscal mess that it is in is do to the short-sidedness of the politicians. They would rather grab the low hanging, short term savings instead of what will help the country over the long hall. Not my problem that Pratt didn’t have an engine in the thrust range of the F404/F414 to offer. Still doesn’t take away from the fact that F-35 propulsion system wasn’t chosen through competition.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 21:08:36 +0000

OK I’m not an AIRDALE so I’m only aksing a question here. If the reason we need the new aircraft is to be faster, bigger payload, climb higher, and low radar. It seems to me that by reskinning the F16 and F18 and making it a twin engine (using the current designed equipment) then we would meet all these requirements. I’m still against sharing our current technology with other countries though considering we dont really get along good with any of them and could be on opposing sides at any time in the future. especialy France — we gave them a washington class FBM sub and they gave all the technology to russia who came out with the yankee class soon afterwards.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:30:07 +0000

What engine was offered by Pratt? The JSF, despite initial claims will only replace the F-16 and a few of the other Navy/Marine planes like the Harrier. The initial claim that it will replace the -16, F-15, A-10 and Harrier is completely out to lunch. My only put in this whole argument is let's say the cost savings are true, claims that are still up to debate, and if they are true, those cost savings aren't going to be truly garnered until we're well into full up production (5~6 yrs from now). We're so far into a fiscal mess right now, it's not worth it....and that's if GE's engine has zero problems. Which let's be honest, GE is a competent Aerospace company but they aren't perfect either, they'll have their own growth problems in those years as well.

By: goF136

goF136 — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:42:42 +0000

Engine for F-18 was chosen through a competitive process and additionally the F-18 was not at the time designated to replace nearly the entire fleet of fighter aircraft in the US arsenal. And yes I live in Ohio.

By: William C.

William C. — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 10:37:05 +0000

“You are truly the most ignorant person I have ever encountered.”

Personally I think he has something of a point. What the lefties want to do will open up the military to a load of lawsuits, politically correct garbage, and reverse discrimination that will lead to more lousy officers, less capable soldiers, lower morale, and all sorts of other nasty side effects.

That is what fanatical political correctness does.

By: goF135

goF135 — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 02:28:28 +0000

Did you loose sight of the sole sourced F18??? You must live in Ohio

By: justanobserver

justanobserver — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:03:04 +0000

point taken

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:43:30 +0000

Nomenclature aside…the point still stands. Right or wrong that’s no reason to call people names.

By: justanobserver

justanobserver — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:33:23 +0000

The augmentor is GE, not P&W. The airframe is a seperate issue.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 17:24:15 +0000

What’s wrong with what Real Knowledge said? It’s Exhaust Duct and Nozzle and RR makes and co-shares costing (design/manufacture) on the other items (Fan etc). What he said is true about other items on a plane, avionics packages, landing gear, airframe suppliers etc…think about that next time you’re so concerned about safety!

By: justanobserver

justanobserver — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:10:59 +0000

You are an uneducated moron!!! The only thing P&W on the f-136 is the exhaust duct. The fan,lpt,cdn are RR because Rolls and GE are partners. Get it.…..

By: Real Knowledge

Real Knowledge — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:54:23 +0000

You left out the facts that the F135 has had to absorb the costs of those “common” areas. Yep, making sure that the tooling, parts/hardware and shipping have all been built to support the F135 & F136. NOT GE’s budget. You also forgot to mention that the F-136 is only a core. Not a full engine. It uses the augmentor/nozzle from F-135 and the fan from RR. How is that “common sense”?

More over, where are you people for screaming for the F-18 to have an engine war? GE monopolized that airframe and no one says a word. How is it safe for the F-18 to have one supplier but not for the F-35? And let’s take this strategy a step further: you have one airframe supplier for the F-15, F-22, F-35, C-130. You have one supplier for the avionics on most of our military airplanes. One supplier for munitions for all of our aircraft. One supplier for ejection seats. NOW, how do you feel about the safety of these planes and pilots? Still think the engine having one supplier is such a big deal?

By: John King

John King — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:51:32 +0000

What a short memory the Pentagon has. Dual sourcing always saves big money. Aircraft, missiles, torpedoes. The evidence is clear. With a production run of over 3,000 aircraft, we could save 30 percent with competition! And having two engines because of the possibilities of technical problems grounding an entire fleet! Wow! Why would you take that risk?

By: Real Knowledge

Real Knowledge — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:41:47 +0000

Sounds like you work for ATA. I’m sure they would be proud of you handing out your opinion so freely. As limited as it is. Just because you hook up a fuel line to an engine and watch it run does not mean you “know” those engines well.

To compare the F-35 with the supposed F-16 wars is a joke. There wasn’t a war. It was another scheme to throw GE a bone after they made financial decisions that were taking them down. Face it people GE, Boeing and LM own this country. Own it. The F-136 is not even a full engine. It is using the Augmentor and nozzle from P&W, and the Fan from RR. So, the American people are effectively paying the same amount for a core as we are for a complete engine. How does this drive down cost or improve technology? Unless GE has some magical combustor that can significantly decrease fuel consumption, then they are blowing hot air up the world’s butt.

“Pretty soon our military will consist of nothing but women and queers?”

You are truly the most ignorant person I have ever encountered.

By: Skycrane Pilot

Skycrane Pilot — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:41:31 +0000

You are correct with your assumptions. Both about engines and manning the armed forces. There valid argument that the F-110 adopted FADEC with less hassle than Pratt. That is because of United Technologies internal bureaucracy that has Hamilton doing fuel controls.

By: Formula

Formula — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:22:49 +0000

Mr.. Gates, we are in the digital age the age of computers and automation. Managing the F135 and F136 together at the same base even, is easier today and will be even easier tomorrow when compared to how we manage the F110 and F100 in the F16 fleets today. Additionally Mr.. Gates, the maintenance concept for the F135 and F136 in the field is half of that when compared to legacy platforms in place today. In other words, having the F136 as the alternate engine, as a competing engine, as a engine of choice for our Services and those of our Foreign Allies would be seamless.

By: Formula

Formula — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:22:31 +0000

I can fill this whole blog with more factual stories that would pursued you to consider competition. It does not take a genius or someone with common sense to figure you need to have competition when it comes to a propulsion system for a single engine fighter. Its prudent, its the right thing to do from a safety perspective, it provides flexibility and it will make the F35 more lethal and more affordable. All this BS about costing more and having to manage two logistics footprints is ridiculous. The F135 and F136 have several “common” areas in support equipment, technical data, parts/hardware, supply support, package/handling and storage, training, facilities, maintenance skill sets, and computer resources.…did I leave anything out? This makes up most of the logistics footprint Mr.. Gates you state would need to be doubled to manage both engines.

By: Formula

Formula — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 14:21:31 +0000

So many out there are against the second engine, but it was just announced that P&W is looking at a firm fixed price come the fourth lot of engines. I don’t think that would have happened without competition and the F136 knocking on P&W’s door. If the F136 stays in the Game MR. GATES, you and all of our fellow tax payers will see more benefits like this come about. I’ve been in this business for 30years and have seen the good and the bad when in comes to having a primary and secondary engine. I was in the USAF for 20years working in the field maintaining aircraft and at Command Head Quarters managing the same Programs, plus I have been in the defense industry on the civilian side for 10years. I was a customer and now I’m a supplier.…I can assure you, it was hell on the F16 until the F110 came around. I was on the F15 and it was hell trying to get core engines to build up my war time readiness spares and my predecessors before me had to remove new F100 engines from new F15 aircraft and send them back to St Louis so they can ferry other F15’s coming off the production line heading to new USAF bases for reasons I won’t go into here.

By: MattH

MattH — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:17:45 +0000

Price of JSF has nearly doubled over the last four years. It is now estimated to be $120M a copy? and the B variant another 30m per copy? And the price rise isn’t over, with so little testing completed, won’t more problems be uncovered? We need a backup plan, to keep F22, F16, F18 in production, before the Nunn law kills the project altogether?