Comments on: Cracks Appear in F136 Support

By: Marcos

Marcos — Thu, 27 May 2010 23:57:53 +0000

They need to test both the f-l35 and f-136 on the f-35 and fly it for a while. Then they can compare and see which one is safer, compare the ground abort rates related to engine malfunctions, in flight emergencies caused by the engines, and life cycles of both engines, and so on. They should also allow maintainers to voice their opinions to see which one is more maintainer friendly. Now of course this will take time but sometimes something like this needs to be done in order to save in the long run. No one wants an aircraft that can’t even take off half the time because it repeatedly breaks.

By: William C.

William C. — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 18:36:56 +0000

So your suggesting the F135 be canceled in favor of the F136? The F135 is on track and most cost issues are due to the VTOL systems, something that P&W is largely doing the work for, when GE won’t have to when their engine is ready later.

By: MattH

MattH — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 11:32:10 +0000

Exactly correct. GE and RR are very large companies who can afford to share the risk. If you are going to guarantee both GE and P&W half the business, there is no competition. If you punish GE because the engines the competed with over time were not competitive, that is competition. Profit in government contracts is controlled anyway, even with one bidder.
But, since JSF is the largest procurement in the DOD budget — and the program is vastly over cost — far fewer planes will be built. Maybe the entire program should be canceled. If you look at production of 1800–2500 total, costs go north of $200 million per copy. So maybe the engine companies are fighting over a lost cause.

By: John King

John King — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 16:23:15 +0000

Formula…a claw back for contractor non-performance applied to government contract. I like it! But to make it work, it’ll have to be a public law driven contract provision included in all standard government contracts.

Add this piece of what used to be Japanese management style (at least until the Toyota fiasco) to the taxpayer’s tool chest or set of remedies. Automatically fire any government and contractor executive who’s program exceeds a 10% cost growth or schedule delay in any two-year period.

By: @E_L_P

@E_L_P — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 03:34:02 +0000

Some additonal reading from the GAO back in 2006. Not all-knowing but interesting.

Tactical Aircraft: DOD’s Cancellation of the Joint Strike Fighter Alternate
Engine Program Was Not Based on a Comprehensive Analysis

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06717r.pdf

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:50:34 +0000

I don't necessarily think the author is counting them out, however he's just pointing out the representatives who are apparently now speaking out against it...not sure if that means anything....they could have been speaking out against it before....but perhaps because Kennedy and Murtha are gone now they feel free to say something. I'm not going to wade into the pro-136 vs pro-135 argument, I work for one of the engine suppliers. I'm way too down in the trenches to worry about all this stuff. I'm sure they're both pretty darn good engines, I'll only say that, because of my "love of aviation" I don't get too wrapped up in the politics of it all. Watching an engine run is what it's all about, nothing like seeing an engine light up!!

By: Formula

Formula — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:29:24 +0000

Just think, the 1.9B that P&W is over budget would more than pay for the F136 to finish its testing. In fact, the 1.9B that P&W is over budget would buy “roughly” 110 F135 or F136 engines OR almost 20 F35 Aircraft (estimated of course). You know, the USG will typically pay Award Fees if the contractor meets several criteria; of which cost is one. Well, if the USG can pass along Hundreds of Millions in Award Fees to top performing contractors, why can’t contractors pay back the USG for NOT meeting the Award Fee criteria? The costs can be negotiated. Instead, the USG just doesn’t give them the Award fee and we all move on; like we saw Gates do to LM by holding back 600M in Award Fees. Another option is for Gates to use the 600M toward the Alternate Engine. In fact, I would almost wager that the USG could probably fund the remaining SDD and an LRIP or two for the Alternate Engine entirely on Award Fees that did not get passed along to the “other” contractors. Just thinking out of the box.

By: John King

John King — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 22:04:31 +0000

Colin,
With maybe $20 billion in engine profits at stake over the F-35 life cycle, don’t count a second engine player out quite yet! Whether it takes $250 million, $1 billion or $3 billion to complete the F136, if the taxpayers didn’t pay to complete the development, why wouldn’t GE/RR pay to complete the F136 if they can get $10 billion in profits over the aircraft life cycle?