Comments on: Hill Rips ABC’s F136 Story

By: F4GEEZER

F4GEEZER — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 17:51:40 +0000

My work experience is similar to your own, except I’m a US Navy veteran. One benefit I never see under discussion here is the commercial application of the Lift system, not neccessarily the engine. From what I hear, it is already under developement in the commercial world, from the original designer. Just imagine, no more runways required. Holy AVATAR, Batman!

By: rich

rich — Wed, 02 Jun 2010 02:10:19 +0000

you must be working for pratt now

By: Bill Kennedy

Bill Kennedy — Thu, 27 May 2010 18:09:30 +0000

A two hour ride from Lynn, Ma to Hyannisport, where Sen. Kennedy used to live is not considered “down the road” by any sensible person and actually has nothing to do with the fact that studies show competing engines will SAVE over $20 BILLION of taxpayer’s money over the life of the program and keep our national defense secure should one or the other engine fail at any time during use. With one engine supporting our full fleet for the next 25–30 years we could be in huge trouble should that one engine develop problems that grounds the whole fleet.

By: StopWastingMyTax$

StopWastingMyTax$ — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:53:02 +0000

amen

By: In Defense Of

In Defense Of — Thu, 27 May 2010 16:33:35 +0000

As a 35 year aerospace worker including government (10Yr) and contractor (25) experience, I have worked with too many honest, dedicated people on both sides to throw them under the bus with sweeping generalities most often driven by ideological/political biases. The higher you go in the food chain, the greater the compromise of ethics and principles. This results in downward pressure by legislative and executive entities to do what is politically expedient for them at that point in time. Just look at the yo-yoesque funding of many large programs over their like span. The consequence is whipsawing the people who have to let, administer, and perform the enormous contracts that are at stake. There is no solution until the generals, admirals, congress members, corp. CEOs/VPs, and lobbyists get out of the way once the contracts are let. The system isn’t broke, the high-level players are.

By: JETENGR

JETENGR — Thu, 27 May 2010 15:02:51 +0000

The Navy has historically had a better relationship and experience with GE. The Airforce has historically had a better relationship and experience with Pratt. Why not split the buy among the two while retaining some engine interchangeability across the F35 variants (CTOL ‚CV and STOVL). The comments about GE having monopolies on certain helicopter platforms and the F18 is not a useful argument for allowing Pratt or GE to be the sole source for the F35. The intention and plan for the JSF F35 is to be a one size fits all fighter/attack plane for all of the services. That’s the whole future market. Pratt already is the sole source on the Raptor. The size and scope of the F35 is far beyond the F18 platform or any other previous platform. Pushing one or the other off of the F35 platform is not a wise decision … period.

By: Dick

Dick — Thu, 27 May 2010 12:20:34 +0000

Having worked for P&W in the 1970s & 80s, we found it curious that GE was routinely awarded no-bid contracts because they complained they were going out of the engine business unless they got some gov’t contracts — i.e. C5, F18, 2nd engine for F15/16 (despite still making many for the F4s). Curious too that Ronnie Regan was the GE spokesperson for decades and the GE military engines are produced in Lynn, MA — just down the road from Ted Kennedy’s house. Humm, any connections?

By: TJRedNeck

TJRedNeck — Thu, 27 May 2010 11:36:21 +0000

I actually test both the F100-220 and the F110-100/129 engines. Yes, we put them on a frame and stick them in a test cell (not just a hush house), then do a complete test on them. Both are decent engines, although many times it takes several tries to get the F100-220 started. And yes, I have talked to pilots, most prefer the F110, either model over the F100. The problem is not so much with the engine itself, it is with the company Pratt&Whitney. They are real jerks to deal with, and they contract out most of their work. They will not give out any information to their customer (the US AirForce) unless you beat it out of them. GE on the other hand is easier to deal with, if you buy their product, they give you all the information you ask for. I personally do not like GE because of their CEO and shady dealings, but I also don’t like P&W because they do everything they can to undermine you and take the work away from you. The reason why I believe in the 2 engine theory is simply to keep competition between the two evils.

By: MJC

MJC — Thu, 27 May 2010 10:47:48 +0000

Not the same story I heard from F16 pilot(s) when the –129 was introduced. Statements like “No throttle restrictions during severe maneuvers and much more responsive” Might want to canvass another couple of pilots.

By: Macker

Macker — Thu, 27 May 2010 04:15:05 +0000

Don’t kid yourselves…defense contracting is just as crooked as any other “fairly” bid government contract. Just look at the debacle that ensued regarding the tanker replacement. How many years has that been going on now and we still don’t have a new tanker. Remember, we are talking about an organization (the Pentagon) that can’t even keep track of what their staffers are spending on their Amex accounts and congress is full of idiots who don’t know the first thing about what’s good for the military…they are just looking to get money for their districts (like the tanker snafu demonstrates.)

Who needs the Hornet or JSF anyway??? Never should have ditched the Tomcats. F-14s forever, baby!

By: candor

candor — Thu, 27 May 2010 03:06:38 +0000

How many aircraft and helicopters are flying with the single sourced GE engine today ? Seems to me that GE is not arguing about the dual sourcing any of those power plants and why do you think that is.

By: anon engineer

anon engineer — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:28:22 +0000

Insulting and unnecessary, I forgot opinionated. Oh, advanced six sigma programs — you mean established and current technology under control — what the UK brings is brand new technology and methods never dreamt of in the US and drive them through capability barriers to deliver capable and cutting edge solutions along with virtual manufacturing in advance of physical manufacturing.
So you know about one element of effective manufacturing ‘six sigma’ whoopie doo — what about the other 95% of an effective business solution and technology deployment??? Plenty of books available on six-sigma — that’s ’cause its old hat — manufacturing has moved on and realises that this is only a minutii of a big activity. Next you’ll be thinking black belt programmes are new too, and capability readiness, and production readiness, and VSM etc etc. Wake up and look forwards not backwards. A century worth of a lead in advanced manufacturing — too much pride and too little knowledge — very dangerous indeed.

By: anon engineer

anon engineer — Wed, 26 May 2010 21:12:59 +0000

Very very wrong — I work on the manufacture and deisgn of the British engines as part of a massive UK supply, design and manufacturing network — you very obviously don’t have a clue what you’re talking about

By: david

david — Wed, 26 May 2010 20:48:04 +0000

IMO all defense contractor screw everyone — the gov’t-the people and whom ever else they can — I just hope we continue to have the biggest and best — when that day ends — we will all be speaking another language

By: Mr. Magoo

Mr. Magoo — Wed, 26 May 2010 17:24:14 +0000

Can’t we all just get along?

By: a little sanity

a little sanity — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:52:26 +0000

before I get roughed up by the irony police — I’m being anonymous here because my anti-Military-Industrial-Complex opinion could run me afoul of my USG employer (which, btw, is not DoD and not the Hill). I don’t have a dog in this fight (other than my tax dollars).

By: A little sanity

A little sanity — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:46:57 +0000

Frankly, the entire discussion is missing the point. This program (as with most DoD major weapons acquisitions) will be a collosal waste of our country’s resources, regardless of who gets the engine contract.

Why not name the “Capitol Hill Aide” and identify where he’s from and who he works for? If anonymity is granted by the press (even bloggers), the writer should state the reason for it (“he’s afraid of being fired”, etc.). Just allowing hacks to spit out points like this undermines open government. His or her anonymity makes me suspect that the motivation behind the attack is not simply honest caretaking of taxpaper dollars.

By: Ozzlefinch

Ozzlefinch — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:16:51 +0000

You mean GE(NBC)/Rolls.….….….…..

GE is POed because they think that ABC is beating them up. They own NBC, let NBC get into the fight.

GE has bent over backwards to use the press to forward their cause (i.e,. Wind Farms).

By: Larry D. Green

Larry D. Green — Wed, 26 May 2010 15:12:54 +0000

here are some facts that they neglected to add. the jsf went over budget in ’05 due to the research and development, shortly after congress cut 250 million from the budget. on the same day they awarded 230 million to ge/rolls for this very engine, after the military had already decided that the f-136 engine did not preform the way that the pratt/ whitney engine did. oh and i forgot to mention that the plant that was awarded 230m was in kennedy’s district.

By: R. V. Garvin

R. V. Garvin — Wed, 26 May 2010 14:35:33 +0000

Think back: a long time ago, Navy Secretary Lehmann insisted on Pratt as a second source for the F-18 enigne, and gave that up after ordering 100 engines at a much higher price. Retaining the expensive capability in case he ever wanted it.