Comments on: Levin Doubts F136 Veto Threat

By: Jesse I Lewis

Jesse I Lewis — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:53:23 +0000

I can’t remember I think we encourage competition with the Brits, but looks like we’re all on board the same now, going to remember Pratt and Whitney, all those Bell conversations with dad growing up.

By: c4246

c4246 — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 21:48:38 +0000

Gee,When will people see Kissinger — GE as the head of the WTO. Recently GE invested billions in China to make airplanes or was that jet engines, or both. GE is a global business that uses America for their own benefit. That is what the WTO does. Our president,and it doesn’t matter who or what party, is the WTO puppet. That is why our economy has gone down the drain. We can not work for the same wages that GE is paying it’s overseas workers. They set them up with the business and have our Senators approval and wring the middle class right out of existence. The only thing I wander about is how much do they pay the politician. We do not have a country for the people and by the people. That is why we do not have a country anymore. Go to Walmart and buy something that says,“Made in America”.

By: BNB

BNB — Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:04:48 +0000

I don’t recall DoD having a competition for the F-18 E/F engine, that was a derivative of the engine in the F-18 A/B and C/D variants. Probably not at all unlike the F119-to-F135. I guess “competition” is only a good thing when GE is on the wrong end of the program. Seems GE lobbyist have more cash to spread around.

By: drjd

drjd — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:53:47 +0000

“GE meets budget and deliverables despite the reduced budgets each year” — Really? GE’s plan last year was to run 4 engines for a total of 50 hours? Interesting strategy, huh?

By: Zaroizer

Zaroizer — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:42:18 +0000

Then let those allies pay for the additional development costs. If the current engine isn’t cutting it then replace it. We need to get this plane right because it replaces 65% of the Air Forces planes and 40% of the Navy’s planes. See my comments below.

By: Old Sailor

Old Sailor — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 00:37:50 +0000

If the F-135’s supplier P & W is having issues with price and delivery just do what is done in the corporate world ‚you honor the contract but let the supplier know that he will be replaced and not considered for future business opportunities. P & W has done whats done all the time in military procurement . Originally submit a price that they know will get the business then let the consumer pay when they have no alternative. Either make P & W honor the original price or buy the design and give it to GE or RR to produce at the correct price.

By: Formula

Formula — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 22:43:31 +0000

All I can say is you all are correct in regards to the alternate engine. Lets move on with competition and at least try and salvage some return for the tax payer. This is a perfect opportuinity for Mr Obama to use the potential 20B in savings to reduce the Trillions dollar deficit issue. In fact, 1B can be saved in the next five years…what a perfect jump start. Additionally, for national security reasons, having an alternate engine is the prudent thing to do.

By: Dale Horan

Dale Horan — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:21:25 +0000

For an engine (F135) that is a variant of an earlier P&W engine; how in the heck is it so far over budget and so far behind schedule. Play all the games you want but let’s stick to the facts. Competition did not exist. P&W over budget each year, GE meets budget and deliverables despite the reduced budgets each year.

By: BK5137

BK5137 — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:59:18 +0000

One study said that over $20 Billion would be saved over the life the JSF program by using competing engines. Having more than one manufacturer not only helps in price competition but adds to reliabilty and performance, which is the most important aspect of this since all branches of the military will be using this engine for the next 25–30 years. Whatever Gates and Obama are thinking makes absolutely no sense in the long term.

By: TMB

TMB — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:25:55 +0000

As ELP will continuously remind us, the treaty/contract for the F-35 going to our allies includes language giving them the option of either engine.

By: Taxpayer

Taxpayer — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:02:41 +0000

Regarding competition for the engine, it can correctly be said, under s sole source, winner-take-all competition, that the basic aircraft airframe competition included the engine selection. However, the Pentagon decided it needed an alternative (just in case) and initiated a second engine technology. In the 1980’s the Pentagon often “broke out” the main subcomponents, like engines, and competed them separately to achieve savings, providing the item as government-furnished-equipment to the prime contractor. That component break-out strategy typically saved bug bucks for the taxpayer. Nothing has changed since then about the validity of the break-out strategy, especially given that the JSF will have a 20+ year procurement. Under such a scenario, the government will more than profit for competition.

By: TMB

TMB — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 17:38:14 +0000

Levin has made wrong-headed claims about Iraqi and Afghan troops numbers in the past. He is one of those who believe you can just throw guys in uniform and call it a win. All those troops he thinks the Afghans need still have to be recruited, trained, led, and paid and Levin never takes that into account. And how on earth would he know how many troops are needed to fight in one particular city? Linked below are previous dodbuzz articles about his thoughts on the subject. http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/09/14/more-afghan-not... http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/29/dems-warn-again...