Comments on: F-16 Pilot Loves 2nd Engine

By: Joan Derrow

Joan Derrow — Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:32:14 +0000

You are on the suitable move by generating your own site. But that is only the initially modest move. You will require to understand how to hard drive serious site visitors to your website. As you understand, conversion charges are quite low in affiliate advertising, at times just 1% though these folks go as high as 8%.

By: Bill R

Bill R — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 03:26:47 +0000

I’m terribly sorry, but that, “we can’t afford not to…” is just a cop-out. Get this firmly fixed in your mind — we don’t have enough money! That’s because our politicians are not willing to force the American people to pay for the services (including fighting a war) that they receive. The last administration almost (and just may have succeeded) destroyed our economy by borrowing for Iraq and Afganistan. The debt service is eating us alive.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 21:31:41 +0000

If competition is the only answer, then I suggest the AF follow my recommendation on the next page of posts — use GE as a second manufacturing contractor using the same F135 design. That negates the political maneuvering you mentioned, while also negating the need to develop a second design. Let the best engine builder win. Other services use this approach to great success, particularly the Navy. There is no reason the AF could not as well.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:44:08 +0000

Actually … no. You are incorrect. You’re making an apples-to-oranges comparison. You’re trying to say that standard market competition (Ford vs. Chevy) is an appropriate analog. It isn’t. The appropriate analog would actually be Chevrolet deciding that two different parts suppliers would build two separate engine designs for the Corvette. If Chevrolet ever did make such an inefficient decision, GM’s board of directors would start counting coup on the Corvette programs’ managers in a real hurry.

You’re probably right that there are other examples of this sort of competition working out for the prime contractor. But for now, it’s still very much an N=1 inference fallacy. Besides, if you just want some competition, my suggestion in the following post, to use GE as second manufacturing contractor with the F135 design, is a much more efficient way to introduce free market incentives.

By: BradM

BradM — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 20:21:51 +0000

So we should cancel the F-35 program while the Russians push forward with their Sukhoi T-50 fighter and the Chinese push forward with their J-XX (J-14) 5th generation fighters? “Yes the USAF should only have 187 F-22s and cap it at that for the rest of the next 50 years?” (I say with sarcasm) I think not! We need both fighters in greater numbers than currently ordered!

By: Jay Citizen

Jay Citizen — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:40:30 +0000

Checked out the Bushmaster site — hadn’t been there in a while, pretty impressive. I couldn’t help notice the very obvious flash from escape gases under the front site. That kinda advertises your position? Probably easy to correct.

Off topic, but have you seen the ROBARM XCR? Similar design with same features. I saw a soldier in a color guard the other day carrying their version of the Stoner M63(M86)! Now that has a very removable barrel! I don’t think it is as convertible as the ACR or XCR though. I think that individual had been in service with the 10th Mountain in Afghanistan.

Issue of firearms is pretty much a command decision now; the Army recognizes that just one rifle does not fit all situations. How they fund it — I have no idea.

By: jcs

jcs — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 19:17:14 +0000

Ryan. Perhaps you can open you sample size to competition as a whole…at which point you’re at roughly N= a billion.

By: Skysoldier173

Skysoldier173 — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 18:28:41 +0000

we can’t even agree on another rifle for the troops and the stakes here are higher. I would gladly take the 6.8mm SPC from Bushmaster. They are dumping most of thier SCAR-L [5’56mm] BUT are keeping the 7.62 H model and the sniper version. Nothing changes…

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:47:50 +0000

@DAB — As you point out, cost and performance are connected but not identical unrelated issues. Cost has much more to do with efficient management of the program. And cost is only going to skyrocket if we decide to go through the exact same process with a second design. If we implement efficient management, cost can be controlled. There has been absolutely no indication that performance is currently an issue.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:44:49 +0000

I cannot understand why the AF does not, or cannot do what the Army and Navy do — take a proven design like the F135 and split the procurement bid between two contractors. The Army does not buy all its M4s/M16s from one supplier. The Navy splits submarine and destroyer contracts between builders using the same design. Why can’t the AF do this? Keep GE in the fighter engine business, introduce competition between contractors and avoid the cost of developing a second design. Why is no one talking about this option?

The second engine solution is NOT efficient. Private industry would demand the original supplier get the original product right, or suffer the consequences. Hold the prime contractor accountable. Introduce a second manufacturing contractor with the same design if necessary. Avoid the completely inefficient attitude of, “this is how we did it in the 80s, and that’s the only way it can be done today.” It is DOD’s fault that our procurement process can’t seem to grasp and implement these concepts. I hope the F-16 community can start helping this situation instead of clinging to what worked for the Vipers.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:32:18 +0000

With all due respect to those of you with experience in the F100/F110 programs, it is good to know what solution worked in that particular instance. However, knowing what worked in that particular instance does not definitively mean that we need the same solution today. In statistics (I’m in research), we call that an N=1 inference fallacy, meaning that you can’t validly draw concrete conclusions from a single example. In fact, your experience may be blinding you to other options.
To all F136 supporters, I advise you to think carefully about what the AF should be spending its monetary AND political capital on. In today’s economic climate, budgetary cutbacks are a fact of life, and I can virtually guarantee that any money spent on the F136 is going to be viewed as waste by a majority of taxpayers and lawmakers. That means less support for JSF in general, and will almost undoubtedly result in a net loss of resources for the F-35 community. This is the wrong fight to pick. Even if you win this one, you’re shooting yourself in the foot for support down the road.

By: DAB

DAB — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:10:47 +0000

To ask a question that has not yet been asked:
If the P&W JSF engine candidate is so good, why is it that that engine program is undergoing a special cost review led by OSD/AT&L? I do not personally know if a “performance” review is also involved.
I think it is disingenuous to state that the P&W candidate is sufficient to meet the need, if it is coming under such additional scrutiny.

By: ATFmaintainer

ATFmaintainer — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 14:00:37 +0000

Will this argument ever die? Isn’t the existing engine performing well enough in flight test? I’d wager the losing competitor is stoking this from the sidelines. We don’t ‘NEED’ squat.

By: TJRedNeck

TJRedNeck — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:12:27 +0000

The real problem is support from the manufacturer. GE is much easier to deal with, their engineers will give you the information and technical support you need, P&W on the other hand, are VERY difficult to deal with. Everything with them is considered “proprietary” information and they are constantly trying get your workload, so that they can take it and then contract it out themselves. The reason the F100 is now a good engine IS due to the F110, that’s the only thing that keeps P&W in line. So yes, we NEED the F-136, and for that matter, we need the F-120 for the Raptor. Yes, we need more Raptors too.

By: TJRedNeck

TJRedNeck — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:12:17 +0000

This is an excellent story and these are some great comments. Most of these comments are from people with experience, not armchair quarterbacks (ALLONS) who want to shut down the DoD and spend all of that money on welfare. My experience comes from actually testing both the F100 and F110, yes in an actual test cell, not hush house. We do this on a regular basis. We had lots of problems with the F100-100, the F100-220 is an improvement. We do not test the F100-229, so I don’t know about that one. At test, we have a lot less problems with the F110 than we do the F100s, but either way we fix the problem and sell off the engine.

By: TJRedNeck

TJRedNeck — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:50:41 +0000

Although your argument is valid and you are right, it would work with proper management, there is an element that makes your argument mute, it’s called politics. The problem is that when you try to manage P&W, they run to their Senator and other allies in Congress, and they get you shut down or overturned. Having GE around is like having a big stick to beat them over the head with, and also it gives you some Congressional power of your own. I know it shouldn’t be this way, but it is.

By: Jay Citizen

Jay Citizen — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 03:10:33 +0000

Good comments! Posting to track this discussion.

By: Tall Paul

Tall Paul — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:10:45 +0000

Competition, like profit and capitalism are not bad things — if they are fully embraced. As an F-16 operational pilot and test pilot of the F-16, F-15 and X-35 I can attest to the need for an alternative engine. During the 80’s and 90’s we were grounded numerous times for engine problems relative to one engine type. At times half our squadron’s aircraft were holes (airframes without engines). It’s more expensive initially to bid and build two engines but in the long run, it’s a money saver.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 22:34:01 +0000

It appears that the pro F-136 contingent can boil their position down to two arguments:
#1 Competition will provide innovation and reliability and management will not.
#2 Alternate engines are required for single engine combat aircraft because testing cannot reveal potentially fatal flaws.

Concerning both arguments, a more logical solution is to have better project management and testing, rather than spending billions more on an engine that is a bigger gamble than the current engine. (The F135 has a track record via the F119 while the F136 only has paper promises.) I have a hard time swallowing the argument that project management alone CANNOT produce enough incentives to P&W to ensure they produce a quality engine. I also have a hard time swallowing the argument that testing CANNOT reveal fatal flaws before they ground the entire fleet. Clearly, if we hold the program managers to an appropriate standard, then the F136 becomes a moot point.

By: @defaero

@defaero — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 18:49:32 +0000

There are a few assumptions woven into the comment threads that merit additional questioning and consideration.
1. Assumption that the Pratt F135 engine is flawed, will fail and ground the fleet, and that this problem will not plague the F136.
2. Assumption that the GE F136 is infallible and can shoulder the load if an F135 issue grounds the fleet. (note the prospect of the F135 shouldering the load of a fleet grounding due to an F136 issue obviates the entire F136 argument)
3. Assumption that competition sparks quality improvement in production. Price-based competition could potentially increase quality risk as pressure to perform on a thin margin becomes paramount.

Bottom line is the DoD had already weighed the risks and decided on a single engine strategy in an open competition. This is further supported by DoD’s current position where no combat aircraft enjoys the purported benefits of a dual-engine strategy. Granted I did not serve during the great engine war, nor experience what our pilots and maintainers suffered through, but to assume no learnings occurred in both the manufacturer and government management teams is a strong assumption.