Comments on: QDR Panel Dodges F136 Support

By: William C.

William C. — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 18:01:37 +0000

Compared to the TF30 the F100-PW-100 was a huge improvement in that regard. The P&W engineers looked at statistics (engine cycles, time at specific power levels, etc.) gathered from the previous generation of fighters when considering how much stress the F100 would be subject to on average. Yet the leap in performance provided by the F-15/F100 combination meant that pilots quickly were exceeding these numbers and pushing their aircraft to new limits. This led to the maintenance issues the F100 encountered and the compressor stall problems as well. By the time the F100-PW-220 was introduced these had largely been corrected.

By: Donald Whitten

Donald Whitten — Wed, 16 Feb 2011 17:20:45 +0000

the P&W engine required the pilot to spend too muchtime scanning engine instrument to avoid compressor stall. The F110 took the pilots attention out of the cockpit and back to the flying. Was there.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 19:04:54 +0000

You should educate yourself on the early F404… Funny how 100% of the USN being F404/F414 poweref F/A-18s does not concern you.

Of course what you ALSO fail to realize/recognize or ignor is that the initial F100 issues were resolved LONG ago (& could have been sooner than they were if the USAF and P&W could have resolved their differences on how to do it) being as or more reliable as the F110 with sililar thust but lower weight…

Not to mention that unlike the early F100 & F404, the F135 is meeting or exceeding performance & reliability expectations.

Last but not least if you were at all informed you would already know that most logistics/maintenance personnel are less than favorable about the whole F100/F110 issue.

By: Steve

Steve — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 21:44:14 +0000

Would it be tough..sure, but not impossible. You'd have to remember that with most big manufacturing companies they have what's called "Standard work" between engine models they make. The design is still there, grant it any "learned out" knowledge might go away when those people leave the program or the company, but that's only a small part of overall production. You have to argue whether or not those future costs are greater than the costs to keep this engine alive now. Another thing to consider is the companies ability to come up with newer technologies in that timeframe and proving out present day technologies, technologies proven out on both military (F18 engine) and commercial (GEnX engines).

By: TRG

TRG — Tue, 03 Aug 2010 12:53:24 +0000

Maybe that would be the correct approach for a future program, but the F136 is over 75% complete at this point and is scheduled for flight test in 2011. You can’t just mothball the F136 at this point and expect GE and RR to retain indefinetly all the people they have working the effort. Once the people are moved to other efforts or layed-off it would be tough to re-group at a future date and complete the project.

By: John L

John L — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:22:43 +0000

You miss my point — I’m not arguing that we should blindly follow the mantra of cost savings through commonality on which the entire premise of the JSF program is based, nor am I arguing that we need to crank up a second production line for alternative design TacAir fighters (as jdk took this line of reasoning to the logical conclusion).

I’m simply stating that the simplistic rationales being foisted to support either position are based upon a selective reading of history.

By: jcs

jcs — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:29:14 +0000

ahhhh…I meant “creating lots of F100 volume”

By: jcs

jcs — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:28:32 +0000

John…correct me if I’m wrong here, but doesn’t your 1st point actually prove the need for competition? Even when common with the F-15 (creating lots of F110 volume), F100 pricing and performance didn’t see dramatic improvement until the F110 competition began.

That said, I completely agree with your message to “concerned tax payer”.

By: John L

John L — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:13:46 +0000

What all the proponents of “competitive engines” who point to the great engine war of the 1970s seem to forget is that one of the key discriminators the Secretary of the Air Force cited in selecting the YF-16 over the YF-17 was the selection of the F100 engine — commonality with the premier F-15 air superiority fighter was supposed to drive down unit costs via commonality.

Listen — this whole “debate” is nothing more than marketing, with both sides cherry picking “facts” and taking anecdotal evidence out of context to further their own economic goals.

And to “Concerned Tax Payer” — please read up on the saga of the Northrop F-20 as a lesson to why defense suppliers will never again independently fund a major weapons system or subsystem: there is too much unquantifiable risk of the whims of your single customer turning and completely upending your business model. Under that environment, no sane investor would ever roll the dice; hence you get the current system.

By: William C.

William C. — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 12:46:39 +0000

Exactly! Lets get the F-35 in production and meeting it’s requirements first.

By: Benjamin

Benjamin — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 20:50:39 +0000

What I remember about the Great Engine War was that it did not start until several years after the F-16 was operational. Why can’t we just hang the F136 up until the time the F135 shows that there should be an alternative engine if ever? This would save some money.

By: BillG

BillG — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:06:43 +0000

“it sucked” (?), but it was apparently better than anything else anyone had to offer at the time.

By: sth

sth — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 10:13:39 +0000

If anyone with current (not 35 year old problems) experience on any of the 5th generation engines in service (that would be just the P&W F119) want to “chime in” that would be MORE constructive. I bet pilots and maintainers REALLY love that engine.

By: jetdoc

jetdoc — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:29:27 +0000

Conversely Pilots that I have spoken with love the P&W F100… still no reason to have an “alternate engine” that the military does not want… btw, significant technology differences between the early to mid 80s then 2010 (current engines) really make comparison debates pointless…

By: TRG

TRG — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 03:03:09 +0000

The F-16/F100 required an alternate because it sucked so bad, the F-35/F135 because it will comprise about 90% of our future airpower. If any USAF logistics/maintenance personnel would like to chime in with their opinion of the Great Engine War that would be very constructive. Pilots that I have personally spoken with love the GE F-110.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:55:19 +0000

I will ask again…

Why is it ONLY the F-16/F100 & F-35/F135 ‘require’ an ‘alternate/competition’ engine?

Why doesn’t EVERY aircraft have two ‘alternate/competition’ engines?
Why not have two ‘alternate/competition’ for EVERY single individual system/component?

Why don’t you ask USAF logistics/maintenance personnel about how ‘great’ the ‘alternate/competition’ F100/F110 REALLY is? ;)

By: jdk

jdk — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 22:49:00 +0000

Nonsense. Maybe we ought to fund the X-32 afterall, you know, competition and all. Gotta love GE for trying though.

By: Concerned tax payer

Concerned tax payer — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:06:49 +0000

I spent four years in the US Air Force as a Jet Engine Tech. Once I left the military I proceeded on to college to get a degree in marketing and then proceeded into the commercial avaiation industry. Once I started working in the real world I realized Uncle Sams waste a lot of money on these programs.
In the real world these companies (GE, RR, and PWA) spend their own money developing these engines with hopes of qualifying through the FAA to hang this engine on a particular aircraft wing. The F-35 program is a large program that they all stand to make billions of dollars off. Why don’t they spend their own money developing these engines and let a competition between them decide who wins the contract? If they are both qualified canidates then let them try and sell their engine to the countries who are purchasing the F-35.

By: Formula

Formula — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:32:13 +0000

Well, since the panel gave examples of missiles being good examples for competition and the fact that the missile competition brought down costs, and the fact that missiles are much cheaper than propulsion systems (the highest cost sub-system on a fighter) and the fact that the panels example for the missiles were less in quantity than F35 engine purchases.… its safe to say that the panel definitely would consider the propulsion system for the F35 a great candidate for competition. If the panel does not agree with competing the engines, then its safe to say that the panels report is flawed and should not be trusted and that the Acquisition Reform Act signed by President Obama in 2009 is not worth the paper it was written on…. it’s that simple America. Lets stop playing this political game of trying to slant every fact that comes forward that inexplicitly shows the alternate engine as a viable candidate for competition. The alternate engine is the prudent step in the right direction for the F35 program and the taxpayers.

By: pennst98

pennst98 — Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:14:00 +0000

Wow.….they did the right thing. I don’t know what to write.….