Venlet Likes JSF Second Engine

Reagan November 23rd, 2010 at 2:27 pm

Some of you shop at JC Penny’s too much “the more you spend the more you save”. This is ridiculous, the GE/RR engine has already had malfunctions, and it’s only half way built!!! The PW engine is absurd when it comes to the amount of power it generates. Yea, PW has gone way over budget… but how does spending even more of MY money on another engine help that?? No reports from the GAO etc. have said with certainty that this money that we are giving to the UK to build this retarded extra engine will actually save any money!!!

Reagan November 23rd, 2010 at 4:06 pm

Have you seen that jet? that thing is a massive step forward in our Airforce, Navy, and Marine technology

Reagan November 23rd, 2010 at 4:21 pm

thanks for the info. I’ll have to look into that

Taxpayer November 24th, 2010 at 12:07 am

Ten years ago seven major and six minor JSF development issues were highlighted to Navy, Air Force and OSD leadership, including what year they were most likely to occur in and potential mitigation measures. Additional money was put up to address the first issue (inadequate number of test aircraft), which was later eaten up when costs increased for things the cost estimators said were adequately funded. Additional funding was not put up to address the other issues which could have maintained the development schedule at that time. (The second issue was inadequate number of flight testing hours. The third was avionics software development — the current problem.) As each issue comes due in sequence, managers finally acknowledge there is a problem, put some money against it and draw out the schedule even more. So what might have only taken 50% longer than the very ORIGINAL schedule if addresseed 10 years ago, may now take three times as long.

@Earlydawn November 24th, 2010 at 12:51 am

What happened to FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS? If they scream about technology maturation costs, then cite them a huge number. I’d rather have a five-hundred billion dollar *fixed price* agreement, if that means no cost overruns. You can plan around that. It also lets you stick them with part of the bill when they fail to deliver.

Brian November 24th, 2010 at 6:34 am

Yeah and guys like you keep touting the same lines from the f135 website and your paid off cagw.

The very fact that pw is investing so much time, energy, and $money$ into slamming the F136 over and over again is just a testament of HOW SCARED THEY ARE. Do you really think we are that stupid to believe that pw is on a quest to SAVE THE POCKETBOOK OF THE AMERICAN?

No. If pw wasn’t legitimately scared about the F136 being favored over the f135, then they would just sit back and let things play out.

The facts are that since 2006 the F136 has been embattled and funded at 80%. You can read the GAO report that states that the F136 has NEVER been over cost since its inception. The engine is on schedule considering the fact it was started later as was the plan since 1996.

SMSgt Mac November 24th, 2010 at 6:11 pm

Good comment, I would only add/clarify that the way it is supposed to work is that the development is done as a Cost Plus Incentive Fee and that once a system is ready to move out of LRIP and into Full Rate Production is when the risk is considered low enough to buy using a balance of need and economic order quantities. This lower risk point is where the DAU textbook signals the move to Fixed Price + Incentive contracts is warranted. The fact that LM and the USG were even able to close a FPI deal during LRIP is pretty extraordinary. Too bad the Innumerati can’t grasp how really different buying a weapon system you’re going to use for 30–50 years is compared to buying a car at year-end closeout.

JRL November 24th, 2010 at 6:52 pm

“Too bad the Innumerati can’t grasp how really different buying a weapon system you’re going to use for 30–50 years is compared to buying a car at year-end closeout. ”

What’s really too bad is that the fanboys can’t grasp the reality of the fact that it is extremely unlikely that anything like the F-35 will be able to operate against a near-peer adversary 20 years from now, much less after 30–50 yrs. Moore’s Law and the accelerating advances in sensor and nano-technology will spell the doom any fat , ungainly transonic blowtorch that tries to penetrate protected airspace at med altitude. And for the dirt wars, you just don’t need the exorbitantly expensive benefits of stealth and Buck Rogers-grade avionics.

Cocidius November 26th, 2010 at 12:29 pm

Would the LM PowerPoint show insisting that the JSF is going to cost $60 million each which they’ve been spewing for years be considered creative accounting, or just flat out lying?

Now we have an official price at an average of $125 million each for LRIP IV, yet the total expenditure will come in somewhere between $4.6 — $5.1 billion dollars, not the $3.5 billion quoted by LM. This is glossed over by the same moronic double talk about non-reoccurring development costs that won’t apply later, like at some point in the future the JSF Program will actually cost less then forecast (hasn’t happened yet)!

It doesn’t take a math genius to see that the BS is flying again, and that costs per aircraft are actually much higher then the latest “official price”.

This intense effort to cover up the real total costs of the JSF program can only be explained by one thing, the F-35 is rapidly approaching the market price point of the much hated F-22 much to the embarrassment of Mr. Gates.

Then there’s the elephant in the room ignored to this point, the greatly reduced initial orders from the international partners (the nations of the unwilling). How will this impact the overall price of the JSF Program?

Jeff November 29th, 2010 at 7:49 am

The real question you have to ask is whether the price of the second engine can be justified. At the price of research of the second engine whatever impact on price this “competition” has would have to be fairly significant. Between whatever “saving” the unit price of the second engine might have and the reduction in price to compete on a price point would need to amount to $2M per plane (+30% spare engines) to break even on the research cost. At last referenced the price was about $10M for the first engine, so financially they’re looking for an almost 20% price reduction on the engine, to break even.

This is exactly why no company will pay for the R&D for anything big the government wants. Imagine if they had developed the engine on their own dime, they’d either need that 20% margin to justify the research. Companies need that 20% to fund future research.