Home » Air » House will try again to revive alternate engine

House will try again to revive alternate engine

By Philip Ewing Wednesday, May 4th, 2011 10:10 am
Posted in Air

What, you thought GE and Rolls-Royce were just going to give up just because the Pentagon terminated their F136 alternate engine? Nope. As Bloomberg’s Roxana Tiron writes, congressional lawmakers plan to use today’s scheduled budget markups to try to reanimate this zombie — yet again. This time, Republicans want to write next year’s budget in such a way as to force DoD to fund the F136 if it wants to continue funding development of the F-35. Wrote Tiron:

Representative Roscoe Bartlett, a Maryland Republican who leads the air and land forces subcommittee, proposed Tuesday as part of the bill to limit money spent on improving the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine unless the secretary of defense makes funds available for “two options” for the F-35 propulsion system. His panel is scheduled to debate the proposal Wednesday.

Continued Tiron

Reinstating the terminated GE-Rolls-Royce program would entail having the companies fund the work themselves for at least the remainder of 2011 and during 2012, according to GE Aviation spokesman Rick Kennedy. “We expect that we are going to be asked to self-fund the program for 2011 and 2012, and we are prepared to do that,” Kennedy said in a telephone interview. “It is going to require significant commitment from us.” The House Armed Services Committee chairman, Representative Howard P. “Buck” McKeon, said he would seek to keep the second engine alive. Like McKeon, Bartlett also supports the development of a backup engine for the F-35.

GE and Rolls-Royce are gambling they’ll have enough engine supporters in the Senate to make this thing go through, otherwise they probably wouldn’t be willing to spend so much of their own money keeping this development going. But with the billions of dollars they could realize if they ever do get a contract to build engines for the F-35, that seed money could look like peanuts.

Join the Conversation

	PacificSentinel May 4th, 2011 at 10:26 am LoL Here we go again!
	Gregory Savage May 4th, 2011 at 11:15 am GE is crazy. Drop this turkey please.
	Josh May 4th, 2011 at 11:32 am This is why lobbyists should be banned from interacting with politicians upon penalty of prosecution.
	Jeff May 4th, 2011 at 12:10 pm This is ridiculous… on the constantly used “cost” saving stance this will never save money. Its gone too far past that point with R&D costs. It or the F135 have to magically cost $4M less to justify the dollars spent on the F136, just to break even. Just to bring down the cost 7% P&W had to lay off employees… how can anyone be expected to spontaneously make $12M engines cost a third less, when at best they can only expect to sell fewer.
	Justin May 4th, 2011 at 12:41 pm Competition is what the F-35 program needs to help control sky-rocketing costs. It worked on the F-16 program and it will work on the F-35 program.
	Drake1 May 4th, 2011 at 12:43 pm Typical.
	"Pukin Dog" 01 May 4th, 2011 at 12:44 pm This piece of Crap F-35 along with GE are a Complete WASTE OF Government Funding. Each JSF cost $160,000,000.00 Million EACH.
	"Pukin Dog" 01 May 4th, 2011 at 12:59 pm Representative Roscoe Bartlett is out of his MIND. In fact GE or Lockheed is paying him or one of his children to push this carzy idea through the congress. We could purchase thousands of UAV’s and additional CALCM, JSSSM, SLAM-ER’s for the cost of ONE JSF. STOP THE MADNESS
	halcyon May 4th, 2011 at 1:01 pm I think the F-35 costs are so far out of control at this point there is no way an engine program will make a dent.
	Formula May 4th, 2011 at 1:25 pm I can’t believe you guys. We finally get the contractor to foot the bill and you still complain. We need more companies like GE to step up to the plate during hard times. Have you heard that P&W’s F135 requires about 1B in upgrades/modifications to address the thrust issue? Not to mention they are already 3.5B over budget.….thats almost 5B of additional tax payer dollars being spent for what??? Keep in mind, the F135 has NOT even reachd IOC yet. I’ve been there and I have seen it first hand, this single engine fighter is going to be a nightmare to the tax payer if we keep ONLY ONE propulsion system. Let competition proceeed and let the BEST engine win.
	Araya May 4th, 2011 at 1:40 pm This are bad news but not on all aspects. The USAF don’t need the F136 engine but this stupid Project make the F35 Program harder to kill for Communists like Barney Frank. The most Lawmakers defend not the interests of the Country but there defend the own Interest how are mainly the Interest of their District. Them now Lawmaker has a F136 factory in his District he will be strong motivated to defend the entire F35 Program this is the cause why I think the F136 make the F35 Program more survivable in the face of coming Budget Battle. I ’m not a friend of the F136 Engine is real for this money you can buy more important things like drones, JSSAMs and over things but in this Budget situation I ’m for the F136 to strength the support for the F35 program.
	"Pukin Dog" 01 May 4th, 2011 at 1:56 pm GE needs to Rot in Hell with bin-laden, Lockheed Martin, and of the useless Wall Street Gangs that rip off the American Military and the Tax Payers. Senior Leadership a the Pentagon are Mesmerize by GE and Lockeed and all the rest of the integrators. They need to fire all the Senior Leadership at the Pentagon; in fact all those that attend those politically correct Military Academy’s. Let’s get some leadership at the Pentagon that will make a difference. Fire all the individuals in J1, J2, J3, J4, NII, JROC that includes J6 and J8.
	sferrin May 4th, 2011 at 2:06 pm Damn, we have some crooked politicians.
	Josh May 4th, 2011 at 2:57 pm The problem is that GE is simply treading water until it can get its bough-and-paid-for senators to get them a peice of the big JSF pie but working the alternate engine back into the program through legislation. I don’t like the F135 engine and would have preferred a REAL engine competition for this aircraft but at this point I’d be happy to just get the damn thing into service in some workable form.
	WW2 May 4th, 2011 at 3:04 pm Love all the GE and Pratt employees posting on this thread. Who honestly feels that strongly about a stupid engine? Still — what’s the big deal here? If GE wants to pay for it, let ‘em. It’s their money. Isn’t this what we’ve been bitching at contractors to be doing for years? Pratt’s engine is way overcost already anyway, so I don’t care if they have to play nice with GE and compete for the government pork.
	DensityDuck May 4th, 2011 at 4:00 pm This comment brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.
	DensityDuck May 4th, 2011 at 4:01 pm Oh, PS: I like how the F-35 costs a hundred sixty QUADRILLION dollars. That’s some pretty serious cost growth right there!
	DensityDuck May 4th, 2011 at 4:03 pm How will we have sun-synchronous orbits if we get rid of J2?
	WW2 May 4th, 2011 at 4:05 pm House members, not Senators. You’re extra credible when you don’t even know who you should be screaming at.
	bob May 4th, 2011 at 4:37 pm never say die boys. trust me the F136 is a go, and will be on the F35. let it go and accept it. I agrre we should cancel the all service F35 because it will never go into all three services and suceed. Second what most folks are missing is the foreign military sales side. All the countries that are buying the F35 and who are paying for the develoment want the F136 because GE has partners in these countires and thus these countries will buy the F136 not the F135, so to this point these countries are pushing congress and DOD to include the f136. As REO speed wagn once sang keep pushin on.
	Formula May 4th, 2011 at 5:16 pm Right on Bob, I like what you are saying WW2. There is much discussion on the Hill and in the Pentagon on what the REAL consequences are if they truly terminate the F136. I don’t think the LOGICAL people (new freshman congressman) who voted against it on the floor by that sly move from ROONEY OR LOONEY, whatever his name is.…he won’t win his next election. What I’m trying to say is, yes, the foreign partners who have contributed and continue to contribute signed up to the JSF thinking they were going to have an engine choice. The MOA has it spelled out that there will be a choice of the F135 or F136. Aside from that, I think Gates, as clever as he is pulled this off knowing GE would self fund the majority of SDD and that they would be back into the race in a year or so. Besides, the F35 program has slipped again to the right and it will slip again before it goes IOC. So, in the long run, the tax payer will save money because GE self funded a large portion, the war fighters in the U.S and abroad will have a choice between engines, and both contractors will work their butts off to keep their engines affordable. What a great plan.
	NEVETSG May 4th, 2011 at 5:50 pm Let me get this straight…you’re claiming GE is going to “self fund” their program?? The same GE that didn’t pay taxes last yr and even got a refund because their financial arm helped screw up our economy?? Please! Put down the crack pipe Formula and get your head out of your ****!! This program needs to die a horrible death in short order!!
	Bronco46 May 4th, 2011 at 7:15 pm Someone is getting paid on this deal. Any time some thing like this just won’t die; there’s money in it for someone. And I don’t mean GE.
	NEVETSG May 4th, 2011 at 9:43 pm No you do mean GE, they got millions back from the govt without paying taxes!!
	PacificSentinel May 4th, 2011 at 11:12 pm But at least it… “would entail having the companies fund the work themselves for at least the remainder of 2011 and during 2012″ …at the end of 2012, if it’s still not working, just cancel it again, the only people that will lose out will be GE-Rolls.
	pfcem May 4th, 2011 at 11:14 pm A) The F-35 program already had competition, LM won. B) Costs are NOT sky-rocketing, just the BS cost projections that ignor reality. C) The so-called “great Engine War” ignorant fools like you call competition was NOT competition but (like the whole F136 debacle) government intrusion in military affairs. The F-16 would have been better off without it just as 99+% of combat platforms (land, sea & air) throughout history managed without ‘alternative’ engines.
	pfcem May 4th, 2011 at 11:34 pm GE is hardly footing the bill. It is ‘investing’ ~$100 million a year for a year or two (compared to the nearly $500 million a year it has been getting from the US government) in the hopes that once again Congress will overstep its charter & tell the US military what to do (& be honest the whole F136 thing is just SOME in Congress trying to get a piece of the F-35 engine program pie to their supports). Have you heard that the F135 is & has been EXCEEDING thrust requirements/expectations…OR that ~1/3 of the F136 ‘overbudget’ is in fact COMMON developement costs for BOTH engines…OR that, unlike the F136, is IN PRODUCTION & will achieve IOC whenever the F-35 does — the F135 is NOT holding up the F-35. Having more than one propulsion system IS a nightmare, just ask any F-16 operator who is/was unfortunate enought to deal with the F100 & F110. And why not have a competiton for each & every component…That’s what I thought, it isn’t about ‘competition’ at all is it?
	pfcem May 4th, 2011 at 11:34 pm GE is hardly footing the bill. It is ‘investing’ ~$100 million a year for a year or two (compared to the nearly $500 million a year it has been getting from the US government) in the hopes that once again Congress will overstep its charter & tell the US military what to do (& be honest the whole F136 thing is just SOME in Congress trying to get a piece of the F-35 engine program pie to their supports). Have you heard that the F135 is & has been EXCEEDING thrust requirements/expectations…OR that ~1/3 of the F136 ‘overbudget’ is in fact COMMON developement costs for BOTH engines…OR that, unlike the F136, is IN PRODUCTION & will achieve IOC whenever the F-35 does — the F135 is NOT holding up the F-35. Having more than one propulsion system IS a nightmare, just ask any F-16 operator who is/was unfortunate enought to deal with the F100 & F110. And why not have a competiton for each & every component…That’s what I thought, it isn’t about ‘competition’ at all is it?
	Flyright May 5th, 2011 at 9:08 am Why is it so hard for GE to take no for an answer. No more taxpayer dollars for a wasteful unnecessary extra engine for the F-35. President Bush said no. President Obama has said no. The US Senate said no by a vote of 59–38. The House said no 233–198. Secretary Gates canceled the program. The engines are now shrink wrapped and in storage. And GE will never really spend $1 million a day to work on the engine. Who are GE’s House advocates kidding? This exercise is all about corporate arrogance and CEO ego. How else to explain it?
	exnuc May 5th, 2011 at 9:20 am The problem with your competition argument is that only the airframe was in competition, engines weren’t. And the “great engine war” did provide numerous benefits to the pilots of the F-16. I do not like wasting money any more than the next guy. But I am for this competition between the engines based on the technical factors involved. Frankly, I do not know which engine should be used. I do know that each has merits and cost is only one factor that should be considered, not the only factor. If cost was the only thing to consider perhaps we should be flying WW1 Spads.
	Jrob316 May 5th, 2011 at 11:08 am Their was a competition. Pratt won by actually having a system that worked, DoD went with them. Why in **** keep funding GE to try and play catch-up. They don’t have an operational engine, they are years from it. Pratt had an engine that met or exceeded every single spec. That would seem to be a no brainer in my opinion. But since congress has “no brains” it has turned out to be a lil harder than it should have. How EADS isn’t getting this same treatment in the refueler deal, I have no idea. Too bad they aren’t in congress’ pockets like GE.
	MM99 May 5th, 2011 at 2:42 pm There was never an engine competition. Check with the JSF historian. The F135 was chosen by both LM and Boeing at the time because it’s basic core engine (the F119 used in the F22) was available for the Concept Demonstration phase, It was always planned by the Government to have a follow on “alternative” engine developed to ensure competition during early LRIP and full production.
	cut-n-shoot May 5th, 2011 at 5:04 pm You supporters of the GE extra engine have got to be either delusional or GE employees. GE is putting out so much BS about the capability of their engine ( that has never flown and still sits on a test stand) and the so-called problems of the Pratt & Whitney engine you’d think that the Nazi propaganda director Joseph Goebbels was now working for GE. The fact is there will be no 21% savings — GAO never said that. There will not be an additional $1 billion in F135 thrust requirement — only GE says that. The vast bulk of the cost overruns that GE says are Pratt’s fault are from scope changes asked for by DoD. The GE engine is 4 to 5 years behind the Pratt engine that is already flying operationally in F-35s. The $3 billion DoD calculates, only gets the GE engine to the point it completes research & development, so it can be put on a plane. There will be additional cost to the taxpayer after that, which hasn’t even been calculated by DoD.
	cut-n-shoot May 5th, 2011 at 5:05 pm And, oh by the way, GE lost the original commercial market competition for the engine, yet think they are still entitled to get part of the contract via Congressional earmarks, even though it will be on the back of the taxpayer. This is the most appalling aspect of their arrogance since they apparently pay no taxes. GE needs to get a grip and start looking at what future opportunities they have for other military engines (next gen bomber for example) and stop burning bridges with the department that will decide who gets those contracts. (note to you GE employees: your corporate leadership, who obviously have manhood issues with Pratt, are playing right into the hands of your competition. Keep it up and loose the next big contract too.)
	MM99 May 6th, 2011 at 6:05 pm What commercial market competition for the the engine? There has never been a competition between the F135 and F136 engines.
	qwerty May 7th, 2011 at 5:29 pm So we can count you as an opponent of the first amendment?
	NEVETSG May 9th, 2011 at 12:01 pm I believe GE fielded the YF120 for the ATF (F22), the JSF120 for the JSF and now the F136 for the JSF. All were rejected. This is what competition is, you can whine and cry but it doesn’t change history. http://www.geae.com/aboutgeae/presscenter/militar… http://www.geaviation.com/engines/military/f136/b…
	MM99 May 10th, 2011 at 11:28 am I believe the competition was for the airframe, not the engines in the case of the YF-22/YF-23 and the AF went with the simpler technology in the F119 vice the dual cycle of the F120. The JSF120 was I believe the initial core testing of what would become the F136 and the competition between the F135 and F136 was to take place once the F136 completed SDD under the original program. So to date, there has not been a competition between the F135 and F136.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

House will try again to revive alternate engine

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments