Now, I’ve been dead set against the idea of spending money on an alternate engine to the JSF — seeing it purely as a jobs program for GE/Rolls and their congressional benefactors.
And now it seems our friends from Av Week have added to the long standing Pentagon policy, quoting the program’s top official saying “we don’t want the engine…but I know I’m going to get it anyway”…(my quotes not his)…
And I love this “competitive advantage” argument…If there are efficiencies found in competition of this scale, why not just bring Boeing back into the picture and compete all the parts of the plane? In any case, I liked the look of the Boeing concept demonstrator anyway.
Without further ado, our Av Week installment:
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
The top Joint Strike Fighter official says he unequivocally supports President Barack Obama’s fiscal 2010 budget request, which does not seek funds for a second JSF engine — but he is still planning for the F136 and suggests Washington consider the risk otherwise.
Citing the potential for “competitive advantage” from alternate engines for the single-engine F-35, and noting that there could be an operational risk some day from having just one engine, Marine Corps Brig. Gen. David Heinz told reporters at the JSF Joint Program Office June 2 that there might be considerations beyond the financial cost of funding dual powerplant efforts.
“Do we still believe that’s acceptable?” Heinz asked rhetorically.
Meantime, the general — selected for his second star after his promotion from deputy program chief — says it would be irresponsible for him not to plan for both engine efforts. “I have to,” he asserts, adding it would be “downright reckless” not to after Congress has earmarked funds for the second engine several times already. And besides, military officials spend a lot of their time planning for things that do not happen, he joked.
Heinz explained to the roundtable of reporters that funding development of a second engine from within the existing F-35 budget would cut production by 50 or more aircraft and push up program costs — a point he made to Aviation Week last week. But the program executive officer also stressed that economic modeling was difficult, and that a competition for the engines would likely drive down costs.
Heinz further asserted that the primary Pratt & Whitney F135 engine has yet to truly compete with the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136, regardless of what Pratt and some supporters may suggest.
Assuming the program’s planned ramp-up and a 50–50 split engine order during the sixth low-rate initial production tranche, fiscal 2013 would be the first genuine year of the rivalry. Such a race could bring technology advancements too, the general notes. “They are just beginning in that competition,” he says.
Read the rest of this story, check out DARPA’s ‘jump jeep’ and listen to a sweet podcast from our good friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
more info here:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/heinz-transcript-part-2-the-ri.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/heinz-transcript-part-3-the-be.html
> why not just bring Boeing back into the picture and compete all the parts of the plane?
because the frame is cheap
because you can’t swap out a frame like you can an engine
ps they are talking about competing the radar
You LIKED the look of the X-34? That makes exactly two people that I know of who did: you and Phil Condit (I kid!)
Seriously,
Stripping away the politically-motivated players, the
> If that is as far as it goes as a reason to follow the dual engine strategy, then it is a pretty stupid reason.
assuming that it WON’T result in a cost savings when it has in the past is even stupider
—————–
The F100 and F110 aren’t truly interchangeble — you can build the airframe with one or the other at the time of manufacture, but you’re not going to swap between types in the field. The competition aspect gives leverage up to the time of purchase, but afterwards you’ve got to support that engine and any problems for 20–25 years anyway. If you’re not placing orders for new aircraft, the engine manufacturer STILL has you over the barrel.
————–
exactly, and even with that limited amount of competition, they were still able to drop engine prices 20%
pretty impressive considering the constraints they were working under
since the competition for the F-35 will be EVEN MORE since the engines will be interchangeable, i’d be inclined to treat the 20% as a floor
and you all act like this is some novel, one-off event
umm, NO
competition has been proved over and over and over to reduce costs
But we are not talking about real competition this time, those are not companies investing their own money. Both are/will be being heavily subsided.
now, i understand more better. its like my glasses part, the frame itself is cheap, maybe, 45 cents but damn ‘em glasses r jacked up the price and i ended up paying 100 dollars, just for the glasses!!
the great fighter engine war WAS funded by the Gov’t the last time, to correct an alleged non-responsive contractor. The issue wasn’t cost at the time. The issue was operating envelope and reliability.
Three questions for the ‘do compete’ side:
1. Where will competition yield sufficient cost savings this time around?
2. How much savings will be needed to make it worthwhile: 12%(GAO)? 25%(DoD CAIG)? 40% (IDA)? estimates have caveats attached: http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609issbf.aspx
3. How will the savings from answers to Q1 reach the levels of the answer to Q2?
> http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2009/June%202009/0609issbf.aspx
some of the phrasing is a bit disingenuous
> Thus, for the second time in the memories of P&W executives, the company faces the risk of seeing a competitive result overturned
there was no ‘competition’ for the F-35 engine. The F135 was the ONLY candidate that could be completed on time, BECAUSE it was based off the F119 which was the ONLY engine for the F-22
winning the F-22 engine GUARANTEED that it would win at least the initial F-35 engine contracts.
If the F136 is killed, the cycle will be continued and we will essentially be granting P&W a fighter engine monopoly in perpetuity, as no other engine will receive enough money to be competitive.
> 1. Where will competition yield sufficient cost savings this time around?
>20%
> 2. How much savings will be needed to make it worthwhile: 12%(GAO)? 25%(DoD CAIG)? 40% (IDA)?
12% obviously
> 3. How will the savings from answers to Q1 reach the levels of the answer to Q2?
in one case (12%) it will obviously save money, in one case (25%) it will be approximately cost neutral and in one case (40%) it will lose money
so in 2/3 of the cases there is at least no financial harm from the competition
(let me just say as a side note that there is no way in hell it would require a 40% savings to break even, that doesn’t even pass the sniff test)
and then you add in the non-financial considerations
– fighter engine industrial base
– future engine competitions
– possible fleetwide groundings
– improved reliability
– better responsiveness
– possible better performance (both from the competition in general and because the F136 was specifically designed to take advantage of the enlarged inlets that were added later to the F-35)
> The issue wasn’t cost at the time. The issue was operating envelope and reliability.
nevertheless, it still resulted in a 20% savings
> 1. Where will competition yield sufficient cost savings this time around?
>20%
********
No, I mean ‘where’ as in where in the process/program? i.e. EMD costs? Production Costs? Supportability Costs? Where?
Note: I’m not being snarky here. These are real Q’s, not ‘challenges’ per se
EMD Costs:
Where in the engine program is there technology being pushed that requires some tough technological breakthroughs? Driving the lift fan on the minor variant looks like a tough job, but the rest seems rather pedestrian. Perhaps some evolutionary manufacturing processes are coming out but I haven’t heard of any envelope-pushing tech except as perhaps those in a marketing pitch.
Production Costs:
Maybe a case can be made for production throughput challenges at anticipated full rate production levels, but what else? Any gains worth having two production lines to get?
Supportability Costs:
Two logistics tails and double the # of end items. How can the systems be made more supportable through such competition? In the 80’s we (DoD and AF in particular) worked hard to double reliability and halve maintenance (R&M 2000 program) We squeezed that lemon pretty hard to get 2-level maintenance and no on-equipment work a reality (and practically KILLED ‘Quality Force’ IMHO) Are we going to get anything like that to happen this time around?
> No, I mean ‘where’ as in where in the process/program? i.e. EMD costs? Production Costs? Supportability Costs? Where?
procurement costs
there may be additional supportability cost savings
how exactly they would reduce procurement costs is left as an exercise to P&W and GE. I don’t know and you don’t know how they will do it, but history says they will
If i knew how, i would make a lot money selling it to one of them
P&W and GE are full of very smart people and i have full confidence in their ability to find cost savings when it suddenly becomes a priority
P.S. some of your arguments sound like the ‘everything that can be invented has been invented’ guy
there was a story about a chemical plant that gave money to people who came up with ways to reduce energy usage. It was very successful and saved a lot of money
the next year, they almost didn’t do it again since they figured all the best ideas had already been taken. But they did it anyways and ended up finding even MORE energy savings than they had the first year
never assume the lemon has been squeezed dry
RE:“some of your arguments sound like the ‘everything that can be invented has been invented’ guy“
Heh.
I think I can find quite a few people who would tell you I am THE ‘ANTI-everything-that-can-be-invented-has-been-invented’ guy.
My questions are tailored and focused only on the engines under discussion as they now exist.
If we were speaking of more ‘developmental’ efforts involving more exotic materials and immature designs (such as newer geared turbofan and variable cycle designs) then I would see more opportunity and advantages for ‘competition’. I would also see more reason for it if the current engine effort was in serious trouble, with ‘serious’ being defined by the JPO — the entity responsible for the acquisition.
put on consideration on the safe side better take action on developing thi f136 engine than single engine f135.
This whole argument is one that pits one corporate structure against the other, as has been amply stated. However, if R&D/ production costs are truly the driving factor in the JSF aircraft/ dual engine program then the largest variable must be brought to light. The Third Rail of all military programs. The production and program cost over-runs generated by a contracted unionized labor force. Case in point, how far behind delivery schedule was the F-22 and how far over budget? All detractors of advancing the military’s capabilities by investing in a limited, but necessary, improvement of current and future weapon system programs seem to conveniently leave out the largest portion of the total program cost. Saleried and Unionized Labor. To the unions (and yes after retirement (USAF) I was once in a unionized shop, but could not stand the obstructive mindset, so I quit) a new weapon system program is a Jobs Program and the goal of any jobs program is to keep it going as long as possible to secure long term employment. Thus, generating delayed deliveries and program cost over-runs. Do you seriously think the JSF is going to be fielded on time and under budget, dual engine program or not? Also, I know for a fact that Pratt does not want GE in the running to take the JSF engine program from them, as they have done with the new production F-15’s (now with F110’s) and with no/ limited future aircraft engine programs this one will have to last a while.
Anybody think I am wrong?
Make that three people…I thought the x34 had promise…and reminded me of the old A7 Corsair and F8 Crusader crossed with the “A17” Flying dorito design. IIRC, it also had less moving parts than the ducted fan on the F-35/X-35 STOVL concept, since it was direct thrust, not ducted fans.
Yah, it was ugly…but guess what, if it does what its supposed to, ugly works…just like the F4, or the A10
we need a special samurai warriors who can use the Aiki power blowing out of their arses! just imagine the power of F35 flying 8 hours by mach 9 with a small samurai farting his Aiki instead of the engine! WOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!!!
this thread is dead..
“Direct thrust” vs geared fan. Direct thrust ala Harrier et al can never produce the lift the cold air fan can produce with the same engine. Simple physics.
The –34 was ugly to these eyes precisely because there was no “functional” to see even functional beauty to it, especially after they redesigned the delta wing to a flying tail design.
What I find most ammusing is that the supposed cost/risk saving are to somehow be accomplished buy forcing the cost/risk of the more costly/risky/less mature engine…