Comments on: JSF Program Chief Talks Competing Engines

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 22:17:42 +0000

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…

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:48:43 +0000

“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.

By: alice

alice — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 05:56:25 +0000

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..

By: coolhand77

coolhand77 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:51:57 +0000

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

By: RR

RR — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:20:19 +0000

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?

By: mwinyikai

mwinyikai — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:48:01 +0000

put on consideration on the safe side better take action on developing thi f136 engine than single engine f135.

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 05:07:17 +0000

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.

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 04:11:45 +0000

> 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

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:56:35 +0000

> 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?

By: irtusk

irtusk — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:48:31 +0000

> The issue wasn’t cost at the time. The issue was operating envelope and reliability.
nevertheless, it still resulted in a 20% savings