It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

F35 alternative engine to be cancelled

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
AWST


The Pentagon is killing the alternate engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) in the fiscal 2010 Defense Department budget request.

The move will cease funding for the F136 General Electric/Rolls-Royce engine for the JSF, leaving funding only for Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine. But lawmakers have restored the program’s funding every time the Pentagon has sought to cut it in the past. The alternate engine program received $465 million from Congress in FY ‘09. Still, lawmakers have restored the program’s funding every time the Pentagon - under President George W. Bush - has sought to cut it in recent years.



The F136 was the requirement for the UK to stay in the programme , could it be that they knew this ,and gone ahead with Typhoon tranche 3 AND possibly a new navalised fighter?

given the economical climate , this will likely cost jobs.

[edit on 5/16/09 by FredT]




posted on May, 16 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   
If the UK wants the alternative engine so bad, why not finance the sucker? Gone are the days we can afford such luxuries IMHO



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
I don't see why they need a limited (short ranged, heavy, 1000lb munitions only) STOVL jet when their carrier can have CATOBAR fitted. Cancel the F-35B, and grab the F-35C or navalised Eurofighter.


Since its inception in 1997, Congress has provided approximately $2.5 billion for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program. The alternate engine program is expected to need an additional $900 million through 2013 to complete the development of the F136 engine.

www.fas.org...


We've already spent $2.5B on an engine that has been cancelled 3x now, and needs almost another BILLION, but has yet to fly. Why do they NEED the F136 anyway, and if they do WHY do they need the U.S to finance it? If someone wants a GE/RR in their Lightning II then THEY should fund it, why use DoD $$ to fund an engine that wasn't chosen during the initial contract? How can an engine which wasn't chosen, that has been cancelled three times, be required for participation? In reality I just can't see them cancelling the F-35, F136 was never chosen, and has already been 'cancelled' many times over. If they were going to cancel it over these grounds they would of done it a long time ago. If they want it, they fund it, or else go buy Eurofighter.

[edit on 16/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Put simply, the F136 was one of the main points for British involvement in the F-35, and one of the reasons we took on more than 10% of the F-35 development costs while purchasing < 10% of the total production. Why shouldn't we have it?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


According to wiki the United Kingdom has invested 2 billion US dollars in the F-35, which leaves a remaining 1.4 billion that the U.S essentially has to donate to the UK for the F136. Have I got this right? Also is the F136 required, because RR still has the lift-fan?

[edit on 16/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


According to wiki the United Kingdom has invested 2 billion US dollars in the F-35, which leaves a remaining 1.4 billion that the U.S essentially has to donate to the UK for the F136. Have I got this right? Also is the F136 required, because RR still has the lift-fan?

[edit on 16/5/2009 by C0bzz]


In 2005 the British Government granted Rolls Royce £650m in RLI to fund the F136. That is in addition to this funding.

You also do realise that having two engine options lowers your per-frame purchase costs due to competition, right?

In short, the US committed to including a Rolls Royce produced engine when the UK government signed their MoU.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Put simply, the F136 was one of the main points for British involvement in the F-35, and one of the reasons we took on more than 10% of the F-35 development costs while purchasing < 10% of the total production. Why shouldn't we have it?


Then why is the US taxpayer paying for a huge chunk of an engine they wont be using?



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Oh ok. Thanks for clearning that up.



You also do realise that having two engine options lowers your per-frame purchase costs due to competition, right?

Debatable.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:19 AM
link   
www.fas.org...


It is unclear how, or to what extent, terminating the F136 would harm the JSF program’s
international participation. Early allied response has not been positive. The United Kingdom’s top
defense procurement official reportedly stated that his country would cease participation in the
JSF program if the F136 engine were cancelled and technology transfer issues were not resolved to its satisfaction.



the GAO also state that


The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report noted that savings of 10.3% to 12.3% would be required for the alternate engine program to break even. GAO goes on to note that analysis of past engine competitions have shown financial savings of up to 20%



the want to cancel is driven by short term budget cuts rather than anything middle or long term.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Then why is the US taxpayer paying for a huge chunk of an engine they wont be using?


Because you agreed to it to bring us on board. Nice when your partner decides to go back on their word, isnt it?

Whether you use it or not is not our concern.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:24 AM
link   
a small detail is that both engines are being looked at by the USAF and USN - the choice of F135 isn`t set in stone; also for foreign exports beyond the partner countries having a choise IS a good option - look at the re0 egnining of F-15`s as an example.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 




Overall, the CAIG estimated that the competition would require a 21.1% reduction in costs (in
constant FY2002 dollars) over the lifetime of the program in order to break even. The break-even
cost reduction requirement climbs to 25.6% when converted to net present value.20 The CAIG
estimated that DOD would be unable to recoup its initial investment in the alternate engine
development program through procurement savings alone. The CAIG report noted DOD would
have to effectively compete Operations and Support (i.e., maintenance) contracts and attain a
25.6% savings, which the report seems skeptical of attaining, in order to eventually reach a
“break even” point by 2040.2 www.fas.org...



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FredT
 


except that the break even point for the engine is now reported to be 2020 by cost reductions allready implemented.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Where exactly in MOU does it detail the requirement to develop a second engine? I looked and I could not find it.

Also based on the above report I cited you claims about lowering costs do not seem to bear out on previous engine competitions.

edit to add: *snif* *snif* I smell subsadies. ROlls got plenty out of it. If you want the second engine that badly then develop it.



[edit on 5/16/09 by FredT]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Got a link?



____

He contended that IDA included sustainment engineering costs, costs to improve the engine, and additional costs tied to two supply chains that might not have been included in the GAO’s analysis. GAO analysts, however, noted that under a competitive environment, the need for an F-35 engine Component Improvement Program (CIP) would be reduced, and therefore potential funding required for CIP was not included in their analysis.

Closest I could find...


Because you agreed to it to bring us on board. Nice when your partner decides to go back on their word, isnt it?

Whether you use it or not is not our concern.

Even if that's true - maybe the deal shouldn't have been initiated in the first place?

[edit on 16/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Where exactly in MOU does it detail the requirement to develop a second engine? I looked and I could not find it.


Its in there, under work share agreements. What, you wanted 'thou shalt commit to a second engine called the F136'? Feh.



Also based on the above report I cited you claims about lowering costs do not seem to bear out on previous engine competitions.


That report seems to completely dismiss the savings and benefits of alternative engine selections to foreign sales.



edit to add: *snif* *snif* I smell subsadies. ROlls got plenty out of it. If you want the second engine that badly then develop it.
[edit on 5/16/09 by FredT]


Ooh ooh a bad word was used - SUBSIDIES!! Such a horrible, disgusting word.

If you consider that a subsidy, then just wtf are you thinking the entire payment to Lockheed, General Electric and Pratt And Whitney for the F-35 and the F135 engine is? Seriously, you seem to have a one track mind when it comes to any and all payments made to an European coimpany.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 07:22 AM
link   
reply to post by C0bzz
 


the pdf file i linked:


In addition, during testimony, Michael Sullivan, Director of
GAO’s Acquisition and Sourcing Management, noted that he believed the alternate engine
program would reach its break-even point by the late 2020s


Congressional Hearings. March 2, 2007, house armed services committee



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
Its in there, under work share agreements. What, you wanted 'thou shalt commit to a second engine called the F136'? Feh.



Yep I do because you seem so worked up about the whole thing I figured it would be in plain English no? Are you saying that the UK did not get the work share they contracted for? I think not.....

So basically what your saying in "NO"


That report seems to completely dismiss the savings and benefits of alternative engine selections to foreign sales.

Aside from Rolls being a UK company why would any NON UK country care? Does the EF-2000 have two sources for thier engines? The Rafale? The Grippen? Hmmmmmm?



If you consider that a subsidy, then just wtf are you thinking the entire payment to Lockheed, General Electric and Pratt And Whitney for the F-35 and the F135 engine is? Seriously, you seem to have a one track mind when it comes to any and all payments made to an European coimpany.


Building an engine when none is needed? Yep thats exactly what it looks like. If I have a one track mind the *HELLO* Pot? Its the kettle, your black
As expected anything the EU does is fine and dandy but US companies have to operate under a whole different set of regulations it seems. GE is paired with Rolls BTW. SO a US company also takes a hit.



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by C0bzz
 


the pdf file i linked:


In addition, during testimony, Michael Sullivan, Director of
GAO’s Acquisition and Sourcing Management, noted that he believed the alternate engine
program would reach its break-even point by the late 2020s


Congressional Hearings. March 2, 2007, house armed services committee

Oh ok. GAO and others differ because...


He contended that IDA included sustainment engineering costs, costs to improve the engine, and additional costs tied to two supply chains that might not have been included in the GAO’s analysis. GAO analysts, however, noted that under a competitive environment, the need for an F-35 engine Component Improvement Program (CIP) would be reduced, and therefore potential funding required for CIP was not included in their analysis.

same PDF
.


Looks like keeping the F136 is a good idea
. Wonder if the F136 could potentially produce more thrust than F135... been discussed I know, but IIRC the GE F110 still produced more thrust with the small mouth... And the Growth F414 doesn't need new inlet on the SH either... YF-120 performed better than YF-119....

[edit on 16/5/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on May, 16 2009 @ 08:24 AM
link   
i wonder if theres a fixed cost per engine or its the `with or without engine` as per the F-35 (and thats not including the real fly away price - ARGH)


fred;

whilst SAAB offer the GE engine in the gripen - the EJ2000 is a possible, IF a client wanted it fit , remember the email i posted re that a year or so back.

Rolls get workshare from both engines- its just they get more from the F136 than the F135 - also GE are creating jobs in virginia to make the engine (at least 170 at last count)

whats interesting is both these engines are based on the YF-22/YF-23 engines - and IIRC from then the GE was the better choice as well.

also about the EU

theres times when this mess should just p**s off and buy off the shelf - look at the debacle called the A400M with its engines- a great choice would have been the P&W one but noooo , they spend 20 years making the one there getting


damn the french.

look at saudi F-15`s , thanks to choice they`ve re-engined there old F-15`s with new GE F110-GE-129C to replace the P&W F100

EDIT:


some sources -

RR says `up to 500 new jobs in `Commonwealth of Virginia` thanks to assembling the new RB282 engine and in direct production of the F136

www.rolls-royce.com...


YF-120 developed into F136

en.wikipedia.org...

wiki but has sources

www.dtic.mil...

^^ about the new jobs from GE in Virginia

[edit on 16/5/09 by Harlequin]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join