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.
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.
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...
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]
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?
You also do realise that having two engine options lowers your per-frame purchase costs due to competition, right?
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 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%
Originally posted by FredT
Then why is the US taxpayer paying for a huge chunk of an engine they wont be using?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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]
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
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.
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.
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
.
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