Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 601 Status: Offline

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

tmofarrvl wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

Sounds like the F-35 Program is benefiting from the competition between P & W (F-135) and GE (F-136)!

I would agree that the F-35 is benefiting from the "Great Engine War" between the F100 and F110. That episode has left a lasting impression in the industry, where no one takes their success for granted any longer.

I fail to see the "benefit", however, from the F135/F136 competition. The US is being asked to foot the bill to develop TWO entirely different engines. This is a giant aerospace welfare project, fueled by Congressional delegates whose districts would benefit from more GE engine sales, and by our British allies who would prefer to see the US produce an engine with more Rolls Royce content.

So instead of buying more F-22s or F-35s, we are instead developing a "competitor" engine that will do nothing to lower costs. It's pork barrel politics, as usual.

I am not so sure I agree..............is it really in the interests of the US Goverment to give one manufature the vast majority of the fighter engine market for many decades to come? While, it may be more expensive. The advantages clearly out way the cost.............IMO

I totally bagree with tmofarrvl on this one... Cheers

The YF120 failed to make production with the ATF, and it's derivative JSF120 also failed to make the cut for the JSF program. The F136 program has also been canceled at least once as being "un-necessary" or "a waste of program funding." GE must be doing something that the USAF doesn't care for, either with their new engines or support/sustainment of the F110.

The US DoD/USAF is being "forced" by Congress to pour billion$ into an engine they don't want. This engine has been axed about 3 times now for various reasons over it's life. PW learned it's lessons well during the Great Engine War and the Viper. They WON'T be making those mistakes again, and obviously haven't to win BOTH major US fighter contracts in the last 20 years.

If the Brits, Turks, or anyone else (to include specific members of congress) wants to see the GE F136 in production, they should foot the entire bill or share it with Lockmart as a "private venture." Rolling Eyes

(Much like the Block 60 Vipers w/ F110-GE-132 of the UAE or the F-15K of Korea with the F110-GE-129, which by the way is switching BACK to PW-229s for follow-on purchases Wink

)

Having 2 motors for the US Vipers has cost the US tax payers far more money than it has ever saved them. The differences in parts, training, deployment, overhaul, and engineering (logistics) have well exceed any initial savings. The only thing the Great Engine War has "saved" is PW from getting over-confident with their products and contracts. PW has worked hard and long since the "war" to have the best fighter engines in the world, hands-down, and according to my tally sheet over the last 20 years, they've done it... Two Cents

I too believe this is pork-barrel spending at it's finest. Mad

TEG

Well, I agree others should foot more of the bill for the F-136. Yet, I am more worried about the long term interests of the US than the cost per se.........

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Corsair1963 wrote:

Funny, you bring up the B-1 and B-2? What engines equipe each type.....

The B-1 is equipped with the GE F101-102. GE's successful experience with this engine type formed the basis for their later bid to develop the F110.

The B-2 is equipped with GE F118-100, a direct derivative of the F110.

The lesson learned should be that there is a lot of commonality between fighter engine and bomber engine development, and GE's participation in the ADVENT program will ensure that future US policy makers have both a P&W and GE alternative for future generations of aircraft.

I should add, however, that successful experience with the F110, F118, or even F100 does not fully prepare either P&W or GE for the kind of performance that is being demanded for the F-22 and F-35. The demands being placed on 5th generation fighter engines are at a whole new level of technology.

Elite Joined: Dec 19, 2005 Posts: 601 Status: Offline

tmofarrvl wrote:

Corsair1963 wrote:

Funny, you bring up the B-1 and B-2? What engines equipe each type.....

The B-1 is equipped with the GE F101-102. GE's successful experience with this engine type formed the basis for their later bid to develop the F110.

The B-2 is equipped with GE F118-100, a direct derivative of the F110.

The lesson learned should be that there is a lot of commonality between fighter engine and bomber engine development, and GE's participation in the ADVENT program will ensure that future US policy makers have both a P&W and GE alternative for future generations of aircraft.

I should add, however, that successful experience with the F110, F118, or even F100 does not fully prepare either P&W or GE for the kind of
performance that is being demanded for the F-22 and F-35. The demands being placed on 5th generation fighter engines are at a whole new level of technology.

The point is they also use the same type of Turbo Fans as fighters...........Do we really want only one manufacture of fighter and bomber engines in the near future??? Personally, I think not....... Wink

Corsair1963 wrote:

The point is they also use the same type of Turbo Fans as fighters...........Do we really want only one manufacture of fighter and bomber engines in the near future??? Personally, I think not.......

So then we should be agreed. P&W should proceed with supplying the F-35 fighter engine, GE should proceed with development of the next bomber engine under the ADVENT program, and the F136 should be cancelled as a redundant waste of resources.

We have already protected our industrial base by contracting GE under ADVENT. Let's stop spending our limited budget on an "alternative" engine in the name of non-existent future "cost savings".

Newbie Joined: May 03, 2008 Posts: 7 Status: Offline

On the other hand (does that make three?), given the issues that P&W have had with the turbine failures, perhaps a 'back-up' is valuable thing to have?

Granted, P&W are/have no doubt resolved the problem, but who's to say that it's the only issue in the pipeline (so to speak)?

Partnerships on engine projects such as the F136 are hardly a new thing and often serve to bring each of the participating companies relevant experience to the table.

LHTEC
RRTM
CFM
Turbo-Union
IAE

to name just a few, all producing reputable engines.

I'm sure that the partnerships are complicated, but the end usually justifies the means.

Pecker wrote:

On the other hand (does that make three?), given the issues that P&W have had with the turbine failures, perhaps a 'back-up' is valuable thing to have?

Aircraft and jet engine development is a complicated task that always involves a learning process to shake-out unforeseen faults and fine tune the details. The F-16 and F100 went through their own fair share of setbacks as they climbed that learning curve, but ultimately produced an exceptional warplane.

If we believe that we need a "back-up" to cover every unforeseen development milestone, then we should also be paying to develop Boeing's X-32 concept into a viable F-32 fighter. The F-35 has already run into its own development issues - including struggling with weight, and the electrical system fault that I'm sure we are all familiar with. Obviously we're not funding an alternate airframe - because it would be too expensive, and wouldn't add any real capability or value. The same can be said for developing a second F-35 engine. These are resources that could be used elsewhere - to buy more aircraft, or more ordnance.

Newbie Joined: May 03, 2008 Posts: 7 Status: Offline

You make a fair point.

I think it was mentioned that the UK (obviously), Turkey and at least one other operator will be purchasing the a/c with the F136, so there's the issue of how that order quantity might have been affected had the 136 not been approved (again! Wink

) and the consequences for unit cost if order numbers dropped.

I guess that this is one area where all opinions are right (?).

Two simple answers, politics and customer choice. Remember the JSF has these things called partners who like to take part in making a decision now and again.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 586 Status: Offline

Pecker wrote:

On the other hand (does that make three?), given the issues that P&W have had with the turbine failures, perhaps a 'back-up' is valuable thing to have?

Granted, P&W are/have no doubt resolved the problem, but who's to say that it's the only issue in the pipeline (so to speak)?

...and GE has had compressor issues. Don't forget the "alternative engine" for the Viper had quite a few fan blade liberations in it's early days... Rolling Eyes

Everyone has issues with suppliers, sub-suppliers, base-materials, raw materials, etc.

You're talking about $15 Mill engines that are comprised of tens of thousands of parts, some operating at temperatures that would melt an oven, while doing it all above 10K RPM at tolerances within thousands of an inch, all while hurtling through the sky at MACH speeds and 9 times the force of gravity! Shocked

All engines have teething pains and the F135 (and/or F136) will be no exception. Issues with the F100-PW-100 and -200 isn't what caused the Great Engine War, but it was PW's lack of action with those problems. Any OEM that existed before, during, or since the GEW will not make the same mistake; especially PW as they were the point of the entire matter.

Before the F-16 NONE of the world's successful combat aircraft had "alternate engines" Sure new models may have DIFFERENT engines, newer models, or even different OEMs but not differing engines for the same airframe. (That isn't truely the same since the Viper needed to be modified??)

Again, if this is such a requirement, then why doesn't the new KC-X offer PW engines as an alternative? What happens if the GE engines don't work correctly, or operate as advertised? GE engines power both the B-1 and B-2, shouldn't PW be allowed to make an alternative engine since the core of the F101 and F118 are common? A problem with one could affect both bombers! But wait, it could also affect the F110 of the Viper as it shares the same core... Rolling Eyes

Why wasn't the DoD forced to develop an alternative engine for the Super Hornet. It was a "new" aircraft with a "new" engine, why wasn't it competed prior to purchase? The F414 is a "new" designation, not a "dashed" modification of the basic F404. No Navy competition? What made the Super Hornet so special?

This isn't about safety, security, or saving $$ for the US Tax Payer; it's all about politics, government contracts and foreign relations. Two Cents

By the way, can get get a Typhoon or Flanker with PW engines? Poke

At any rate... Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 820 Status: Offline

Corsair1963 wrote:

I am not so sure I agree..............is it really in the interests of the US Goverment to give one manufature the vast majority of the fighter engine market for many decades to come? While, it may be more expensive. The advantages clearly out way the cost.............IMO

And that's different than giving all stealth fighter business to LM how? Many seem to be under the mistaken impression that since the F-16 is available with a choice of engines that all aircraft have always been. Couldn't be further from the truth.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 586 Status: Offline

Lets break this down by USAF, supersonic, fighter type aircraft.

PW powered
F-100 - J57 (single)
F-101 - J57 (dual)
F-102 - J57 (single)
F-105 - J75 (single)
F-106 - J75 (single)
F-111 - TF30 (dual)
F-15 - F100 (dual)
F-16 - F100 (single)
F-22 - F119 (dual)

GE powered
F-104 - J79 (single)
F-5 - J85 (dual)
F-16 - F110 (single)

PW has powered three times more supersonic USAF fighter aircraft than GE.
PW has powered more than twice as many single engine supersonic USAF fighter aircraft than GE.
GE has provided 2 different turbojets, and a single turbofan for USAF supersonic fighters.
PW has provided 2 different turbojets, and three turbofans for USAF supersonic fighters.

Lets also notice only the F-16 was EVER ordered by the USAF with differing engine OEM.

Now on the flip side....

GE "Heavys"
C-5 - TF39 (four) or CF6
KC-10 - CF6 (triple)
KC-135R/S - F108 (CFM International four)
KC-45 - CF6 (As it stands today dual)
B-1 - F101 (four)
B-2 - F118 (four)

PW "Heavys"
B-52 - TF33 (eight-!)
KC-135E/AWACs/JSTARS/etc - TF33 (four)
C-17 - F117 (four)

You telling me PW will not be able to produce "heavy" engines if they don't get an "alternate engine" contract for the KC-45 program? Maybe it's too risky to have C-5, KC-10 and KC-45 aircraft that all share CF6 series engines?

Laughing

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Lets break this down by USAF, supersonic, fighter type aircraft.

PW powered
F-100 - J57 (single)
F-101 - J57 (dual)
F-102 - J57 (single)
F-105 - J75 (single)
F-106 - J75 (single)
F-111 - TF30 (dual)
F-15 - F100 (dual)
F-16 - F100 (single)
F-22 - F119 (dual)

GE powered
F-104 - J79 (single)
F-5 - J85 (dual)
F-16 - F110 (single)

PW has powered three times more supersonic USAF fighter aircraft than GE.
PW has powered more than twice as many single engine supersonic USAF fighter aircraft than GE.
GE has provided 2 different turbojets, and a single turbofan for USAF supersonic fighters.
PW has provided 2 different turbojets, and three turbofans for USAF supersonic fighters.

Lets also notice only the F-16 was EVER ordered by the USAF with differing engine OEM.

Now on the flip side....

GE "Heavys"
C-5 - TF39 (four) or CF6
KC-10 - CF6 (triple)
KC-135R/S - F108 (CFM International four)
KC-45 - CF6 (As it stands today dual)
B-1 - F101 (four)
B-2 - F118 (four)

PW "Heavys"
B-52 - TF33 (eight-!)
KC-135E/AWACs/JSTARS/etc - TF33 (four)
C-17 - F117 (four)

You telling me PW will not be able to produce "heavy" engines if they don't get an "alternate engine" contract for the KC-45 program? Maybe it's too risky to have C-5, KC-10 and KC-45 aircraft that all share CF6 series engines?

Laughing

TEG... for shame, man. You left out the 2 J79's in the F-4 (all 5000+ examples) that's a HUGE end number of engines. GE may have powered more types of aircraft, especially with the massively successful J57 which should also have been added to the B-52's totals (700 plus airframes with 8 of each, that's a LOT of engines too), but I think the J79 makes up a lot of ground with the actual number of engines.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 820 Status: Offline

Lightndattic wrote:

That_Engine_Guy wrote:

Lets break this down by USAF, supersonic, fighter type aircraft.

PW powered
F-100 - J57 (single)
F-101 - J57 (dual)
F-102 - J57 (single)
F-105 - J75 (single)
F-106 - J75 (single)
F-111 - TF30 (dual)
F-15 - F100 (dual)
F-16 - F100 (single)
F-22 - F119 (dual)

GE powered
F-104 - J79 (single)
F-5 - J85 (dual)
F-16 - F110 (single)

PW has powered three times more supersonic USAF fighter aircraft than GE.
PW has powered more than twice as many single engine supersonic USAF fighter aircraft than GE.
GE has provided 2 different turbojets, and a single turbofan for USAF supersonic fighters.
PW has provided 2 different turbojets, and three turbofans for USAF supersonic fighters.

Lets also notice only the F-16 was EVER ordered by the USAF with differing engine OEM.

Now on the flip side....

GE "Heavys"
C-5 - TF39 (four) or CF6
KC-10 - CF6 (triple)
KC-135R/S - F108 (CFM International four)
KC-45 - CF6 (As it stands today dual)
B-1 - F101 (four)
B-2 - F118 (four)

PW "Heavys"
B-52 - TF33 (eight-!)
KC-135E/AWACs/JSTARS/etc - TF33 (four)
C-17 - F117 (four)

You telling me PW will not be able to produce "heavy" engines if they don't get an "alternate engine" contract for the KC-45 program? Maybe it's too risky to have C-5, KC-10 and KC-45 aircraft that all share CF6 series engines?

Laughing

TEG... for shame, man. You left out the 2 J79's in the F-4 (all 5000+ examples) that's a HUGE end number of engines. GE may have powered more types of aircraft, especially with the massively successful J57 which should also have been added to the B-52's totals (700 plus airframes with 8 of each, that's a LOT of engines too), but I think the J79 makes up a lot of ground with the actual number of engines.

The Vigilante was also a J79 twin.

And the B-58 was a quad J-79, along with a one-off F-16 J-79.

Here is a real oddity. Although the F-16 is the only airplane available with both P&W and GE engines, there is another USAF airplane that had both brands on the same individual airplane, the RB-57F, built by General Dynamics, based on the Martin B-57, based on the English Electric Canberra. It had two TF-33s and two removable J-85s.

Elite Joined: Dec 14, 2005 Posts: 586 Status: Offline

I do humbly apologize for missing the F-4 and it's J79... Embarassed

It was on my list but I forgot to type it into the posting. Doh

As for the RA-5 and B-58, they weren't USAF Supersonic Fighters, or current heavies, so that is why I didn't list them.

The J79 was truly a break-through motor of the time, a historical aircraft engine to be sure.

I don't want people to get me wrong here. GE makes a great product, as does PW. They both make excellent fighter and commercial engines. Cheers

I just deal with the whole GE/PW USAF Viper issues on a daily basis. (Deployments, tooling, parts, training, etc). It's poor planning, militarily speaking, to purchase identical weapon-systems with different engines. I also believe the billions given to GE for an alternative F-35 engine, could be better spent investing in the chosen power.

As for the "partner" status of the JSF/F-35 program, how about the KC-45? If Poland ever wanted to purchase a few KC-45s, and wanted PW engines on them since they have a PW assembly facility, would the US DoD foot the bill for all the development and testing?

Isn't this why some countries want GE engines available for their F-35 purchase? What percentage of F-35 w/GE compared to the Billions that could be saved for purchase of additional airframes for the USAF? Shrug

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F135 vs F136