Forum: F-35 Engine

Quote:

Warner to Pentagon: Rethink JSF alternate engine
By John M. Doyle, Aerospace Daily & Defense Report - 02/08/2007

Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) urged the Defense Department on Feb. 6 to reconsider plans to drop the alternate engine program from F-35 Joint Strike Fighter production.

"If we have but a single engine then we're, in effect, giving a sole source contract to one contractor, which could amount to $100 billion. I've calculated that out," Warner told Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on the $481.4 billion fiscal 2008 defense budget request.

Jonas said the '08 budget did not contain funds for the second engine and that the Pentagon believes it could save "about $1.8 billion" without the program.

While SASC chairman last year, Warner led a successful fight to restore the General Electric and Rolls-Royce F136 jet engine as an alternate to Pratt & Whitney's F135 for the JSF (DAILY, July 24, 2006).

Warner asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to commit to looking into the matter. "We on this committee invested a lot of time in it," Warner said, adding that it was important to the program involving several countries, "some of which want to use other than the one engine."

At the hearing, Gates also confirmed that the department was standing up a unified combatant command for Africa by the end of fiscal 2008 on orders from President Bush. A unified command to oversee the growing number of operations on the continent, as well as to block the expansion of international terrorist groups, has been under consideration for some time (DAILY Jan. Cool

. The move is also seen as a way to counter growing Chinese influence in the region.

In a White House statement, Bush said the new command "will strengthen our security cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in Africa."

Both Gates and Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, told the committee they were troubled by China's recent test of an anti-satellite (A-SAT) ballistic missile, first reported on the Aviation Week Web site (DAILY, Jan. 19).

"There's no belief on my part right now that the Chinese intend to use this capacity anytime soon," Pace said, adding: 'On the other hand, it is a unique capacity and we need to ... take a look at where we are with regard to that capacity, where should we be - and if there is a gap - how should we close it?"

The committee approved the nominations of two top military commanders to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The panel unanimously approved Navy Adm. William Fallon to head Central Command, which oversees the Middle East, and Army Gen. George Casey, the former top ground commander in Iraq, to be the Army's Chief of Staff. Three Republicans, Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Saxby Chambliss (Ga.) and John Ensign (Neb.) voted against Casey. But both nominations are expected to be confirmed by the full Senate.

At the hearing, Pace also confirmed that four recent helicopter crashes in Iraq were due to hostile fire. "To my knowledge each was shot down by small arms, not by missiles," Pace told the SASC. "At this point, I do not know if it was the law of averages that caught up with us, or if there'd been a change in tactics, techniques and procedures by the enemy," Pace said, adding that U.S. officials in Iraq were investigating.

F-16.net Sponsor

GE & RR have a lot of lobbyists and a lot of money.....

Just goes to show how much money we don't have anymore. Example for FY'08 USAF thinks they will be 20-30 billion short.
The alternate engine thing is about 1.8 + extra billion, but I guess that is real money now a days. Laughing

Thread already started here:
Smile

http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-7427.html

This is really a choice that the DOD and USAF are weighing between having an alternative engine . . . or having enough fighters to fight future wars.

This is not the same Pentagon that could afford to fund the "Great Engine War" of the 1980s, nor is this the same environment with respect to the engine contractors. The fact that the DOD is endorsing a sole-source engine contract should emphasize just how satisfied the USAF is with the F119 that goes into the F-22 Raptor.

P&W has demonstrated that they can deliver a reliable product that will out-perform anything else in the world. It's far cheaper to build on that experience, than it is to pay GE & Rolls to reproduce the same underlying technology.

tmofarrvl wrote:

This is really a choice that the DOD and USAF are weighing between having an alternative engine . . . or having enough fighters to fight future wars.

My point was apparently too subtle. I was trying to say it is a crying shame that our military doesn't have the money to buy two engine designs, but the engine manufacturers have enough money to buy politicians. It doesn't have anything to do with alternative engines or warfighting capabilities.

Yes, I'm a cynic. Our politicians, and our political system, are for sale to the highest bidder. This country should worry less about the separation of Church and State, and worry more about the (lack of) separation of Big Business and State.

How's that for hijacking a thread? Wink

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Habu2,

Single-engine designs aren't inherently less capable than dual-engine designs. A JSF-like aircraft with two engines would basically be a heavy attack aircraft. Something like an F-15E on steroids. It wouldn't be a multi-role fighter.

R1, not sure where you got that impression from my post. We're talking about an alternative engine program like the F-16 PW & GE split, not a twin-engined JSF design.

Aren't the F-35B's of the RAF/FAA going to be equipped with F-136-GE-400's?

Not at this time (today).

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

habu2 wrote:

R1, not sure where you got that impression from my post. We're talking about an alternative engine program like the F-16 PW & GE split, not a twin-engined JSF design.

Yup... I definitely misunderstood your post. Honest misunderstanding. Never mind. Embarassed

This whill be long winded, but here i go....

Let us not forget the cost of tooling, training, spare parts, and product improvements/enhancements (TCTOs) when we're talking costs of "alternate" engines. This program will be a "long haul" for the US DOD.

Today there are so many different F-16 combinations only certain units can deploy with other units.

During the SEP11 aftermath our propulsion section was tasked to review our "tasking" as it was laid out on paper. Our Block42 unit (PW) was still under a "tasking list" from a Block40 unit (GE). When the final report was given only about 2% of the tooling our unit was "tasked with" was actually in use. (transportation trailers, and common hand-tools, etc) The other 98% of the tooling was GE specific. The list we were suppose to "pack for war" with was junk!?

We're talking about millions of dollars of tooling for just one JEIM section working engines, not to mention the other OEM specifics.

I would think the days of alternate engines would be passed by rather quickly considering how much stream-lining one could do with only one engine type. This is even more apparent with the F119 - F135 having a similar design much akin to the F100-PW-220 and the -229. Their basic design and many of thier tools and parts are common and save MILLIONS when training, tooling and parts are considered.

Imagine ANY of your F-35 engine mechanics or "taskings" being able to support ALL the other F-35 units. If your Lightning landed at another unit, they could change the engine for you. No more shipping your F-16's PW or GE engines and mechanics to another F-16 unit to do a simple engine change. Raptor engine mechanics could also be brought into the Lightning program with minimal training when moving from unit to unit.

Trust me here, there's nothing worse than being an engine man with over 17 years of jet engine experience, telling an F-16 pilot who's just landed with a GE engine issue, "Sorry Sir, I can't help you with your engine problem, we're not qualified to work with that engine type." He turns his head and looks up and down an entire ramp of other F-16s and no one can help him. It's not that we don't want to help or couldn't help, we're prohibited from helping. This is due to training and qualification requirements set by the same DOD/USAF who purchased 2 different engines for the SAME JOB!

I won't bash on GEs here, or push PWs (Or vise-versa) but the point is alternate engines in the SAME system is a bad and costly idea.

Fine… If the alternate engine is wanted by another government to ensure fair pricing for them or give an advantage to their aerospace industry, then let THEM foot the $1.8B price tag. Let THEM pay for all the additional technical data and training development costs; which will be ABOVE the $1.8B to produce the engine.

As an engine mechanic (and US tax payer) I would agree with the DOD’s findings that the alternate engine is too expensive to consider within the F-35’s current budget. When the F135 was being developed from the F119, the F136 made sense. I'm sure the F136 would have been chosen had serious difficulties with the Raptor's F119 occurred. With the F119's success and the commonality shared with the F135, I don't believe the DOD should continue down the F135 & F136 path.

Now is the time to pick ONE motor type and stick with it!

I'd rather see additional F-35 wings ready for combat, than fewer wings with the GE/PW support headache we have today with our F-16s….

(That’s my 2 Cents and it won’t be charged to the F-35 program….)
[/i]

There you go. That's what makes this forum great. Actual people that do the job.

Two engines will no doubt increase logistical hassles. But the natural solution will probably to require than all the mechanics be qualified no both powerplants so some of the aforementioned issues don't occur.

Given the number of the aircrafts expected to be in service, the other option is also to not perform major maintenance or repair on the flight line. Basically, you buy additional spare engines and except for really minor things you simply swap engines and ship it to GE or PW for repairs. This is basically what is being done for commercial airliners anyway and it has proven to be more economical than local repairs. In fact, it is unnecessary for you to get back the same engine you sent out. It can work such that you they immediately send out a certified replacement even before you finish pulling the engine. You simply send out the old engine whenever you are ready to.

The key issue with the F136 is not really that it'll make engines cheaper to buy for the F-35 over the long run. In fact, I doubt that'll be the case as 2-source arrangements in the past has not yielded cheaper engine prices. The key is that this nation has to decide whether we want to continue to have two companies able and ready to provide state of the art military engines or not. If not, then one provider is just fine. In fact, if one provider is to be selected based upon maintaining industrial base, P&W is probably the better choice. You see, P&W has been seriously marginalized in the commercial business. It has been shut out of the big turbofan market when it lost the bid to power the 787. The big commercial turbofan market is essentially a GE and RR world now. P&W's bid to power the next generation narrow bodies rests on gear turbofan and is a big question mark. And it may end up as a marginal player with only joint products (via GP and IAE) -- a company like Snecma.

dwightlooi wrote:

…require than all the mechanics be qualified on both powerplants…

We’re talking many training requirements here that are re-accomplished every 90-120 days for certification. Borescope, blade-blend, engine run (both high and low power) etc. It is bad enough between the -220/-229s. They are very similar but we still have to do everything for BOTH. (Back me up here engine guys) We wouldn’t turn a wrench if we were constantly training and re-certifying on two OEM engines on the same line.

dwightlooi wrote:

…buy additional spare engines and except for really minor things you simply swap engines and ship it to GE or PW for repairs… …it is unnecessary for you to get back the same engine you sent out…

Talk to an engine manager about this one. The engines are all tracked by where they are. Base and unit. Transferring engines between units in the system is a pain, espially when you have to load an entire engines data and history from one computer system to another. We are required to maintain a detailed historical record for each engine, each module, each part, and each inspection. Transfer that over and over again, at both the gaining and loosing unit. You’re spending more money at each unit again…

Then there is transit time in shipment, days or weeks, not to mention availability or cost. We (the millitary) can't do it, we're shipping parts and supplies to the front lines. If you buy more engines to cover this you’re still spending money.

Heavy maintenance at the OEM or a “Centralized Engine Repair Facility” CERF is a train-wreck waiting to happen. The last time this “2-level” maintenance concept was used (early 1990s) the engine mishap rate DOUBLED!? Any of the engine mechanics out there remember those days? Many won’t because they were retired, or paid to leave because they weren’t needed. (Yeah right…) All in the name of saving money which was spent to buy new engines and aircraft that were destroyed in the process.

dwightlooi wrote:

P&W has been seriously marginalized in the commercial business. It has been shut out of the big turbofan market when it lost the bid to power the 787. The big commercial turbofan market is essentially a GE and RR world now. P&W's bid to power the next generation narrow bodies rests on gear turbofan and is a big question mark. And it may end up as a marginal player with only joint products (via GP and IAE) -- a company like Snecma.

This isn't exactly true, let’s not forget the PW4000-112 launched the B777… A quick look at the P&W news section concerning commercial engines will show billions in sales. They’re also working on a true “Pulse Detonation Engine” PDE that could transform the aircraft like the piston-turbine evolution. I’m keeping my UT stock!

Any air-carrier can order a specific engine for their particular aircraft or needs. It's an order option similar to ordering a large commercial truck. The flavor of power is tailored to the taste of the company buying the product.

This is comparing apples to oranges. Commercial airlines don't run single engine aircraft. (Which are very thrust dependant) Nor do they worry about inter-operability between multiple units from different countries in combat situations. They don't invest billions of dollars a year in spare parts, tools or manpower to maintain their engines. (Anymore) They’re not under attack. They don’t have a shortage of shipment assets. Airlines don’t have to "ship" engines to the OEM from the front lines. As it is, the USAF relies on civil air carriers to ship engines to/from their AEF missions and the CERFs in Europe!?

Think of this... F-35 = Ferrari

Who would want to order a Ferrari with an engine from Rolls Royce? WHY!? Would it make the Ferrari better? Cost less? What if you shipped your Ferrari engine back to the OEM each time you had to change parts!? Are you saving money yet? Oops sorry, here’s another engine from someone else, yours isn’t fixed yet… It may save Ferrari money by not keeping mechanics on payroll, or stocking parts or tools, but do you, the customer, benefit by having 2 engines available?

If GE, or certain congressmen think the second engine choice is viable, why don't they invest $1.8B of their own money. Someone may want to buy a couple dozen engines in 2014...

Guess that’s 2 more cents, I’ll have to keep a total and write it off on my taxes…

Sorry to double post, but here is a little math that was bothering me.

$1.8Billion = Alternate engine that the USAF/NAVY/MARINES may never buy.

or

$1.8Billion = 36 F-35s @ $50Million each.

Again as a tax payer I vote for 3 more squadrons of aircraft vs a second engine choice that may never be used.

If the USAF had never purchased GEs for F-16s would anyone else had funded it or fielded it? Without US DOD support who would pay for it all?

Ask the Korean AF how much US support they get with their GE powered F-15Ks.

Forum: F-35 Engine

F-35 Engine Concerns