F-16.net

Printed from: F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference [http://www.f-16.net]
Document title: The engine no one wants - Except congress - F-16.net - The Ultimate F-16 Reference
Original URL: http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-8835-view-next-sid-5ab87be84deb359d25c8c410133d3e94.html
Printed on: 18 November 2008

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

The engine no one wants - Except congress



Search Search  Register Register  Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
guidelines Forum Guidelines
Post new topic   Reply to topic   1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Author Message
elp
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 03:32 AM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862

Laughing

Quote:
The Engine No One Wants -- Except Congress

(CBS News) The supersonic F-35 Lightning II is the military's next-generation strike fighter. It flies so fast that the speed is classified.

Pratt & Whitney has the government contract to make the jet's high-performance engine. But your tax dollars are also paying for GE to develop a spare engine — and it has cost you $1.6 billion so far.

The idea is that if GE and Pratt & Whitney compete, they'll build better engines that cost less and end up saving money. But here's where it really gets interesting: The military doesn't want the alternate engine. The Air Force and two independent panels have concluded it's "not necessary and not affordable" and that the supposed savings from competition "will never be achieved."

So why did Sen. Ted Kennedy personally earmark $100 million tax dollars for the project this year alone? He wouldn't agree to an interview, but part of the answer has to do with where it could be built: at GE's Massachusetts plant in Kennedy's home state — where it would bring jobs.

Kennedy is not the only one who wants to spend your tax money on the project. So does Congresswoman Jean Schmidt.

"The military says we don't want it. It's not going to save money in the long run. Why should taxpayers fund it?," asks CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent Sharyl Attkisson.

"History shows competition works; it drives down price, spurs innovation, builds a better product and saves money in the long term," says Rep. Schmidt, R-Ohio.

It doesn't hurt that the competing engine could also bring jobs to the GE plant in Schmidt's home state of Ohio.

Meantime, the military has been trying to kill the project altogether, saying the tax dollars would be better spent for force protection and IED-resistant vehicles.

"For two years in a row, the Air Force has asked Congress to take funding away from the program so they can devote it to other more urgent needs," says military analyst Christian Lowe of Military.com. "And every year Congress has come back and said 'Nope. You're going to do this alternate engine program.'"

The second engine is just one of many expensive add-ons to the defense budget.

Just this year, senators on the Armed Services Committee tacked on 309 extra projects worth $5.6 billion tax dollars — much of it for hometown contracts.

That includes the backup engine for the supersonic Lightning II, which remains on congressional life support — against the Air Force's own best advice.

Source: http://cbs4.com/topstories/topstories_s ... 10046.html

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
Sponsor
New postPosted: Nov 19, 2008 - 12:39 AM Back to top
F-16.net Sponsor





   
 
dwightlooi
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 03:14 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Aug 01, 2006
Posts: 1003

Status: Offline
The F136 is not about giving the F-35 a better engine although it might. It is also not about saving money although it might.

The F136 is about keeping GE in the military jet engine business. Without it, GE is basically done. Having only P&W in the military engine business is a very bad degradation of the US military industrial base.

In short, regardless of whether the F136 saves money or brings about a better engine alternative to the F135, the $2 billion is well spent.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 03:29 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1089

Status: Offline
Well they did make it to the second sentence before their credibility took a dive out the window:

"It flies so fast that the speed is classified. "

LMAO
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Davy
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 01:35 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Sep 09, 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Status: Offline
sferrin you are being generous, "CBS News" in the byline brings the credibility of anything following into question. Very Happy
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
elp
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 01:54 PM Reply with quote Back to top
F-16.net Editor
F-16.net Editor


Joined: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 2862

dwightlooi wrote:


The F136 is about keeping GE in the military jet engine business. Without it, GE is basically done. Having only P&W in the military engine business is a very bad degradation of the US military industrial base.



I agree the "news" item is funny which is partly why I posted it. However the idea that GE would die in mil engine biz is not accurate. Super Hornet is going to be around a long time to name ONE user. There is a theory that they have to stay in advanced next gen engines. Not a problem for them to make advanced next gen engines with or without JSF. Not to mention that the alternate engine is GE and RR, not just one or the other. Besides, you did want the low price on your JSF didn't you?

The amusing part is that it is OK for the military to suggest low cost solutions.... except when it gets in the way of congressional pork.

_________________
- ELP -
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
primary_solution
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 03:29 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: Jul 16, 2007
Posts: 8

Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
Well they did make it to the second sentence before their credibility took a dive out the window:

"It flies so fast that the speed is classified. "

LMAO


I thought that was quite funny as well. When you are familiar with a particular topic/situation and the news report something this off base, it seriously makes one question anything you hear from the media.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
snypa777
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 04:16 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 1455

Status: Offline
"History shows competition works; it drives down price, spurs innovation, builds a better product and saves money in the long term," says Rep. Schmidt, R-Ohio.

Anyone want to argue against this point? I guess the beef is why is just the US paying for it. The US gives billions in mil` aid to a hell of a lot of nations and the tax payer foots the bill. Where do you want to draw the line in the sand? On an engine program? I reckon the US military will benefit along with the F-35 if this engine is a success. Budgets are hard pressed so I can understand the mentality. If this happened in the 1980`s, barely an eyebrow would have been raised.

Meantime, the military has been trying to kill the project altogether, saying the tax dollars would be better spent for force protection and IED-resistant vehicles..

Ouch, the gloves are off! That was below the belt, tugging at heart strings. Wink

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
AJAX
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 08:14 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Enthusiast
Enthusiast


Joined: Feb 20, 2004
Posts: 49

Status: Offline
snypa777 wrote:
"History shows competition works; it drives down price, spurs innovation, builds a better product and saves money in the long term," says Rep. Schmidt, R-Ohio.

Sure as hell worked for my cable bill.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
lamoey
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 09:05 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Senior member
Senior member


Joined: Apr 25, 2004
Posts: 398

Status: Offline
... or perhaps the politicians wants to keep one of the most loyal allies of the US, the United Kingdom, happy, as they have stakes in the GE/RR F136 engine. I bet Bush and Brown touched on it at Camp David this last week in their first eye-to-eye meeting.

_________________
Former Flight Control Technican - We keep'em flying
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
snypa777
PostPosted: Aug 01, 2007 - 10:58 PM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 26, 2005
Posts: 1455

Status: Offline
lamoey wrote:
... or perhaps the politicians wants to keep one of the most loyal allies of the US, the United Kingdom, happy, as they have stakes in the GE/RR F136 engine. I bet Bush and Brown touched on it at Camp David this last week in their first eye-to-eye meeting.


Entirely possible I suppose. Has the F-136 engine squeezed a better deal out of Pratt` for the F-135? If that is the case then some of that 1.6Bn has been well spent IMO.

_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
 View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 01:19 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1089

Status: Offline
Competiton works- sortof. If you have to shell out $2 billion to fund a second engine so you can save $1 billion over the life of the program (and that's likely being extremely generous) how did competition work? You're still out a billion more than if you hadn't funded the second engine.
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 03:16 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 809

Status: Offline
Davy wrote:
sferrin you are being generous, "CBS News" in the byline brings the credibility of anything following into question. Very Happy





Personally, I have little respect for anything from CBS as they are just out for the headlines! Oh, I remember the 60 min stories about the F-15, F-16, and M-1 Tank! WELL CBS WHAT DO YOU SAY NOW? ALL THREE PROGRAMS HAVE TURN OUT TO BE VERY SUCESSFULL AND CLEARLY WITHOUT YOUR HELP! Confused Confused Confused

P.S. YOU SUCK Wink
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Scorpion1alpha
PostPosted: Aug 02, 2007 - 04:48 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Oct 20, 2005
Posts: 784

Status: Offline
Corsair1963 wrote:
little respect for anything from CBS as they are just out for the headlines!


And ABC, and NBC, and CNN, and MSNBC, and NY Times, and Washington Post, and...
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
sferrin
PostPosted: Aug 03, 2007 - 12:12 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Elite 1K
Elite 1K


Joined: Jul 22, 2005
Posts: 1089

Status: Offline
Corsair1963 wrote:
Davy wrote:
sferrin you are being generous, "CBS News" in the byline brings the credibility of anything following into question. Very Happy





Personally, I have little respect for anything from CBS as they are just out for the headlines! Oh, I remember the 60 min stories about the F-15, F-16, and M-1 Tank! WELL CBS WHAT DO YOU SAY NOW? ALL THREE PROGRAMS HAVE TURN OUT TO BE VERY SUCESSFULL AND CLEARLY WITHOUT YOUR HELP! Confused Confused Confused

P.S. YOU SUCK Wink



Hey don't forget the Bradley which has flammable armor (and that's a no-$hitter. Some genius figured that since powdered aluminum is used in rocket propellant. . .)


Last edited by sferrin on Aug 03, 2007 - 03:36 AM; edited 1 time in total
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Corsair1963
PostPosted: Aug 03, 2007 - 01:29 AM Reply with quote Back to top
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran


Joined: Dec 19, 2005
Posts: 809

Status: Offline
sferrin wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
Davy wrote:
sferrin you are being generous, "CBS News" in the byline brings the credibility of anything following into question. Very Happy





Personally, I have little respect for anything from CBS as they are just out for the headlines! Oh, I remember the 60 min stories about the F-15, F-16, and M-1 Tank! WELL CBS WHAT DO YOU SAY NOW? ALL THREE PROGRAMS HAVE TURN OUT TO BE VERY SUCESSFULL AND CLEARLY WITHOUT YOUR HELP! Confused Confused Confused

P.S. YOU SUCK Wink



Hey don't forget the Bradley which has flammable armor (and that's a no-$hitter. Some geneous figured that since powdered aluminum is used in rocket propellant. . .)


and that's only the tip of the iceberg! Confused The only problem is the public takes everything they say as gospel. Sad
 View user's profile Send private message  
 
Display posts from previous:     
Jump to:  
All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic Log in to check your private messages View next topic
Copyright © 2008 Lieven Dewitte and Stefaan Vanhastel