Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
F-35/JSF Second Engine Option Funding Pulled  
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5786 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4882 times:

Remarkably the funding for the RR/GE F-136 engine option for the F35 was removed for now from the next budget. Of course the question now is what is next and how much more will RR and GE push to try to save it? It isn't dead yet.

In general I support the idea of a second source for the engine, and I wonder what will possibly control the cost creep that will occur with the one remaining engine built by PW. But looking at the costs involved it just doesn't appear feasible to keep at this time. The direct savings is estimated to be about $3billion over the next few years.

Lately it was really just a political issue.

Quote:
Many taxpayer watchdog groups also weighed in against the engine program, slated to cost $3 billion over the next few years and $450 million this year alone.

The 233-198 tally was a loss for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, whose state reaps about 1,000 jobs from the engine program, built by the General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce.

Tugg


I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineFlyingSicilian From Italy, joined Mar 2009, 1393 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4858 times:

Good get rid of it. I hope it stays dead.


“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4754 times:

What is the cost per engine, and, how many were to be ordered?


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlinetugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 5786 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4743 times:

Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 1):
What is the cost per engine, and, how many were to be ordered?

Well the full build-out for the F-35 program is/was to be over 3000 planes over twenty or so years. I don't know how many engines a jet goes throuh in its life but with replacement, spares, and maintenance, the market is pretty big.

I am not finding a cost "per engine" for the F136, projected or otherwise, but the F135's price tag is supposed to be to $10 million per engine by the 250th unit. The current engineering costs are huge and would make each engines current "per" cost equally huge.

Tugg



I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
User currently offlineBlackbird1331 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1897 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4735 times:

Thanks. I forgot to ask, will they continue the program with an existing engine?


Cameras shoot pictures. Guns shoot people. They have the guns.
User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

Problem is now two fold:
1. GE might exit the jet fighter engine market. Other than the F404 and F414, GE now doesn't have any new jet fighter engine for any future fighter being designed. GE might decide to cut its losses and exit from the sector.

2. Some JSF partners (namely the Dutch amongst the more prominent ones) might decide to pull out because they had workshare agreements with GE as part of their industrial contribution for F-35. We could see a number of nations pull out of buying F-35's because of the decision to can the second engine.


User currently offlinearniepie From Belgium, joined Aug 2005, 1265 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 4483 times:

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 2):
What is the cost per engine, and, how many were to be ordered?

Why are people asking what one engine option more or less will cost anyway?
It's not like they seem to be intersted in cost of the whole thing anyway.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...t-confirms-jsf-cost-explosion.html

Quoting direct from the article:
JSF Likely Far More Expensive Than Aircraft They're Replacing


(Source: Project On Government Oversight; issued Feb. 15, 2011)
...............
His findings suggest that the JSF fighters will be far more expensive—even more than previously believed—than the aircraft they are set to replace, which include the F/A-18, F-15, F-16, A-10, AV-8B and other planes. The budget request, unveiled yesterday, is “the first to fully reflect the major changes in the F-35 program that started early last year,” Sweetman wrote.

Sweetman found the following average per-unit costs, or APUCs:

--F-35A: $110 million ($7.7 billion for 70 aircraft)
--F-35B: $150 million ($2.71 billion, for 18 aircraft)
--F-35C: $139.5 million ($2.79 billion for 20 aircraft)
..................


There is also reason to doubt the learning curve argument, argues Winslow Wheeler, a defense expert at the Center for Defense Information. Last year, Wheeler wrote that projections that the learning curve will bring per-unit F-35 costs down should be viewed with suspicion:

“The last 50 years of actual DOD aircraft cost history, especially of “stealth” aircraft, do not treat the Carter-Fox estimates, and the prevailing conventional wisdom, very politely, however. The absence of any such progressive “learning curve” in unit cost has been thoroughly demonstrated by the analysis of Chuck Spinney, using actual procurement data.
...................


Keep in mind that the development and production phases of the F-35 program could cost a total of $382 billion, according to one Pentagon estimate. But compare that with life cycle costs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated in 2008 that, including life cycle costs, the F-35 program will cost more than $950 billion. The lion’s share of life cycle costs is the cost of both operating and maintaining the aircraft. If the operations and maintenance costs are substantially higher than the GAO estimated, the program easily may have moved well beyond the $1 trillion mark.
...................

A source familiar with the issue said that the Air Force believes a study performed by the Navy one year ago looks increasingly accurate, based on preliminary data the service has compiled. Buzz readers will remember that the Navy study found the F-35 would cost between 30 percent and 40 percent more per plane than does the current F/A-18 fleet. Sinceone of the primary goals of the F-35 program, with its web of international partners, was to lower maintenance costs by achieving economies of scale through large program buys by a significant number of countries this would call into question one of the fundamental goals of the program.

The JSF, protecting your skies while bankruting your country.

I hope the Dutch and other European memberstates decide against this folly and go for a more sensible option, it doesn't even have to be a European one, Silent Eagle or the latest Super Hornets would also do just fine.



[edit post]
User currently offlineFlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 4030 times:

Sucks for me because I'm on this program at Wright-Patterson AFB (albeit, for all of four months and most of that I've been gone for other training anyway), although I haven't heard anything from the office because I've been down in Alabama the past several weeks for a training program. Before I left, the latest word around the office was that if the engine was cut, most of ys would most likely be transferred over to the F135 engine. Most of the people in my office are civilian though, so what will happen to them and what could happen to me are two different things. I may be reassigned off the program completely, perhaps even out of propulsion. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens to me specifically when I get back.   

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
In general I support the idea of a second source for the engine, and I wonder what will possibly control the cost creep that will occur with the one remaining engine built by PW.

Not just creep, but also quality. From the short time I've been on the program, I've been told there are two primary reasons for the JSF having two engine sources.
1) The original engine for the F-16 was the P&W F100 engine. Due to high costs and other problems with the F100, the USAF contracted GE to develop an engine, and the GE F110 is above and beyond the F100 in both performance and cost.
2) The other reason is if the JSF fleet was ever forced to be grounded for an engine-related issue, only half the fleet would have to be grounded at any given time, leaving the other half of the fleet still operational.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 5):
2. Some JSF partners (namely the Dutch amongst the more prominent ones) might decide to pull out because they had workshare agreements with GE as part of their industrial contribution for F-35.

I wonder how this will impact the British as well. Part of the F136 engine is built at RR-Bristol in the UK.

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
The 233-198 tally was a loss for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, whose state reaps about 1,000 jobs from the engine program, built by the General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce.

Not just his state, but his district. GE-Evendale is in Boehner's district in Ohio.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1620 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 10 months 1 week 13 hours ago) and read 3950 times:

R&D and production costs of USD 382 billion? Total life-cycle costs approximating USD 1 trillion? Expect more cuts to come. These numbers are way out of control for a country running a USD 12 trillion deficit. And expect more UAV encroachment on the domain of the JSF too...

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlinewingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2338 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3681 times:

I like Arnie Pie's point. By the time this thing gets in the air its main function will be to provide air cover over the Treasury Dept. as the Chinese storm the capital to get their money back..

It really does seem crazy not to can this entire project and just start cranking out F22's. For foreign partners maybe take out some parts and bits to lower the cost.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (3 years 10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

This deal is bogus for two reasons: Pratt & Splatt has dropped the ball on two modern fighter jet engine programs, the TF-30 that due to budget cuts, was forced into the F-14 for much of it's life span, resulting in the loss of more lives through the end of the millennium than the Navy aircrew lost in all of Vietnam, and the F-16. Sure, P&W can make some good engines, but they don't always do so.

The Joint Suck Fighter continues it's unimpressive incubation.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3600 times:

Quoting wingman (Reply 9):
It really does seem crazy not to can this entire project and just start cranking out F22's. For foreign partners maybe take out some parts and bits to lower the cost.

Problem is that foreign partners want workshare, technology transfer in some cases, or maybe even a parallel assembly line. The USAF will have kittens before they allow anyone to have these on the F-22.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3864 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3594 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 11):
Problem is that foreign partners want workshare, technology transfer in some cases, or maybe even a parallel assembly line. The USAF will have kittens before they allow anyone to have these on the F-22.


True, however some military offsets are met with commercial hardware and technologies... However I doubt the F-22 will make it back into production... The Boeing autoclaves have been acquired by the commercial side for 787/797 production. no autoclaves, no wings. (yes they could buy more and set up a new factory)


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12181 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

Quoting tugger (Thread starter):
Lately it was really just a political issue.


Quote:
Many taxpayer watchdog groups also weighed in against the engine program, slated to cost $3 billion over the next few years and $450 million this year alone.

The 233-198 tally was a loss for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, whose state reaps about 1,000 jobs from the engine program, built by the General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce.
Quoting FlyDeltaJets87 (Reply 7):
Not just his state, but his district. GE-Evendale is in Boehner's district in Ohio.

Well, Speaker Boehner did not vote on the issue, but did let it come to the floor for a vote by the full House. It looks like he is trying to keep his word about cutting the budget, even if it means losses for his district.

Quoting Blackbird1331 (Reply 4):
will they continue the program with an existing engine?

Yes, the P&W F-135.


User currently offlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1857 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

What could hurt the US more in the long run is that future US fighter designs will have to rely on PW engines as there is a very high chance that GE would wind down their jet fighter engine interests.

And that $3 billion in costs for the F136 is debatable; the GAO has put that number into question and says it actually could be lower; how much lower is of course, debatable as GE says they only need 1.8 billion dollars to finish development of the F136.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic F-35/JSF Second Engine Option Funding Pulled
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Whats The Problem With The F-35 JSF? posted Wed Oct 29 2008 04:10:45 by BBaldwin09
F-35 JSF's Helmet-mounted Display posted Sun Apr 15 2007 01:48:58 by Bingo
Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF Rolls Out Fully Assembled posted Wed Feb 22 2006 03:55:30 by Atmx2000
Lockheed F-35 JSF posted Thu Jan 19 2006 17:33:34 by KrisYYZ
GE And Rolls-Royce Give Up On F136 JSF Engine posted Fri Dec 2 2011 07:57:16 by aviationweek
U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns posted Thu Apr 14 2011 17:55:57 by AirRyan
The PW F135, The Only Engine On The JSF? posted Wed Sep 30 2009 00:04:38 by 747classic
F-35 Alternate Engine posted Mon Jun 1 2009 05:47:01 by Michlis
F-35 Fires Up F135 Engine posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:06:34 by MCIGuy
F-35 Engine Manufacturer Change posted Tue Feb 7 2006 17:30:44 by RichardPrice

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format