Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns  
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7249 times:

Are you freaking kidding me?! The P&W F135 is under performing so there is no need whatsoever for the GE/RR F136?!

Like Asshton Carter says as the bottom of the article, good people just disagree. So when you're tied in a disagreement of opinions, why not go back to the previous history and see how that turned out, shall we? I'm talking about the GE F110 for the F-16 that more than proved that not only was it better for the budget, it also challenged both parties to develop a better engine. The GE F-110 later went on to power F-14's and F-15's, in addition to half of the F-16's built, so how can the F-16 / GE F110 issue not be of a factor in the F-16 replacement F-35 F-136 apparent controversy?

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...4_2011_p0-310724.xml&headline=U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7238 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
Are you freaking kidding me?! The P&W F135 is under performing so there is no need whatsoever for the GE/RR F136?!



Have you ever played Poker??

This is exactly how the DOD should be playing their cards... They are trying to play the Broke Card (reduced military budgets) and get P&W to make concessions in price...

BTW, You did see that GE/RR decided to internally fund the F136 program on their own without additional congressional funding??

What does that tell you???



harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 7228 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

But how much will it cost to develop the GE/RR F136 into a production-ready engine compared to "fixing" the P&W F135?

For a lark, I was watching NOVA's "Battle of the X-Planes" last night. The Boeing XF-32 looked to be a cheaper plane than the XF-35, but it's inability to perform VTOL operations in a "clean" configuration and the novelty of the lift fan on the XF-35B won it the deal.

Now the F-35B is in trouble to the point that the RAF and RN have scrapped their order for the F-35B and will instead retrofit their Queen Elizabeth class carriers for CATOBAR so they can operate the F-35C carrier model. And the DoD have placed the F-35B on a "production hold" for two years to see if it can be made to work. And if it can't, then what do the USMC plan to operate off the America class, since I don't believe it is designed to handle the F-35C.

Though maybe they should not just fund the F136, but also fund the F-32 so that way we can get at least one plane and one engine in combination into the air.  


User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 1 week ago) and read 7203 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Now the F-35B is in trouble to the point that the RAF and RN have scrapped their order for the F-35B and will instead retrofit their Queen Elizabeth class carriers for CATOBAR so they can operate the F-35C carrier model. And the DOD have placed the F-35B on a "production hold" for two years to see if it can be made to work. And if it can't, then what do the USMC plan to operate off the America class, since I don't believe it is designed to handle the F-35C.



Actually Stitch,

"retrofit their Queen Elizabeth class carriers"

Please correct me if I'm wrong? But I thought the Original plan for the RN was Either Or?

Since the French Carrier was never going to be anything but a CATOBAR? The RN was weighing the possibilities for both capabilities?

The selection properly has more to do with the success of the EMALS (Electro-Magnetic Launch) and the cost benefit of the F-35C vs. the F-35B as far as cost, range, and interoperability with US Navy. Including: parts, training, weapons and compatibility...

IMO... It just makes sense...

[Edited 2011-04-14 19:34:35]

[Edited 2011-04-14 19:39:23]


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 6887 times:

The whole damned F-35 program should be scrapped. They killed the Comanche, losing 7billion bucks, and that was a program that was actually looking good.

The thing is turning into a turd. Scoop it and dump it.



What the...?
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 6831 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 4):

And replace it with that? The JSF program is way beyond the point of cancelling.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 6796 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):

And replace it with that? The JSF program is way beyond the point of canceling.

New F-15 and F-16's would have been more than adequate to get by with for one more generation, with the savings spent/wasted on the F-35 thus far better off spent on more F-22's (and getting them all updated with everything they should have had from the beginning.)

The Harrier quite frankly is just a plane that never was worth a crap well enough to warrant a replacement in the Marine Air Wing in the first place, and if the RAF can get over the demise of the Harrier, so too should the Marines. Sure is going to make the new LHA-(R)'s look that much more so wasteful and useless, but hey they already do a pretty good job of that themselves. Had the Marines fielded a more competent attack helicopter than the AH-1W for all these years, with say something like an AH-64D and it's payload, the Harrier would have all but been exposed for nothing more than a fast moving attack helicopter - just not something that warrants all the money being spent on the JSF (like when the entire program was basically awarded on which STOVL version was deemed more plausible.) When the USAF buys a plane based of the STOVL version of the Marines, there has got to be something wrong.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6783 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
The JSF program is way beyond the point of cancelling.

These should easily replace the F-35A/C

F-15SE
F-16E/F
F/A-18E/F

For the F-35B, try re-opening the A-10 production line, building a new A-10D for the USMC with a semi-STOL capability. Just keep the same basic armorment and avionics the A/OA-10C has, no stealth. A less STOL capabale A-10E and A-10F could be built for the USAF.

The Air Force would love a newer Warthog. The Marines could call their version the Warty Pig. Yes, that is an actual pig and is related to the Warthog.


User currently offlinecosmofly From United States of America, joined May 2009, 649 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6768 times:

With the progress of UAVs, most stealthy operations can be operated by UAVs. The remaining few can be handled by a handful of F22s and B2s. After such, updated Gen4.5 is more than good enough. Besides, who on earth these days wants to go into a war that requires 1000s of fighters, let alone stealth fighters? Everyone would dump their cruise missiles and ICBMs first anyway.

As most of our politicians are telling use, our greatest national threat is our debt. Only if we can sell 1000s of F35 overseas and none here, then it is worth the tax payers money  


User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 6753 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
These should easily replace the F-35A/C

For the next 20 years, maybe. Using the same logic, why not just use new F-15's instead of the Raptor? I hear you can pick up the J-20 or SU-37 pretty cheaply and they do the exact same thing the Raptor can, right?


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15743 posts, RR: 27
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 6709 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
Though maybe they should not just fund the F136, but also fund the F-32 so that way we can get at least one plane and one engine in combination into the air.

Hmm. Seems to me that there are already plenty of F-22s, F-18s, F-16s, F-15s, and A-10s flying. The JSF is a great example of why politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to design planes. (I suppose the F-111 didn't teach them) Usually the better option is to get a plane that is great at one job and see what else it can do or design a well rounded aircraft with reasonable expectations like the F-16 and F-18.

It doesn't take a genius to tell you that designing a plane that can do everything, do it with a small radar cross section, do it while landing vertically, and do it cheaply is unlikely to happen without some major snags.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):
And replace it with that?

In the short term, more F-15s and F-16s while upgrading the A-10 more than what is already planned or even looking at restarting production, probably via M7. In the long term, it would be wise to look at other variants of the F-22 or even F-23 and whether a bomber (pretty feasible) or naval version (probably not as feasible) would work as well as studying a purchase of F-15SE would be worthwhile.

Long story short, I think the F-35 needs the government more than the government needs the F-35. Not that a lot of it isn't brilliant engineering, in fact quite the opposite. Lockheed and PW have gotten pretty close to delivering what I believe to be an unrealistically tall order, but I think that the lessons learned could be better applied to other future programs.

The F-35 was designed to give everyone what they wanted, but ends up giving everyone a lot of what they didn't want too. Do the Marines really need stealth? Does the Air Force need vertical landing? You can hang an awful lot of bells and whistles on an airframe, but they all come at a cost.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
The JSF is a great example of why politicians and bureaucrats shouldn't be allowed to design planes. (I suppose the F-111 didn't teach them) Usually the better option is to get a plane that is great at one job and see what else it can do or design a well rounded aircraft with reasonable expectations like the F-16 and F-18.

The JSF and the TXF were both designed for the same reason - creating a new-build custom aircraft for each service is tremendously expensive. Back in the TXF's days, it was SecDef Robert McNamera's attempts to reign in spending. With the JSF, it was the fact that with the Soviet Union gone, there was no justification to build two new aircraft families, one for each service.

Boeing was the clear choice by the Air Force to win the TFX contract, but McNamara gave it to General Dynamics because their version better fit both the USAF and USN requirements (even though the USN didn't want either proposal). In the end, GD's design could not meet the USN's weight and performance issues and the F-111B was cancelled in favor of a new-build design - the Grumman F-14 Tomcat.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15743 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 6693 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
With the JSF, it was the fact that with the Soviet Union gone, there was no justification to build two new aircraft families, one for each service.

As of now they have zero new aircraft families. Well, they had one, which they proceeded to cut off at the knees.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
In the end, GD's design could not meet the USN's weight and performance issues and the F-111B was cancelled in favor of a new-build design - the Grumman F-14 Tomcat.

So how much did the F-111 end up saving in the end? How much will the F-35 end up saving in the end? And how effective will it be when it is charged with having to do so much with one airframe?



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 6495 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 5):

And replace it with that? The JSF program is way beyond the point of cancelling.

Anything. What the heck does Canada, for instance, need stealth, (as questionable as the stealth is on the F-35), for?

Go in with the Swedes on the GripenNG, and fill in any stealth gaps with much cheaper next gen uav's. Pick up a bunch of the F/A f-18's and get them fixed up...again, way cheaper than the f-35.

By the time the F-35 becomes operational, its limited stealth regime will probably be pierced by next gen radar rendering it useless.



What the...?
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 6364 times:

Quoting AirRyan (Thread starter):
I'm talking about the GE F110 for the F-16 that more than proved that not only was it better for the budget, it also challenged both parties to develop a better engine. The GE F-110 later went on to power F-14's and F-15's, in addition to half of the F-16's built, so how can the F-16 / GE F110 issue not be of a factor in the F-16 replacement F-35 F-136 apparent controversy?


Well if this is the case then I guess we should award a contract to PW for an alternative to the F414. Why not every other military aircraft that's still in production. I know GE has there little chart on how having an alternative engine is supposed to save money. How much money is actually saved or are they just playing with the numbers.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 6):
New F-15 and F-16's would have been more than adequate to get by with for one more generation, with the savings spent/wasted on the F-35 thus far better off spent on more F-22's (and getting them all updated with everything they should have had from the beginning.)

The biggest problem with the F-35 program are with the B version of the aircraft. Killing the whole program just becasue of one version makes little sense. As I have said in the past kill the F-35B and give the USMC a choice between the F-35C and the F/A-18E/F.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 7):
For the F-35B, try re-opening the A-10 production line, building a new A-10D for the USMC with a semi-STOL capability. Just keep the same basic armorment and avionics the A/OA-10C has, no stealth.

If you can't land it on a carrier the DON will not buy it.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Go in with the Swedes on the GripenNG, and fill in any stealth gaps with much cheaper next gen uav's. Pick up a bunch of the F/A f-18's and get them fixed up...again, way cheaper than the f-35.

If Canada were to opt out of the JSF it would make more sense for them to go with the Super Hornet in IMHO. It's an aircraft that the RCAF is already familiar with and it has two engines.

[Edited 2011-04-18 09:01:24]

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30986 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 6329 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
So how much did the F-111 end up saving in the end?

I expect nothing, since in the end the USAF got their new program (the F-111) and the USN got their new program (the F-14).



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 12):
How much will the F-35 end up saving in the end?

Well the plane is anywhere from two to three times as expensive as originally planned (depending on how many are purchased) and the flyaway airframe cost is now almost as high as the F-22 Raptor (both on a Unit Procurement Cost basis and on an entire Program Cost [including R&D] basis), which is dripping with irony considering a major impetus to create the JSF program was the high cost of the F-22.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15743 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6272 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 15):
which is dripping with irony considering a major impetus to create the JSF program was the high cost of the F-22.

Even more so considering that the whole plan looked ridiculous from the start. A plane that can do everything, do it invisibly, and do it cheaply is pure fantasy. The government pissed down their legs and decided it was raining.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlinepowerslide From Canada, joined Oct 2010, 569 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 6222 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Anything. What the heck does Canada, for instance, need stealth, (as questionable as the stealth is on the F-35), for?

It was among the requirements set out by the top brass of the Air Force. It's like asking a doctor why he needs the latest technology in medicare to do his job.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 13):
Go in with the Swedes on the GripenNG, and fill in any stealth gaps with much cheaper next gen uav's. Pick up a bunch of the F/A f-18's and get them fixed up...again, way cheaper than the f-35.

You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's because of statements like this the Air Force is flying 30 year old outdated equipment to the breaking point. If all we did was buy crap to save a buck, we'd be flying some Russian junk or the J-20. Get a clue.

Canadian Air Force: Flying yesterdays technology, Tomorrow!  


User currently offlineNicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 1099 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6112 times:

Quoting powerslide (Reply 17):
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's because of statements like this the Air Force is flying 30 year old outdated equipment to the breaking point. If all we did was buy crap to save a buck, we'd be flying some Russian junk or the J-20. Get a clue.

Talking about getting a clue...

Pls explain why buying GripenNG oder the latest F/A-18 are crap? And where "russian junks" comes into play when history has shown that they can build some very potent aircraft?
Its rather buying value for the money. Which opponent should Canada encounter where they could ever need the latest and greatest of the game?


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5465 posts, RR: 30
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5898 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 14):
If Canada were to opt out of the JSF it would make more sense for them to go with the Super Hornet in IMHO. It's an aircraft that the RCAF is already familiar with and it has two engines.

The super hornet has almost nothing in common with the F/A hornet. There is no commonality.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 17):
It was among the requirements set out by the top brass of the Air Force. It's like asking a doctor why he needs the latest technology in medicare to do his job.
Quoting powerslide (Reply 17):
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? It's because of statements like this the Air Force is flying 30 year old outdated equipment to the breaking point. If all we did was buy crap to save a buck, we'd be flying some Russian junk or the J-20. Get a clue.

Canadian Air Force: Flying yesterdays technology, Tomorrow!

Bite me. Maybe if you took your head out of your butt and had a look around at what our requirements really are, you'd keep you petty insults to yourself. Name one single time Canada had any, even the smallest, requirement for stealth. It hasn't happened yet...and it never will. Generals always want the latest toys...it doesn't mean they need them.

The Generals also ordered, then screwed up, the S-92's. That's working out well, isn't it? Because they decided they needed to have unique modifications, we are still years away from getting any...and, of course, the price keeps going up too.

If you want to bitch about flying ancient Sea Kings, blame your omniscient Generals for that.

Canada needs SAR, long range reconnaissance and maritime patrol craft, naval and air...not overpriced and useless alleged stealth planes. Canada will never have to go into battle first...ever...unless the rooskies decide to move in then 65 stealth-ish planes aint' going to hold them back for long.

Canada needs more protection from foreign fishing boats than foreign attackers.

In any other conflict, Canada will go in after the heavy lifting has been done...just like always.



What the...?
User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5793 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The super hornet has almost nothing in common with the F/A hornet. There is no commonality.

The Super Hornet has 90% avionics and software commonality with the legacy Hornets. Add to that the sytems are going to be relatively the same and the F414 is basically an enlarged version of the F404.


User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 5775 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The Generals also ordered, then screwed up, the S-92's.

Generals order nothing, elected officials do.


User currently offlinefaro From Egypt, joined Aug 2007, 1545 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5727 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 21):
Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The Generals also ordered, then screwed up, the S-92's.

Generals order nothing, elected officials do.

Makes you wonder, if some had their way: dictatorships ain't all bad, at least those pesky civilians can't get in the way of what's really needed for the greater good of your armed forces....

Faro



The chalice not my son
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3409 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (3 years 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 5650 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 16):
Even more so considering that the whole plan looked ridiculous from the start. A plane that can do everything, do it invisibly, and do it cheaply is pure fantasy. The government pissed down their legs and decided it was raining.

They really really need to do a fly off between a nearly 40 year old A10 and the F35 for both CAS and ground attack missions.

For more comedy gold, wargame trying to shoot down helicopters flying close to the ground with each.


IMO they should have taken a small fraction of the F35 budget off to develop a new A-10. Modern engines with extra care for noise and IR reduction. Modern avionics. 2 seat version for FAC duty and recon. Then on the side give it a quick and dirty clean up of its radar profile. Wouldn't be suprised if you could reduce it by a huge margin using a composite wing and other material changes. Then the AF gets a very cheap multi-role aircraft that actualy works for multiple services. Costs wouldn't be stupid high as the "high tech" would be simply integrating current first line combat electronics, not making new bleeding edge stuff.

Hell as much as I think the F16 is largely useless, imagine if we spent 1/10th the money of the F35 program on it. I'd bet you could find some nice fuel burn and radar cross section reductions for that amount. Spend another 1/10th or two giving the F18 new wings that don't suck. The rest "waste" on continued F22 production, and developing a new gen F22 taking all the lessons of the current frame and making it more reliable and cheaper to operate now that actual service has shown what paper and computers never can.


User currently onlineThePointblank From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 1719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (3 years 5 months 21 hours ago) and read 5645 times:

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 20):

The Super Hornet has 90% avionics and software commonality with the legacy Hornets. Add to that the sytems are going to be relatively the same and the F414 is basically an enlarged version of the F404.

1. Only first gen Super Hornets did. Later production Super Hornets have very little in avionics and software commonality with the legacy Hornet.
2. Nope. Super Hornets are totally different aircraft compared to the legacy Hornet. Structurally, they are not even the same past the nose. They just look similar.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
The Generals also ordered, then screwed up, the S-92's. That's working out well, isn't it? Because they decided they needed to have unique modifications, we are still years away from getting any...and, of course, the price keeps going up too.

The politicians did that, not the generals. And all because the Liberals didn't want to buy a helicopter they cancelled with great fanfare and expense almost a decade earlier. For example, during the competition, all of the bidders had to submit video footage of of their helicopters,showing the blade and tail automatic and manual folding procedures in order to prove compliance with the requirements. Lockheed Martin and AgustaWestland did, while Sikorsky didn't, and was allowed to because the politicians were leaning on the bureaucrats to allow them to do so.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 19):
Canada needs SAR, long range reconnaissance and maritime patrol craft, naval and air...not overpriced and useless alleged stealth planes. Canada will never have to go into battle first...ever...unless the rooskies decide to move in then 65 stealth-ish planes aint' going to hold them back for long.

Our fighters are going to be falling out of the air in a couple of years. We need to plan to replace them now. How would you explain to the folks at NORAD that you can't patrol your skies because your fighter jets are all falling apart?


25 BMI727 : That's not the same as parts and maintenance commonality. The Super Hornet could conceivably have been branded a new aircraft, since it is generally
26 Post contains links JoeCanuck : As much fun as it is to lay the blame solely at the feet of politicians, military incompetence had at least as much to do with the MHP debacle. http:
27 NicoEDDF : Hey XT6, care to explain why the F16 is largely useless? No disagreement inteded, just interested to learn. Thanks and regards, Nico
28 XT6Wagon : Well, I'll be the first to admit its mostly bias... But the F16's short range/endurance coupled with fairly meh performance at any role leaves me uni
29 Post contains links DEVILFISH : It seems the DoD's displeasure was not noticed amidst the discussion..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...2/dod-orders-f136-termination.html Qu
30 Baroque : I suppose you are right, you commonly are, but if GE and RR are determined they might well wait out the vicissitudes of the US political process migh
31 Post contains images DEVILFISH : Cheers on your A.net day! I wonder if their "determination" would see them continue spending their own money on the F136.....stockholders are wont to
32 Post contains images Baroque : Many thanks. I suppose their "determination" level will in goodly part be determined by the amount of money already spent and what they can see in th
33 Post contains links and images DEVILFISH : You're welcome. Well, this clip is said to be something of a hit.....not single-engine obviously..... http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/th...ideo-chi
34 Post contains links ThePointblank : On a related note regarding F136, GE and RR are looking at self-funding development of the F136 for other platforms, most particularly for the Next Ge
35 Post contains links DEVILFISH : Well, it's turning out that they might be rewarded for their patience..... http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...o-rescue-f136-from-extinction.html
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic U.S. Not Happy With F-35 Engine Cost Overruns
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...
F-35 Engine Manufacturer Change posted Tue Feb 7 2006 17:30:44 by RichardPrice
F-35 Alternate Engine posted Mon Jun 1 2009 05:47:01 by Michlis
Whats The Problem With The F-35 JSF? posted Wed Oct 29 2008 04:10:45 by BBaldwin09
F-35 Fires Up F135 Engine posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:06:34 by MCIGuy
B-52 Re-Engine With JT8D's? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 02:21:52 by Warreng24
Cost Associated With Moving Master Jet Base Oceana posted Mon Aug 1 2005 20:27:31 by NASOCEANA
Norway Buy's 4 F-35 For Training posted Thu Apr 7 2011 12:53:11 by OyKIE
More F-35 Problems posted Fri Mar 25 2011 15:35:45 by kanban
F-35 Software To Be At Least 4 Years Late posted Tue Mar 15 2011 10:18:03 by kanban
Canada F-35 Order Facing Scrutiny posted Thu Mar 10 2011 22:18:37 by ac788

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format