http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/gates-fires-jsf-program-manager/
I wonder what this portends for the program?
I wonder what this portends for the program?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
JSF PM Sacked
- Thread starter Mumbles
- Start date
Well, SECDEF hopes it will mean JSF clears the rough waters it is experiencing as of now.
That article referred to a second engine. Does that mean a second contractor for the engine (competition drives down costs), or a twin-engine JSF?
There are two US engine heavyweights: Pratt&Whitney and General Electric. Both proposed motors for JSF.
They always end up head to head and a second engine source has been proposed (by Congressional leaders whose district has the factory that makes the alternative motor) to lower risk and use competition to keep price as low as possible. This has been successful in the F-15 and F-16, which can be equipped with either the P&W or GE engines.
The F-110/F100 is not completely analogous, though, as both aircraft were initially single-sourced for the engine by P&W, and a competition for a second engine introduced only after problems emerged with the F100. The F-35 has enough budgetary problems to deal with without the added costs of a second engine program.
A RAND case study on the F-110/100 history:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N3618/
A RAND case study on the F-110/100 history:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/notes/N3618/
Particularly when these companies use their own fundage to pay for the R&D costs incurred. Both are outstanding motors. IMHO, it wouldn't hurt to purchase a few GE F-136s. Not sure why Gates is so vehemently against it.
A couple of good papers on the 2 engine procurement for JSF in addition to the RAND Piece.
IDA, Institute for Defense Analyses (Defense and IC FFRDC think tank) did a study almost 3 years ago, and they found limited savings in having 2 engine manufacturers, and a higher upfront costs. The kicker is that by 2035, JSF would comprise 95% of the US fighter force. What happens then if there is a failure with the potential to ground the fleet? So the benefit would be more flexibility, while on the cost side, there would be some savings if O&S competed, which will negate initial higher costs (somewhere around 8 Bill). Personally I think it would be a wise investment to have two sources for the engine.
Gates prob doesn't like the 2nd engine option because that 8 Bill has to come from somewhere, and once he's made the call, he expects everyone to fall in line and follow his lead.
http://www.ida.org/upload/research notes/rn_fall2008_jsf.pdf
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf
IDA, Institute for Defense Analyses (Defense and IC FFRDC think tank) did a study almost 3 years ago, and they found limited savings in having 2 engine manufacturers, and a higher upfront costs. The kicker is that by 2035, JSF would comprise 95% of the US fighter force. What happens then if there is a failure with the potential to ground the fleet? So the benefit would be more flexibility, while on the cost side, there would be some savings if O&S competed, which will negate initial higher costs (somewhere around 8 Bill). Personally I think it would be a wise investment to have two sources for the engine.
Gates prob doesn't like the 2nd engine option because that 8 Bill has to come from somewhere, and once he's made the call, he expects everyone to fall in line and follow his lead.
http://www.ida.org/upload/research notes/rn_fall2008_jsf.pdf
http://fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL33390.pdf
FlyingOnFumes
Nobel WAR Prize Aspirant
Yup. Yup. "DJ"!! Maybe they needed some of that Khadaffi-thwacking, Gulf-of-Sidra, SU-killing, F-14 Tomcat spirit infused into the program...
Also the same guy who went first went hook-down with the T-45...cool career.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288http://www.navy-officer.com/QUAL-USN-SurfaceWarfareOfficer_1.jpg
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/bios/navybio.asp?bioID=288http://www.navy-officer.com/QUAL-USN-SurfaceWarfareOfficer_1.jpg
The companies are not funding the development costs for these engines, the government is. How do you figure the F- 136 is an outstanding motor, it is not even running at this time and only has a few hours ground testing completed? The F-135 engine has been testing since `97.