Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Blog

The F-35, and the engine of waste

NO RATINGS
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
JimJarvis
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
JimJarvis   5/5/2011 10:40:14 AM
NO RATINGS
It's the numbers coming out of Washington that don't add up! And Brad Pierce's comment about energy being a strategic defense issue is right on the money. One of the reasons that China is investing in its military is to mitigate unemployment among young males who might otherwise become militant. Plus, they have a clear long-term vision that includes their need for energy and raw materials. That planning was visible, way back in 1980, when I was first there. They were courting Nigeria's oil supply, even then!

kermit_gren
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
kermit_gren   5/5/2011 8:56:44 AM
NO RATINGS
the first comment states 1000 engineers will be off-line. The report says the project was costing $1million per day. The sums don't add up...

Dave.Dykstra
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
Dave.Dykstra   4/29/2011 3:00:53 AM
NO RATINGS
Dual sourcing is one thing for individual components, but considering an engine as a component is stretching it (I agree that strict definition says it is a component, however...). Instead, they need to make sure the parts needed to make the engine have dual sources and take the funds to develop an alternate engine and deploy them elsewhere more beneficial.

anon9303122
User Rank
Freelancer
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
anon9303122   4/28/2011 3:50:46 PM
NO RATINGS
Sure, if you are willing to cede air superiority to the Chinese. Fall asleep at the switch and you may not have time to recover because you will have decimated your capability by not nurturing it. I've personally seen critical expertise shrivel away in the defense industry. The Chinese are investing heavily in it.

Jeff.Petro
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
Jeff.Petro   4/27/2011 9:30:46 PM
NO RATINGS
The unfortunate part is that, on the three current fronts, air superiority could have been easily gained using 1970's era aircraft. There isn't a valid threat that requires updated aircraft. But hey, it keeps me employed so roll out the new models.

alan.varghese
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
alan.varghese   4/26/2011 10:30:07 PM
NO RATINGS
Dual sourcing started with the production of the F-16 in the 1980s when Pratt & Whitney was the original engine manufacturer, but there were issues with production delays, reliability and contractor responsiveness. So Congress funded the second sourcing of a competing GE produced engine. But it doesn’t make sense to spend $450 million to handle problems with your supplier; the thing to do is work very closely so that rather than the typical arms-length supplier-customer relationship, it is a joint partnership effort. Or another option is to make P&W license their design to GE, so that there is supplier competition; even if there isn’t technology competition.

JeffL_2
User Rank
CEO
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
JeffL_2   4/26/2011 9:03:16 PM
NO RATINGS
I worked on integration test for the preproduction release SW for the FADEC (engine control) on the original (P&W F135) engine so I guess this is validation that our work was quite acceptable. I never quite understood why a second engine design was needed anyway.

Brad Pierce
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
Brad Pierce   4/26/2011 7:58:01 PM
NO RATINGS
If the US DOE spent as much each year on energy R&D as it spends on nuclear security, the US would be a lot more secure in the long run. According to http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/schwartz_presentation20090112.pdf "nuclear weapons and weapons-related spending accounts for about 67% of the DOE budget". According to http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/nuclear_security_spending_low.pdf "the 2008 nuclear weapons and weapons-related “budget” exceeds all anticipated government expenditures on international diplomacy and foreign assistance ($39.5 billion) and natural resources and the environment ($33 billion). It is nearly double the budget for general science, space, and technology ($27.4 billion), and it is almost fourteen times what the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has allocated for all energy-related research and development".

nicolas.mokhoff
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
nicolas.mokhoff   4/26/2011 7:19:12 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm not sure how one can make the case to support our troops fighting wars on three fronts without giving them the air superiority provided by modern F-35s. Seems to me that modernization of the military is a good thing generally but may needs to be limited by realistic expectations. There is always more pork in the military budget that needs to be cut, but I hope the generals and military establishment make the most expedient choices.

DarkMatter0
User Rank
Rookie
re: The F-35, and the engine of waste
DarkMatter0   4/26/2011 7:02:49 PM
NO RATINGS
Mixed feelings. That's another 1000 or so engineers, technicians and support staff that will be out of work. The Government will be paying them one way or another.

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week