- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 800
I find this to be odd...
Full article:
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industr...astes_billions_of_dollars/UPI-58191235486777/
Why keep funding competition between two engines? Wouldn't it be smarter to put those funds into other projects, say, the F-22? Or maybe put them back into the JSF program. I don't understand.
And why mess with maintenance of two different engines, when one has already proved to be superior? Wouldn't this endanger pilots?
The F-35 is a single-engine, stealthy fighter being bought in different versions for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marines. After a series of competitions, the Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies (NYSE:UTX) was awarded a contract in 1996 to develop the plane's propulsion system, which is designated the F135 engine.
But in a blatant subsidy to the losing General Electric (NYSE:GE) engine team, the U.S. Congress then directed that a second engine should be developed so that the government could enjoy the benefits of "competition." Congress did this despite the fact that the winning engine had already prevailed in half a dozen public and private competitions and despite the fact that no other part of the plane would be competed once production commenced.
The Pentagon refuses to request funds for the alternate engine, arguing the money would be better spent on other projects. But congressional proponents keep funding the program, saying that having two interchangeable engines competing for annual contracts will drive down costs, bolster the industrial base and provide a hedge against the failure of the primary F135 engine.
These arguments are specious; in all likelihood, having two engines will drive up costs, reduce safety, impede gains in performance and weaken the industrial base. As the sole customer, the government will have to pay all the costs for sustaining two design teams, two supply chains and two production sites throughout the life of the program, and in return it will get a propulsion system in which everything is more complicated.
Full article:
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industr...astes_billions_of_dollars/UPI-58191235486777/
Why keep funding competition between two engines? Wouldn't it be smarter to put those funds into other projects, say, the F-22? Or maybe put them back into the JSF program. I don't understand.
And why mess with maintenance of two different engines, when one has already proved to be superior? Wouldn't this endanger pilots?