Congress keeps alternative F-35 engine alive
The Hill:
There is more on the engine competition here. One of the downsides to two different engines is the mechanics having to learn different repairs and maintenance procedures which also adds to the cost of operation.
President Obama may have singled out a General Electric-Rolls Royce engine for the next-generation fighter jet as wasteful, but House defense authorizers will have none of that.That argument makes sense to me. I have not seen anything on the relative merits of the two engines. I generally favor competition and if we can't afford competition in planes, we probably at least need it for the parts.
The House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee on Friday agreed to authorize $603 million for the production of an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter F-35.
The GE-Rolls Royce venture is going head to head with engine maker Pratt & Whitney, which is building the primary engine and has been eying to be the sole contractor for the new fighter jet.
When Obama announced his budget request for 2010 in early May, he singled out the alternative engine contract as an unnecessary defense program that “does nothing to keep us safe.”
But House defense authorizers disagree.
“If everything proceeds as planned for the Joint Strike Fighter program, the F-35 will compose the vast majority of the fighter force for the Navy, Marine Corps and the Air Force 20 years from now,” said Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Air and Land Forces panel. “This issue is not about Contractor A or Contractor B. The issue is that we do not believe that it is prudent for up to 80 to 90 percent of the fighter fleet to be dependent on a single engine type, provided by one manufacturer.”
...
There is more on the engine competition here. One of the downsides to two different engines is the mechanics having to learn different repairs and maintenance procedures which also adds to the cost of operation.
Comments
Post a Comment