Comments on: GE and the Joint Strike Fighter: Facts vs. Myths Part 2

By: William G

William G — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:41:19 +0000

Interesting, when we want to do well we work hard ans get the job done. High yields and low down time. Excellent! I feel like I’m in the right company. Way to go on the F136!

By: Brad H

Brad H — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:25:33 +0000

“Handing a sole-source, $100 billion engine monopoly to one contractor would endanger national security” Really? Well I guess we better let Pratt in on the F-18 engine business, for the sake of national security. I don’t see the need for scare tactics in internal propaganda – you’re preaching to the choir. We all support the F136 program, but we’re not the ones you need to convince.

By: Larry S

Larry S — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 12:15:01 +0000

It’s too bad our “Representatives” in Washington have to play politics with such an important issue as this. The following note came back to me from my Honorable State Representative, Mike Pence, when I asked him to support the JSF.

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 2647, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). It was a pleasure hearing from you.

As you know, the NDAA sets the spending levels for all Department of Defense programs as well as military strength levels. Specifically, it authorizes $550.2 billion for routine defense spending and $130 billion to fund the Fiscal Year 2010 war costs in Iraq, Afghanistan and other theatres in the Global War on Terrorism. This includes a 3.4 percent pay raise for our troops and funding for an alternative engine for the next generation Joint Strike Fighter.

On June 25, 2009, The House of Representatives voted to pass the NDAA by a vote of 389-22. I was proud to support this legislation as I have each other annual defense authorization bill during my career in the House.

Soon thereafter, the United States Senate voted unanimously to pass S. 1390, a similar piece of legislation introduced by Senator Carl Levin of Michigan. The House and Senate formed a conference committee to resolve the difference between the two bills. During the conference process, the text of H.R. 1913, the Matthew Sheppard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was inserted into the NDAA.

H.R. 1913 would make crimes motivated by sexual orientation and gender identity or other actual or perceived gender-related characteristics new federal offenses. I voted against this legislation when it passed the House on April 29, 2009 because it restricts free speech and threatens the promise of equal protection under the law.

I believe that it is unconscionable that the majority in Congress included the controversial hate crimes provisions in important legislation that provides our troops with the critical resources they need to accomplish their mission. Hate crimes provisions in this legislation, as in all cases, are antithetical to the First Amendment and should not be piled onto the backs of our soldiers who safeguard the freedoms it guarantees. It is simply inappropriate to use a defense bill as a vehicle for divisive social policies wholly unrelated to our country’s national security.

Along with 145 of my colleagues in the House, I regrettably voted against the Conference Report to H.R. 2647. Though I wholeheartedly believe our troops deserve the necessary resources much of this legislation provides, I could not support it with the hate crimes language included. This controversial provision would only limit the very freedoms for which our men and women in uniform have fought and sacrifice.

Again, thank you for contacting me. It is an honor to serve in the United States House of Representatives and have the benefit of your advice. If you would like more information on this or any other issue, please visit my website at http://mikepence.house.gov.

By: Michael Kenworthy

Michael Kenworthy — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:16:00 +0000

The point about carriers being able to accommodate both engines (with thousands of unique parts each) since they “take up the same amount of room” seems weak. Is it truly an accurate portrayal of the downside given by the USN? Hopefully they can strengthen that in some meaningful manner – for example, it is obvious that managing 2 engines and at least 2-4 sets of “interchangeable” parts is not a trivial task.

I’m hesitant to support the continued full court press for funding for everything and anything in this country – we’re already at 90% debt to GDP ratio. We can’t even keep up with the Kardashians let alone funding multiple fighter engines and other such _optimal_ solutions. Our national economic growth can barely service the interest payments. Spending MORE money to REDUCE costs doesn’t sound like a very logical approach as a concerned citizen. It sounds more like a pay day loan company scam than a reasoned argument. So when “they” claim they can save well over 2X ($20b versus ~$8-9b spent by BOTH PW & GE/RR) what has been spent TOTAL so far (only ~15-20% of the predicted final tally) and 40% of the total development program by funding another engine – well I’m probably not going to just trust some GAO/JPO claim that this is realistic. Remember how accurately they predicted and managed the total cost to do this in the first place? And every other project they’ve ever estimated? Frankly it sounds like a wild, bad assumption-ridden analysis/study to service a political debt. GE Leadership please provide MEANINGFUL transparency as you flood your internal news resources and inundate US taxpayers with these “facts”.

All that said (for those that haven’t already written me off as some crazy person for not blindly supporting the F136 engine), I’m a solid supporter of competition and avoiding single points of failure – I just find the current fear-based tactics and straw-man arguments disturbing. As a GE employee and US taxpayer, I expect better of us. We can’t keep expecting to print money and get everything we’ve ever wanted – the USA is middle class now. Or to borrow mortgage loan terminology – “we’re all subprime now”.

By: Francisco Lincon-Zambrano

Francisco Lincon-Zambrano — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 12:28:49 +0000

Competition is a way of life, we experience it every day. Whether we’re buying groceries, fueling up, sending our kids to college, you name it, it is a way of living.

By: Robert B

Robert B — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 10:06:16 +0000

Built the Engine, it will give flexibility to the F136 Plane, and it will also generate Jobs in both the U.S.A. and England, which are needed so badly. Its a great decision and a no brainer in building the engine.

By: RICK ALLANACH

RICK ALLANACH — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 06:13:23 +0000

Many people wrote the Bae Harrier off as being a gimick. The Falklands war however proved all to be wrong, as its performance was oustanding. The Harrier was a good all rounder.
The world political climate is forever changing and we must be ready for that. UAV’s have a part for play, but we must never remove the human factor from aerial combat, for to do so would change war into a computer game, which would no doubt put us all at peril.

By: Greg Olthaus

Greg Olthaus — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:05:02 +0000

I support the F136 engine program. I also learned many new facts form this article.

By: Tom Whitfield

Tom Whitfield — Mon, 05 Jul 2010 18:28:39 +0000

Many of us Old USAF Vet’s remember full well the reason there was a “Great Engine War” beginning in the 1980′s. With the initial start of the F-15 & F-16 Programs in the late ’70′s, the only engine available was the P&W F100. Within the first couple of years with this system, the Fully Mission Capable (FMC) rate for both F-15 & F-16 was in the 40-50% range (pretty bad for combat coded aircraft). This poor rating was in large part due to the lack of reliability and high maintenance cost (both in manhours & spare parts requirements). Speaking as a prior USAF Maintainer, I can fully attest to the long hours (12 – 16 hr shifts)just to get a few flyers ready for the next sortie/day. Until that time, we in the USAF had not experienced an engine system with so many off schedule insp and maintenance requirements (5, 10, 25 hr flight hour inspection intervals prevailed)! P&W had no real incentive to expeditiously fix their engine problems and start producing a more reliable system until faced with the exceptional performance of the GE F110. The F110 brought into the picture a very effective engine warranty, that provided “bumper to bumper” parts coverage and a first time protection for experiencing unscheduled engine removal rates on a negotiated rate brought about by the manufacturer and customer team working in concert! I would challenge any of our distinguished congressional memebers to take a good hard look at the facts before giving sole source once again to a Company that has a past with very poor performance.