Only Engines?

[selenite0]

One of the minor flurries in Washington DC right now is a line item in the defense budget an alternate engine for the F-35. Not something I'd care that much about if I wasn't working on that plane. The idea is that having a second company making engines for the plane will provide a back-up against problems and cost savings from competition. Given that both the current and previous administrations have tried to kill that piece of the program it's not that widely held an idea. The case against it is pretty simple--why pay for two designs and production lines when you only need one to get the job done?

So various op-eds are appearing extolling the virtues of competition and offering the historical precedent of the competing F-16 engines. Yes, both companies would have a better incentive to improve on cost and quality as they vie for each year's batch of engines. But everybody offering that argument seems to be just fine with the engines going into a single fighter design produced by one partnership. If competition is such a great thing wouldn't more of it be better? In the absence of those arguments it feels like a typical effort to defense Congressional pork barreling.

I'm not even hoping for someone to question whether it's a good idea for a single plane to replace the F-15, F-16, F-117, F/A-18, A-10, and AV-8.

Comments

Not. Possible.

[drwex]

Every other attempt to produce an omnibus aircraft to handle that many roles has been doomed. There's no way you can possibly make a single airframe that will both be nimble enough to handle high altitude multi-Mach air combat and also sub-Mach 1 heavy weapons ground support. Not to mention the nastiness involved in making a version that'll do carrier landings...

Re: Not. Possible.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

What, doing vertical take-offs and landings didn't make the impossible list?

Anyway--you may know that and I may know that (http://selenite.livejournal.com/173600.html) but Congress thinks it's worth blowing many billions on.

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

Oh, gods.

I thought it had finally been understood that the A-10 can't be replaced by an afterthought added to a fighter.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

Replace the capability? No. Transfer the funding to? Yep. Make elaborate promises to the Army and Marines? Yep.

[stevenehrbar.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

I mean, I could be sold on the idea that two closely-related designs with high parts commonality could do a good-enough job to simultaneously take over for the F-15, F-16, and F/A-18 roles. I could be sold on the idea that another reasonably close relative could be squeezed onto an amphibious assault ship, and that an F/A platform on such ships would be more useful overall than an AV-8 even if less effective at directly supporting Marines. The F-117 was always an oddball; tell me it was mostly a learning program and didn't really need to be replaced, and you could make me believe it.

Hey, I'm a civilian non-engineer, and I'm aware of my extensive ignorance in both military and engineering matters. If somebody with relevant expertise tells me it can be done, I'll defer to his judgment.

But the A-10? Why not promise me the F-35 will also replace the B-52 because, hey, they both can carry bombs? Hey, let's get past this whole Boeing/Airbus thing by using the F-35 as a tanker platform, too!

[pokeyburro.livejournal.com]

Having not read those op-eds to find out - perhaps many people feel that putting the competing engines into a single airframe is a tolerable first step, and they hope competition over the rest of the plane will come later?

I find it to be an interesting problem. The free market part of me cheers for more competition everywhere, but another part of me wonders whether there really is something to keeping the entire vehicle design under the control of a single authority. I mean, it may be safe to parcel out design of relatively minor components (gauges, missile racks, seat ejector mechanism, etc.), but does it make sense to integrate the engine and airframe? It might be, as far as I know. I don't build jets. You do.

[selenite.livejournal.com]

part of me wonders whether there really is something to keeping the entire vehicle design under the control of a single authority

Oh, I think you absolutely have to have one organization doing development of the vehicle. Competitors would never converge on a single solution. What I'd like to see is two or more groups each creating their own fighter and competing to fill the different niches.