<p>Is there an easy explanation as to why to develop a second engine for the F-35? Seen it mentioned in the media but don’t fully understand the pros and cons (?cost).</p>
<p>Haven’t seen anything about this, but my guess would be that the different variants have fairly different requirements. I know we’re looking at a conventional aircraft, a carrier-based platform, and a VTOL version, for example.</p>
<p>Edit: I guess that was about right.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm[/url]”>http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_technology.htm</a>
[F-35</a> Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia”>Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia)</p>
<p>I’ll ask Bullet the question…thinking he would be the one to have the real deal answer since he works on the 35 program.</p>
<p>Yep! He’d know, among any of us here.</p>
<p>I’m curious - there’s an apparent push for it but it’s not currently supported by Gates or the Obama administration (at least in the proposed budget). I tuned to CSPAN for the health care “forum” after work but was too late and caught a Pentagon briefing instead where this drew a question with several follow-ups/clarifications and believe the word “veto” was also used.</p>
<p>Someone talking about the F-35 program? I just happen to know a couple of things about that! ;)</p>
<p>OK, folks. You’re about to enter that strange and dark jungle of military acquisition and the natives who hunt there known as the Pentagon, Congress, and the Beltway Shuffle. Let me be your guide…</p>
<p>The F-35 program is the Department of Defense’s largest acquisition program, ever! A lot of money being spent to buy a lot of the newest generation of planes for a lot costumers (The AF, Marines, and Navy in the US alone, plus 8 international partners (as of now, with more potential customers looking at it as we speak). But the program is having issues. Lockheed Martin, the main company in charge of building the jet, is nearly a year behind in delivering the first few aircraft (for a number of reasons, including late delivery of parts sub-parts from a few subcontractors). Lots of money being spent + late delivery = A LOT of attention from Congress as to why the program is having problems.</p>
<p>But that doesn’t answer the questions about the “Alternative Engine”. Here’s the story on that:</p>
<p>During early design of the F-35, the engineers had a serious problem with thrust they had to conquer, mostly because of the Marine’s requirement to get a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL, pronounced STO-Vul) variant of the jet for their forward operations and mini carrier ops. This had to be tied in to the program goal to keep all variants as similar as possible to keep costs down. Oh, by the way, Lockheed wanted to keep the aircraft to a single engine to reduce size and cost, which meant the single engine had to be REALLY powerful. So, a second full engine in the STOVL variant only was out of the question. The Engineers’ answer? A VERY powerful engine for every variant, and for the STOVL this engine would also be used to power a lift fan. So, Petko’s info above is a little off. There is only one engine in the jet for all variants, but the STOVL variant also has a lift fan (right behind the cockpit).</p>
<p>Now, Pratt and Whittney (who make the engines for the F-16 and F-22) re-engineered their F-22 engine slightly to work in the F-35 and submitted it to Lockheed as their answer for the F-35. A big, powerful engine with more than enough power, with an excellent maintenance history (so far). Lockheed and the Program Office (who runs the oversight of the program for the DOD and Partner Nations) liked what they saw, and selected the P&W F135 engine for the F-35 in the early stages of the program over other candidates who weren’t as far down the development road (P&W had an advantage because they were already making similar engines for the F-22).</p>
<p>Now, these other companies whose engine didn’t get selected? (In fact, it was only one; not many companies can afford to make modern aircraft engines.) Well, this company was General Electric (GE), and they know that they lost out on a lot of money in engine sales by not being selected, and they have very good lobbyists for Congress, who they pay a lot of money to in order to get their products purchased by the military. The hard press was on: “buying an alternative engine for the F-35 means jobs in YOUR district Congressman / woman, and that means happy voters who remember who got them that job!” The push for GE’s F136 engine was on!</p>
<p>Now, would the US military like an alternative engine for the F-35? Sure, for a lot of reasons GE and others say we should have them. Competition between engines means each company would work harder to make their engines better and cost less. It is also ALWAYS nice to have a second type of engine in case the first has a major issue that grounds the fleet of them (sort of like family who owns two Toyota cars as their only cars right now; bet they wish they also owned a Ford!). We (the AF in particular) would LOVE to have an alternative engine down the road (which is still in development). </p>
<p>But here is the kicker: it would cost money to develop and buy these engines. A HUGE butt-load of money! (and that, kiddies, is why America was never able to successfully switch to the metric system. You can’t translate “butt-load” into metric! 
) The only way to pay for this new bill for a second, alternative engine? Well, Congress wouldn’t be happy if the overall price of the program just simply went up to pay for a second engine, so we would be forced to cut money from somewhere. And the only place we could get THAT kind of money from? Actually purchasing jets! </p>
<p>Bottom Line: A second, alternative engine means the military would be forced to cut over 50 production jets over the next 5 years. 50 less jets getting to the AF, Navy, and particularly the Marines, who needs these jets ASAP (and I can’t emphasize how ASAP ASAP is for them) to replace their Harriers, who are literally falling apart. The price for a alternative engine was too high, period. We MAY look at getting an alternative engine sometime in the future, but the price is too high NOW!</p>
<p>But remember what I told you about Congress and those folks in Armani suits who roam the halls of that building whispering in the Congressmen’s / women’s ear? Well, they’re pretty darn good at what they do. Each year for the past 4 years, Congress has ordered the DOD to put money towards developing the GE engine as the alternative engine for the F-35. Hundreds of millions of dollars, each year. Does the Congressperson really care about the reasons I mentioned to have a second engine? Well, they make good talking points during Congressional Testimony (and I can tell you a few funny stories about the Testimony going on this year that would make you laugh and weep at the same time that some American’s voted for people so idiotic to lead their particular Congressional District). But more importantly to Congress, getting the GE engine means J-O-B-S in their particular district (and the parts for GE engine are made in a LOT of districts, for that very reason; lots of Congressmen would defend GE). So, each year Congress tells the military to pursue the GE’s F136 engine, and each year the DOD politely declines the money (which angers a few Congressmen). Love to have them; can’t afford them.</p>
<p>Like I said: the Beltway Shuffle. Welcome to my world in the Puzzle Palace. Sigh…</p>
<p>Now, contact your economics professor and ask for your one college credit on US Economics and Defense Department Acquisition! :)</p>
<p>As always, Bullet comes back with outstanding information!</p>
<p>For those of you that have never had to work Gov’t Contracts, etc., you just got your first lesson in Gov’t Econ 101!</p>
<p>On a side note, from the “geek engineer” part of THIS pilot…if you really want to read about something pretty fascinating, do a little digging into that “lift fan” for the STOL version…I found it fascinating! NOTHING like a Harrier or any “similar” variant; a very interesting engineering development.</p>
<p>Thanks Bullet ! They spent more time talking about this during the briefing on CSPAN than the tanker contract so it seemed like a big deal but I couldn’t figure out why.</p>