Jacko,
Have to disagree with you.
Rolls Royce coins it in whichever engine is selected, though it earns more from the F136.
True from a LiftSystem perspective, but Rolls has no active involvement in the core architecture of the F135 itself, only the STOVL-related gear. and GE is known not to be ecstatic with the terms of the F136 relationship.
Quite apart from risk reduction, and the promise of much lower through life costs, and the promise of better ‘bring back’ for the STOVL version, the F136 has the strength of both GE and Rolls Royce behind it. GE’s capabilities are indicated by the success of its ‘alternate’ engine in the F-16 and F-15.
Do not over-estimate GE’s commitment to this engine. Lynn is already looking ahead to its next-generation program, and has I’m sure run the numbers on whether it will benefit more from a short-term partnership with a European competitor or a mid-term ‘go it alone’ effort for LRSA, other emerging reqts and future insertion back into JSF.
The F136 incorporates advanced technology from the IHPTET (Integrated High Performance Turbine Engine Technology) programme, and features advanced compressor and turbine design, components and materials
…as does the F135, and the Pratt’s turbine is no slouch.
It may be a couple of years behind the F135 in terms of development, but it’s technologically several years ahead, not least because GE/Rolls have had more time before freezing the design.
Of course PW have progressed since the YF119, but so have GE, and the F136 is just as far ahead of the YF120 as the F135 is ahead of the YF119.
I would suggest to you that the benefit that P&W will gain from day-to-day operation of the F119 and F135 in the F-22 and F-35 (plus the associated CIP benefits) will far out-weigh any benefit that the F136 enjoyed from being on the bench for a couple more years.
And the F120 lost out because F-22 production was slashed to a point where a competing engine was not viable, and the F119 was available most quickly, because it was lower risk, and lower tech. It also helped keep costs down. But was it the best engine?
Both had their pros and cons, and were closely matched. If you dig hard enough, there is evidence to suggest that the F120 was actually considered by the AF to be a better powerplant for long-range strike.
The concept of two engines for safety’s sake is a nice one to pursue when there’s plenty of funding available, but in today’s climate it cannot be justified. There are better things to be prioritized.
Sign In
