Talk:General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136/Archive 1

Lockheed LiftFan?
It is important to note that the lift fan system used in the GE / Rolls-Royce powerplants was developed exclusively by Lockheed Martin and not by either of the engine manufacturers.


 * Everything I read (even at jsf.mil) says RR developed the Lift Fan. AAK 14:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct, the lift fan is Rolls-Royce developed and is marketed under a R-R trademark 'LiftFan', very inventive. Trent 900 21:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The concept of the lift fan system was indeed that of an engineer at Lockheed Martin - the original idea was Lockheed Martins and they showed it could be done. It was, however, entirely designed, developed and manufactured by Rolls Royce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.241.232 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 8 April 2007

The idea of using a separate engine where the liftfan is was seen on the Yakovlev Yak-141. LM had the idea to use the main engine to power it. Whether the first concept of a driven fan was LM or Russian or other isn't known but I know of no evidence to show it was ever taken seriously before LM. 80.42.153.107 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There have been plenty of lift fans in aviation history; XV-5 and others - none fruitful. It is the dual cycle of the engine (be it F135 or F136) that is revolutionary, not the lift fan. LM invented the design in 1990 and made a complete working system with PW around 1993, and then RR took over and finalized with the help of various other companies. The RR LiftFan article is somewhat misleading and should be rectified. The LiftSystem (liftfan, roll posts, lobsterback) is made to allow either F135 or F136, without discrimination. RR have done a very good job of cutting weight and adding reliability, but that is refinement of a functional system, not creation. LM bought relevant data (and lobsterback exhaust?) from Yak in the early 90ies. TGCP (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

F135 vs. F136
What is the advantage of the F136 over the F135? I didn't see anything in the article stating this. The top thrust is the same. Axeman —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Axeman- I'd argue that there isn't an advantage, but a disadvantage. The government/Lockheed mostly wanted to have a few possibilities to choose from, so that it would produce a better and/or cheaper product. The last I heard (not posting this on the article because it's heresay and largely biased), the F-136 was a year behind schedule and 25% over weight. I don't have the sources to back it up, but I know that two congressmen line-edited the GE contract back INTO the defense budget a few years in a row, even after it had become obvious that they were floundering. 137.99.65.227 (talk) 18:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Basically the two arguments are:

- (PRO) Competition produces better products at lower prices. - (CON) Competition increases complexity and eats research budgets. 80.42.153.107 (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the F136 is a year late. It just went through its Critical Design Review on time and on budget according to the jsf.mil and GE websites. Also, when you look at whether the engine is overweight or not, remember that Lockheed is looking at the propulsion system which includes the overweight liftsystem, not just the engine. Mave100 (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Does the article need a pro/con section? A specifications comparison might be useful, but I don't think a subjective pro/con discussion would add anything to the article. Anyway, for the sake of argument, having two competitive engines makes the aircraft more desirable for many of [potential] the export partners. - SidewinderX (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Airlines usually demand the choice of at least two engine types when they order new aircraft from manufacturers, in order to reduce risk. The F-35 program has a size similar to new large passenger aircraft programs. This should be in the article, but I don't know to describe and reference it. Also, it seems from |AvWeek that F136 runs cooler buts weighs more due to larger core. TGCP (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Current Events
This article contains a lot of "current events"-type information, most of which has been OBE already. Is it ok to prune all that out? Most of it doesn't seem to contribute to encyclopedic nature of the article. - SidewinderX (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The key points should stay or be summarized. A summary of the engine program being saved the last ~3 years by Congress providing unrequested funding should be mentioned.  Also what is 'OBE'? -Fnlayson (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point about some of this, Congress saving the engine despite DoD not wanting it to be saved is worth documenting. That said, I don't think some of the details belong in the article. When I have a bit more time later I'll take a crack at rewriting (including a summary of the congressional back-and-forth) a bit of it, ya'll can revert it if you don't like it. "OBE" means "Overcome By Events". For example, the thoughts about the 2008 Pentagon budget are "OBE" at this point (July 2009). - SidewinderX (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Adaptive Versatile Engine Technology
It appears there is some confusion about the ADVENT technology/engine. It is currently seperate from the F136 effort, and the only link between the two was a statement by a RR executive trying to argue that the F136 should be continued because it's possible they might include ADVENT technology into a future F136 upgrade. Right now there is no work being done towards that. They're funded and developed separetely. The F136 is not an application of any ADVENT technology. -SidewinderX (talk) 14:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * ADVENT mentions that engine is to be in the 20,000 lb class. Not sure if that is max afterburning thrust or max dry thrust.  Either way, that'll be less than the F136 at approx. 28,000 lb/43,000 lb. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's for the first prototype. At the very least ADVENT should be listed under related development, because they are taking tech from the F136 and may come back with an improved F136 as a result.  Hcobb (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not related development. GE and Rolls-Royce are competitors on the ADVENT program, not co-workers like they are on F136. That statement in the Flight article is a thought from a RR exectutive, not anything that is actually happening right now. If anything, some technology from the ADVENT program will be applied to a future engine based on the F136. Right now none of that exists. -SidewinderX (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

discussion of the design lineage
The article as-is seems to focus on the progress of the contract, but doesn't seem to have much info about the engine itself. The infobox says that it's derived from the RR proposal for the f-22. I would like the article to have more information about the history of the design, and the current design. Is it low bypass? Is it hybrid? Does it come in any color as long as it's black? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.202.243 (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Decapitation attack
http://www.lineofdeparture.com/2010/12/22/f-35-america-engine-uity/ The bad news is the word inside the Pentagon is while Congress has put money for the extra engine in the latest funding bill, the Pentagon is plotting a decapitation attack to kill it, as soon as congress goes home for the holidays.

I've seen a little about this, but not quite enough to include yet. It's a stealth program so I suppose we need to wait for the DoD to get their first strike in. Hcobb (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * And the check isn't in the mail. More details on Friday.  http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110105/BIZ01/101060323/Senators-Where-s-GE-s-80M-check- Hcobb (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/01/06/senators-cut-a-check-for-fighter-engine-or-else/ “We respect your leadership and assume that the delay of releasing fiscal year 2011 funds is simply an issue of timing or an oversight by the program office rather than a deliberate attempt to shift appropriated funds away from the alternate engine,” Hcobb (talk) 16:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Controversy over funding of alternate engine
Why is there nothing in this article about the ongoing controversy over this engine, and the fact that the military has stated they neither want it nor need it but it keeps getting funded? I'm pretty sure that omitting this violates Wikipedia's NPOV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.97.115 (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The F135 vs. F135 stuff is covered already. Is says the DoD did not request funding for the engine, but Congress provided it.  Going overboard with coverage about this would violate WP:UNDUE guidelines. -fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And it just died on the House floor, mostly with Tea Party votes. Hcobb (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

BilCat only deleted one side of the debate over the engine
Shall we delete the other side by removing this page then? Hcobb (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't a "debate" site, but an encyclopedia. Someone can feel free to try to write encyclopedic text that covers "both sides" of the argument, but we don't have to give "equal time" to opponents by quoting non-notable people making non-notable quotes contrary to WP guidelines. - BilCat (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding this silly edit summary:
 * "GE to fund F-35 engine despite stop-work order (Oddly exactly as the edits BC rolled back said..."
 * I'm assuming you meant this statement:
 * "On 12 October 2010, Norton Schwartz suggested that the two companies invest even more of their own money into the project if they wished it to go forward."
 * The difference is that is has actully happened now, and wasn't just a suggestion by a general officer, when nothing had happened yet. Lots of suggestions are made by people related to the project, but they're not really notable in most cases as it is just crystal-balling until something actually happens. - BilCat (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And the problem with the article is that the current status of the program POOF! appears out of nowhere, with NONE of the steps along the way shown. It's like footprints in the sand before a tsunami. Hcobb (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll see what I can do to add some of that back in a more encyclopedic style. However, even the material that is left needs a complete rewrite, as it's still a mish-mash of he-siad/they-said comments. - BilCat (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * HC, we know that the people at FlightGlobal often use or link to WP. Perhaps Stephen Trimble is a fan of yours. :) Since he mentioned General Schwart's "advice" in his article, I've no objection to including it here now, as FG is definitley a reliable source. - BilCat (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want balance then block quote this:

"the lead engine from Pratt Whitney cannot fly the full flight envelope. It has $3.5 billion in cost overruns and every single f*****g engine delivered this year has been late."

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/work-stopped-jet-engine-ge-blasts-competitor-pratt/story?id=13219559

Yeah, I know, lamestream press and all that. Hcobb (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That's your idea of balance? Someone's from GE's opinion mixed with facts? WHy do you waste our time with stuff liek that? That sort of item is more fitting for Wikinews - have you considered writing there? - BilCat (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Return of the F136
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/04/12/ge-well-always-have-fiscal-2012/?mod=google_news_blog

Now they're going to try to get it back in the 2012 budget. Hcobb (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/13/fighter-engine-idUSN1328575520110413


 * More on the same for anybody who cares to add it in. Hcobb (talk) 22:41, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

And Buck is indeed on board the resurrection train: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0411/53119.html Hcobb (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

F136 engine is over
Need to update the article. Looks like GR/RR has finallly terminated the F136. Bumper12 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just delete everything after my new lead? Hcobb (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, that's not a constructive suggestion. Just cause it got canceled does not mean that is nothing to say about it. -Fnlayson (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Was it ever hooked into the STOVL configuration? If not we can drop that. Hcobb (talk) 06:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Your question is answered in this article, with references cited. Please read them. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)