XA-100 engine

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Now when addressing MC and FMC rates, there is an acceptable threshold the USAF puts out, I don't know what that threshold is or if these numbers reflect the threshold being met.

There's a lot of factors that go into this to determine how ready the fleet is and how effective maintenance and sustainability is for each aircraft. I worked on a program were we were required to maintain MC rates in the 90s but were had small numbers of aircraft
 
The other thing re the F-35 reporting is that despite some still claiming the program is in a death spiral and about to be cancelled it keeps on going with currently 800+ delivered and country after country selecting it with more lining up. The nay-sayers never seem to account for that.

Re the MC/FMC, one also has to remember that the F-35 is still coming into service so much reporting of figures there have to account for the maintainers etc coming up to speed.

Getting back to your questions re the GE XA-100 engine, I will simply reiterate that it is still simply a demonstrator that GE hopes might be introduced into service by 2027. This is not guaranteed and to be honest, I suspect GE are pushing up hill to try to get it in. Moreover, while it claims improvements over the F135, one can't simply assume that the P&W folks will stand by and do nothing either. The F135 of 2027 will not necessarily be the same F135 of 2022.
 
And those reporting this BS are never held accountable for false reporting. An agenda lies somewhere!
 
The news media types seem to want aviators to appear as uneducated rubes. They select the most uneducated in aviation as witness at an accident. My classic, mentioned on another thread years ago, was when a Cessna Caravan, loaded tail heavy, crashed on takeoff very near the airport service road (MSY). The witness on the nightly news said, "Yeah, I seen it. It done a tail swoop and fell down."
 
We have all kinds of problems with the media, and I know that's not a topic we should veer far into, but we are also a self-managed society and we need to know what weapons programs are working out well, which ones are having trouble, and which ones are failing. This is always an issue, but we have had huge problems with procurement and development in general with many programs in the last few yeas and part of our job as citizens is to make sure things don't go too far off the rails.
 
Personally I rely a lot on armed forces and defense industry media to get an idea of what's really going on, since the mainline corporate media is so bad at this especially now days.
 
Agree, but at the same time I can tell you the procurement system, while not perfect (and it will never be perfect) has made great strides since the 1980s. I witnessed some shady things by dozens of larger contractors and even by some "mom and pop shops" who were given small business and minority preferences, even on the government side by some who would "create" requirements and programs just to justify their position within the government procurement arm.

Remember the $600 toilet seat Lockheed sold the Navy? I was involved in the aftermath of that. Lockheed actually overcharged the government about $90 per unit and actually refunded the government for the overcharge. The "seat" was actually a cover that was used on the P-3, it was made from a fire-resistant plastic and required test certifications, so there is the reasoning for the cost. The full details were rarely reported, again the bias in the media.

 
I actually read the facts about the $600 toilet seat in mainstream media. The NY Times had brought up that fitting a toilet in an aircraft is not like going to the hardware store and picking one up. The testing was mentioned. I've generally found the fewer exclamation points and snarky remarks in an article, the more credible the source.
 
Compare the construction of this toilet cover to a fender of a corvette, then add all the testing requirements.

 
This has been discussed before, but the media "concern" about the F-35's "issues" reads nearly verbatim with the "issues" with the F-16 program, which was alleged to be a poor performer, suffered cost over-runs, had untested technology, was a dead-end for future upgrades and on and on and on...

None of their concerns were substantiated and look how the F-16 turned out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

M
Heart Aerospace Rolls Out 4 Engine 30 Seat Electric Airliner
Replies
8
Views
627
MIflyer
M
T
B-52 to be in service for over 100 years
Replies
11
Views
1K
MIflyer
M
Consolidated Vultee XP-81 powered by both turbojet (GE J33), and turboprop (GE TG-100), 1945
Replies
1
Views
617
SaparotRob
F
Allison J33 -A-24 Info
Replies
1
Views
1K
mjfur
M
The first American Jet engine
Replies
0
Views
625
Dronescapes
Menu
Log in
Register