Comments on: Eliminating F-35 Engine Choice: Cutting Our Nose to Spite Our Face http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/ Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:06:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Why we will fail http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-328394 Why we will fail Sun, 07 Aug 2011 20:44:14 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-328394 Hey, kill government spending on programs for the people, but fund a reserve engine. That's why you get the big under-table bucks. Thanks for helping to destroy this country. Hey, kill government spending on programs for the people, but fund a reserve engine. That's why you get the big under-table bucks. Thanks for helping to destroy this country.

]]> By: Why Doesn’t Anyone Seem to Care About the F136? | The Cincinnati Man http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-56773 Why Doesn’t Anyone Seem to Care About the F136? | The Cincinnati Man Tue, 22 Sep 2009 13:02:03 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-56773 [...] pretty much suck for the company for years to come. The JSF engines are planned to be used in the vast majority of the American fighters in the coming years, which would give Pratt & Whitney a near-monopoly [...] [...] pretty much suck for the company for years to come. The JSF engines are planned to be used in the vast majority of the American fighters in the coming years, which would give Pratt & Whitney a near-monopoly [...]

]]> By: Janon O., Connecticu http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-55888 Janon O., Connecticu Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:57:15 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-55888 A disappointing perspective from the right. The alternative engine is an earmark pure and simple. All military officials, including the Department of Defense, have stated that this is wasteful. The Senate has said it is wasteful. The president has said it is wasteful. Only the House wants to keep it. Truly a strange point of view from an organization that claims to embrace conservative principles. Not a single official review guarantees savings for two engines, most clearly identify significant cost *increases*. Please explain: if two engines are so important, why not two airframes, two landing gears, two cockpits, two system softwares, two hydrolics???? All of these components are just as important. Homework problem - how many of the dozens of military aircraft have two engines? Only ONE - the F-16. This is blatant government waste. A disappointing perspective from the right. The alternative engine is an earmark pure and simple. All military officials, including the Department of Defense, have stated that this is wasteful. The Senate has said it is wasteful. The president has said it is wasteful. Only the House wants to keep it. Truly a strange point of view from an organization that claims to embrace conservative principles. Not a single official review guarantees savings for two engines, most clearly identify significant cost *increases*. Please explain: if two engines are so important, why not two airframes, two landing gears, two cockpits, two system softwares, two hydrolics???? All of these components are just as important. Homework problem – how many of the dozens of military aircraft have two engines? Only ONE – the F-16. This is blatant government waste.

]]> By: Disarming. Eliminating F-35 Engine Choice: Cutting Our Nose to Spite Our Face http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-54727 Disarming. Eliminating F-35 Engine Choice: Cutting Our Nose to Spite Our Face Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:45:04 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-54727 [...] From: The Foundry [...] [...] From: The Foundry [...]

]]> By: John Kowalczyk Bosto http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-54836 John Kowalczyk Bosto Thu, 10 Sep 2009 18:56:40 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-54836 I would like to say that The Heritage Foundation is 100% right in its support for the F136..This is true conservative beliefs..We must have competition in the defence sector to lower cost and still get the best bang for the buck..Having one company producing the sole powerplant for all future aircraft is a monopoly..Isnt that want Ronald Reagan fought againest? Once you get rid of your competition your left with no where to go for your future military need..Besides GE and RR are 75% complete with the F136..Maybe Steve and Dave should consider their statements before making them..Isnt Pratt & Whitney Florida ? I would like to say that The Heritage Foundation is 100% right in its support for the F136..This is true conservative beliefs..We must have competition in the defence sector to lower cost and still get the best bang for the buck..Having one company producing the sole powerplant for all future aircraft is a monopoly..Isnt that want Ronald Reagan fought againest? Once you get rid of your competition your left with no where to go for your future military need..Besides GE and RR are 75% complete with the F136..Maybe Steve and Dave should consider their statements before making them..Isnt Pratt & Whitney Florida ?

]]> By: Steve S http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-54387 Steve S Wed, 09 Sep 2009 16:11:23 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-54387 I agree with Dave from Florida. Stick to the conservative agenda I agree with Dave from Florida. Stick to the conservative agenda

]]> By: Dave Yoder, FL http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-54276 Dave Yoder, FL Wed, 09 Sep 2009 08:48:00 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-54276 Do not agree with you on the 2nd engine. It will never result in less cost down the road when you take into account the logistics of two engines & how GE/RR will get their investment back thru spare parts. I think the Heritage Foundation should stick to Constitutional issues & not take on Industrial competition issues. I've contributed to your efforts but will now have to reconsider; I'm sure your support for GE/RR has resulted in a large windfall contribution. Do not agree with you on the 2nd engine. It will never result in less cost down the road when you take into account the logistics of two engines & how GE/RR will get their investment back thru spare parts.

I think the Heritage Foundation should stick to Constitutional issues & not take on Industrial competition issues. I've contributed to your efforts but will now have to reconsider; I'm sure your support for GE/RR has resulted in a large windfall contribution.

]]> By: Eliminating F-35 Engine Choice: Cutting Our Nose to Spite Our Face « Prayer, News & Action http://blog.heritage.org/2009/09/08/eliminating-f-35-engine-choice-cutting-our-nose-to-spite-our-face/#comment-54202 Eliminating F-35 Engine Choice: Cutting Our Nose to Spite Our Face « Prayer, News & Action Tue, 08 Sep 2009 22:53:29 +0000 http://www.foundry.org/?p=14331#comment-54202 [...] View article… [...] [...] View article… [...]

]]>