This headline caused me some concern:
Bipartisan House Coalition Hopes to Cut Money for Second F-35 Engine
Does it mean that from now on the prime USAF (and IAF, incidentally) fighter jet will have to do with one engine only instead of the two planned?
Well, at least there is some duality in the House Coalition, it being bipartisan...
39 minutes ago
4 comments:
I missed the point of this engine argumen when it first arose. I just hope the thing has guns, in addition to relying on missiles and bombs.
Yeah, well, I guess it was planned to be a one-engine plane to start with, but with additional two-engine model later. Currently its top speed is not all that impressive...
From what I understand, both the Bush and Obama administrations opposed the second engine as unnecessary. It has survived untill last week because its various components were being built in a number of districts and states of important Congressmen and Senators including the new Speaker of the House, John Behner. The total number of jobs involved amounted to several thousand. The second engine's defeat was a product of bi-partisan coalition of liberal democrats and newly elected conservative republicans who wanted to show that there were serious about cutting back on pork barrell government spending.
The remaining question is whether the one-engine version isn't too slow. I know that speed is not everything for a modern fighter jet, but still interesting what USAF pilots and commanders think about the issue.
Post a Comment