” ... GE’s argument for the second engine is simple. By developing an alternate engine, the government would get a backup supplier, and competition between two suppliers would create long-term savings over the life of the $100 billion procurement ... “
I believe this is a valid argument. It could be that specifics invalidate the argument, but I haven’t seen any.
PW has plied a lot money via lobbyist and perhaps direct deposit to be sole source for a reason!
But GE has spent all that money on bribing (er, green energy funding) Obama for so long!
What I don't get is "if" they want a second engine why are they not asking for "Dual Source" of the same engine.
Yes it was done before...
· Pratt was chosen to build the GE 404 "Trash Can"
· Continental Teledyne built the Williams F107 Turbofan ( Cruise Missile Engines)
The manufacturers hate it, sharing their plans with a competitor, but the logic is their to do so if one plant is incompacitiated or to force competition in cost.
Given the potential differences in performance and engine hook up points, externals, (however, these may be common) and all the "Spares" associated with it and the cost, I can't see a reason the GE Engine.
THe engine in question (P&W) is used in the F-22, common parts, lower training costs and all that.
GE bring good PORK to life.
Not harshing on you, but this has to stop somewhere.