YOUR COMMENTS

Can all the people that don't understand anything about aerospace engineering stop commenting whether the engine is needed or not. This question should be only answered by either the pilots who fly these aircraft or anybody with deep aerospace knowledge. accountants, politicians and activist do not apply.
- R. Mayoral, Derry

I agree, we do need to fund education, and find a way to help those in need but not at the expense of a weakened military, because when the bad guys come after us, and they ARE after us, the only way to respond is with force, history has proven the best defense is a strong and capable offense. The brave men and women who serve this country need the best equipment and weaponry we can provide, anything less is irresponsible.
- Bob, Bedford

Having worked on engine programs my entire life I'd like to suggest that everyone look at the history of engine programs like the PW F100 vs GE F110 - like the engine run off for the F22 etc. There once was government leaders that knew they needed at least 2 engine manufacturers in order to keep competition going to keep costs down. PW has not always been the best engine available and our military lost many planes due to engine problems and as tax payers we never heard about these problems did we? However it did keep PW going after they lost all their big time in the commercial business. You can take one thing to the bank with our tax payer dollars - if we have a monopoly we will pay BIG and still not have a high performance reliable aircraft. Do your research if you can access the information and you might want to talk with Military pilots and ask them what engine they'd use of it was up to them.
- Robert B, Midland, Oh

Check out the ARES blog on Aviation Week. Bill Sweetman has done a great job capturing the essence of the issue. Some things to consider:
- if the SecDef tells the services they don't need the engine, they are going to toe the party line. Since when did the DoD have the cartel on good ideas?
- competition is what makes this country great. Without it, the costs of this already bloated program will go through the roof.
- why is Pratt and Whitney afraid of competition?
I agree with Jay from Manchester. Senator Shaheen has a purely political view on this, and she has left NH workers blowing in the wind. She either has been poorly served by her staff who have not gotten her properly briefed on this issue, or she does not have a broad view or understanding of defense acquisition, or she is simply going to support the President's position regardless of the impact on our nation, ideals, or the overall good for the state of NH.
In this case funding the alternate JSF engine is not about pork, it's the right thing to do for this program. Moreover, it's the right thing to do for NH workers.
- Phil Cormier, Somersworth

It is true that there are lot of unfilled positions for medical billing get a degree at http://bit.ly/ESUNX
- jacobsellars, oakpark

The Pratt & Whitney (P&W) contract should be set up so the GE engine can be revived at anytime if:
• Predicted cost savings disappear due to P&W's late delivery, or monopoly control.
• There are quality issues.
• Certain JSF models are underpowered using the P&W engine.

I expect P&W only contract will provide and economy of scale that will maintain its cost savings.

Was the Pentagon playing politics when it made this decision? I don’t trust them much more than I trust Congress so I appreciate the robust debate between the military, congress, and the public on issues like this.

GE's jobs lost are P&W's jobs gained. NH's congressional delegation should not put regional interests (local jobs) ahead of national interests (the federal deficit). Sorry folks in Hooksett but you may have to look at moving to CT.
- Jim, Manchester

I think its just amazing the level of ignorance that surrounds this engine program. JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER-
"Joint" meaning joint cooperative effort.
Rolls Royce/Brits -they are still our allies, aren't they?
Pork barrel? Are you kidding?
How many jets has Pratt powered in the last 50 years? Or better yet, how many f Pratt's engines are STILL running out in the field.
How many engine removals has GE had to perform?
What is the price difference and "on wing" time between the two engines?
These are the real questions people.
I read some the comments posted here and just shake my head in disbelief.
First off, I work there so I AM biased-. BUT,-
Any government project that is not competittive is doomed to cost overuns.
That's the real pork barrel.
Pratt whitney whines and treatens to layoff 4,000 people in Conn. if the were not made the "primaries"on the JSF. This is because they are NOT COMPETITIVE. They never are. They are already 1.2 billion over cost. If you could save that current cost overun, and give it to the GE team, it would finish funding their engine. I think the Pentagon/Wash. govenment should ask for a claw back of the 1.2 billion FIRST,
before they scrap this other engine.
If Pratt cannot, or will not do that, imagine the costs we are all in for when they are the only players in military jet engines. Wake up taxpayers. Sure its my job, but its your money too.
- Robert, Derry

Since the AF has said that they don't need this engine keeping it alive is nothing but pork.
- LJC, Manchester

In the Army my MOS was 68B20 which was Aircraft Engine Repairman. I worked on both Recips and Turbine engines and every time someone came up with an engine change or modification we had to do a ton of work trying to get it to adapt in the field. Once you switched it was next to impossible to switch back. Very often the "stuff" on the plans was not what was encountered in the field. The end result was "incidents "happened which brought about aircraft flight complications. Here is a report from the Pentagon that was then repeated at several other locations including at the Pratt and Whitney web site. This info is from a Pentagon press release. Also the group building the alternative engine said they will "now" charge a fixed cost price for the first 100 engines to control costs. Of course that does not mean that anything built after that will not cost two to three times as much.

Four out of five independent studies have concluded that an alternate engine will not save money over the life of the JSF program. The Administration and Pentagon budgets have not funded an alternate engine for the F-35 for the past three years. Continued funding for an alternate engine has come from Congressional earmarks. In fact, funding the alternate engine has taken money away from the overall JSF program, reducing the number of aircraft which can be produced. The total aircraft impact of continuing with the alternate engine could be a reduction of up to 40 aircraft, which will drive up the unit cost of each plane. In his remarks on changes to the defense budget delivered on April 6, 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced his intention to eliminate “programs where the requirements were truly in the exquisite category and the technologies required were not reasonably available to affordably meet the program’s cost or goals.” At an additional cost of $7.2 billion, the alternate engine falls into the “exquisite” category Secretary Gates describes. The Joint Strike Fighter does not have an alternate fuselage, alternate avionics, or an alternate air frame.
- Don Armstrong, Henniker

As a conservative independent I would like to thank Tom from Dover for pointing out the obvious even though Dave from Alton doesn't like it.

The hypocrites commenting here need to do some research. The Department of Defense recommended dropping this program under the BUSH administration and that request has been continued by the Obama administration. Sorry if the facts don't fit your political argument.
- Bob V, Manchester

Jim, Loudon,
I don't think that you understand how the aerospace world works. If the US wants to sell aircraft to other countries, especially military aircraft, very often the country being sold to dictates that a certain amount of the value of the order be purchased from industries in that country. This is called an offset. Without the offset, other countries who will provide offsets often get the order. In some cases, large parts of the aircraft are built in the purchasing country. For instance, if Sikorsky produced UH-60 aircraft were to be sold to the UK MOD, part of the purchase could include the replacement of the GE T700 engine with a RR RTM322. No GE win there.

In 2007, Sikorsky purchased 100% of Polish helicopter and aircraft manufacture PZL Mielec. Why? To manufacture Blackhawk helicopters aimed at the international market. In some cases, terms of the order can include having the aircraft built under license in the purchaser's country. Not many US jobs in that, but US profits.

Regarding spares, spares pricing is usually set at the time of contract, and often is at 1X the OEM price. If the airframer has enough clout, there may be several sources of supply for a part, driving the pricing down to razor thin margins.

So, in a nutshell, while your ideas sound alright, in theory and actuality they don't/won't work. Countries looking to purchase our fighters won't buy unless there is an offset, or they won't buy if they don't think they are getting the same level of capability as we have due to software/hardware downgrades. Restricting content to US manufacturers only would only serve to reduce the possible martket for the aircraft, costing US jobs.
- Texter, Newfields

So Sarah and Fred are upset that we spend too much on the Military, but I'm sure money spent taking care of Illegal Aliens and Welfare Scum doesn't faze them at all.
- Steve, Amherst

As a taxpayer I'd like to thank Dave of Alton for demonstrating perfectly that conservative wingers do NOT really care about the budget, America, or fiscal responsibility; they only care about themselves. Dave, say this: would you like to super-size that order?
- Tom, Dover-Foxcroft, Me.

And as a conservative Independent I'd like to thank those like Tom here for voting in those who expand government and raise taxes as the solution. When we all hear about the jobs created by both our current federal and state governments don't forget to look at how many were government jobs supported by higher taxes and how many were private sector jobs.

Tom has little problem ensuring we all work an extra few days a year to support the whims of his party. By the way where are all those web sites we can look at to see where our money is spent? Just another lie in a list of many told in order to get elected I guess.
- Deb, Derry

- Jeremy Jones, Manchester, NH
Thank you for reinforcing my view. This should be a US owned and built plane. I am not interested in building planes with these other countries. Build it here and we can sell them a "modified" version. Let them come to us for spare parts which creates even more jobs here. Let us ship the parts to them which creates even more jobs. Your supposed to build military products to be the best - not have the same as everybody else in the world. Like I said bring the jobs back to the US, create jobs here and our economy will rebound faster. Stop encouraging companies to ship the work outside the US - like this whole JSF concept (as Jeremy explains). This country has given away the basic foundation of the economy - manufacturing jobs.
- Jim, Loudon

I worked at GE for two summers and have numerous friends and family working there. They are in effect one of the most efficient manufacturers in the nation and have one of the best trained work forces for the job. Their quality is unprecedented. ALso the lay off would be experience based meaning the youngest would go first. I don't want to get into politics but I leave you with this. The people that are losing their jobs are friends, family, neighbors, and customers. The blue collar production workers may be the first to go;however, the other fields will feel this effect. Our economy is not recovering anytime soon. New Hampshire needs to legalize gambling and marijuana now.
- Sean Meffert, Allenstown

We are at a cross roads on military strategy. The trend line is more toward pilot less aircraft. The F35 will probably be the last manned Jet in the military. Speed, Stealth and no pilot to get captured when shot down is what the military is looking for.

I do remember a former Secretary of Defense who stood up to congressional military "pork spending" and mothballed the last 4 battleships in the Navy Fleet. His name was Dick Cheney.
- Chris, Merrimack

Don't worry new hampshire, our state government is talking about an income tax, and were not concerned that the second largest employer in the state could potentially loose one quarter of it's work force. nice. meet you in the government bread line.
- John, Hooksett

To Tom in Dover-Foxcroft Maine:

We at GE always knew the alternate power source contract was subject to review and approval. Losing it hurts, but it's not the killer. No, the killer is hearing for the first time IN THE NEWSPAPER that the F/A18E-F is going to be canned in favor of the JSF. Why didn't we hear this from our employer, or the Navy, first?? You make your point as a taxpayer. Chew this over, Mr. Taxpayer: Think it's going to save money to can an updated, effective strike plane for a new, unproven one? Wrong!! You may not suffer as much as we're going to, but you will share in the suffering just the same. Enjoy the socialist administration... they will be going away in three years and four months. Hope there are enough of us working people left to finance their runaway spending until then.
- Dave, Alton

the last time P& W was given the sole contract for a fighter engine, the F-16, the mainternance costs and safety record were 2 to 3 times worse than after GE was brought in to provide an alternate engine, now all f-16's in active service have them. Someone said that the aircraft would have to be modified to fit the GE engine, wrong. The GE engine was designed for the aircraft, the P&W engine is the one with cost overruns and a redesig announced this year. The GE engine is on time and budget and 70% complete and GE has offered fixed rate pricing for through qualification. No cost to the government (you and me). Doesn't matter if the engine is built here or somewhere else in the U.S., having only one engine for the entire fleet fo aircraft will cost more in the end. Once both engines have been certified, the real savings begin, with cost reductions between the 2 manufacturers bidding for the years quota of engines. Nice to see our representatives with such short sighted goals.
- john, hooksett

Hey, wasn't McCain for cutting funding for the alternate JSF engine? That should make killing it ok, even if it's the present administration and not a McCain administration doing it, right?
- Texter, Newfields

How is complaining about losing your job and your stability make you a right winger Tom from Maine??? Any normal person would be pretty upset about getting laid off in this crappy economy.
- Andy, Milford

This is the best news I heard all day. I absolutely love it when workers working for the military lose their jobs. We spend an obscene amount of money per person in the country to feed the military industrial complex.
- Sarah, Allenstown

in the original pitchout for the joint strike fighter were plans to include TWO engine designs,, the f135, and the f136.,one made by pratt and whitney, and one made by general electric and rolls royce. having TWO engine sources for such an important weapons system is not a waste of any treasures as this system is being designed to replace three or four state of the art systems that are currently in use. the government seems to think all of our future airpower requirements can be handled by one of three varients of the same aircraft. now they are considering using only one main source to power those aircraft. i think that the argument to choose between using one or using two engine suppliers is overshadowing the argument for not producing the aircraft at all.
- gary grant, pembroke nh

This is a terrible thing for the workers involved. I know someone who will be affected by this and my heart goes out to him and his family. . . but. The fact is a solid majority of Americans, as proven by the last election, want to see less money spent on the military and more money spent on education, healthcare, high-speed rail, public art, etc.

If we had some sort of universal healthcare plan, which big military cuts could pay for, a job loss like this would be a heck of a lot less stressful to the families involved.
- Fred, Amherst

OK,
Here’s a solution sparked by Timothy Horrigan, Durham, NH (thanks Tim).
We take a portion of those savings and front some very low interest loans to reputable companies to entice them to build manufacturing plants here in NH. It would require dreaded earmarks however we would gain jobs and revenue plus because it’s a loan we’d get our money back with interest.

My first thought would be solar panels and wind generators because there’s demand for them right now but we could build anything from circuit boards and PCs to engines and entire aircrafts. We have the talent and knowledge and there are plenty of sites to accomplish almost any task.

This type of plan would invest our money rather than simply spend it on things we don’t need.
- Jim, Raymond NH

As a taxpayer I'd like to thank Dave of Alton for demonstrating perfectly that conservative wingers do NOT really care about the budget, America, or fiscal responsibility; they only care about themselves. Dave, say this: would you like to super-size that order?
- Tom, Dover-Foxcroft, Me.

"The Pentagon said they don't need the engines. The aircraft is designed around a certain engine with a certain set of dimensions. In order to make the aircraft accept both engines you would have to do a complete redesign of the aircraft. Instead it is the politicians that want to keep the engines just so their district keeps the jobs. It's nothing but corporate welfare.
- Don Armstrong, Henniker"

Don, this is categorically FALSE. See my previous post about my family's involvement in this program - I just posed this question to my sister and she said the airframe has always been designed to accept this alternative engine along with the three derivative engines being manufactured for the CV, STVOL and CVOL variants of the aircraft.

Do some research before you post, please.
- Jeremy Jones, Manchester, NH

"Where is the outcry for GE to bring more work here. Why not forget Rolls Royce and build US military planes in the US. Why rely on other countries for our military engines and spare parts. Bring that work in RR right to Hooksett, and more jobs back from outside this country. If we are going to spend taxpayer money, then do it where it is needed and in the US.
- Jim, Loudon"

Jim - and others - the initials "JSF" in front of this aircraft's designation are for Joint Strike Fighter. The "Joint" portion of this designation refers to the fact that this aircraft is being built in conjunction with many vendors across many, many different countries (far more than most people realize). The end-game of all this cooperative research and manufacturing is the production and sale of an aircraft that will be used by military forces around the world. Although Lockheed Martin is the principal United States contract-holder for the airframe and General Electric is a principal US contract-holder for one engine style, this is not a US-only airplane. Thus, there really is no realistic argument for the entire aircraft to be manufactured solely in the United States.

This is an interesting argument for me to read both sides of because my sister heads up production control for this very aircraft program at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth, TX facility while her fiancee is the man at the top overseeing development of the training program for initial pilot groups at Lockheed's Maryland operations at Patuxent River Naval Air Station. BOTH of them agree that the alternate engine is an ESSENTIAL part of the JSF-35 future.

Guess politics, ultimately, controls everything regardless of what the people in the trenches have to say....
- Jeremy Jones, Manchester, NH

Hey,
We pay for an obsolete Naval Station in Portsmouth..............whats a few jet engines? Build em I say and lets let our grandkids pay for it!
- Jake, Manchester

Competition always drives cost down.How would you like to only have one place to buy a television?They could charge anything they wanted.If they only use one engine and a major flaw is found,it would ground the entire US Air Force,US Marines and the Navy. Our skies would be defenseless until the issue is fixed.I know i would not want to see that.We need both!!Mark
- Mark, Manchester,NH

I'm glad we're not going to be wasting the taxpayers' money on projects even the Pentagon doesn't want.
- James, Manchester

I'm sorry ,but GE hooksett is already getting rid of the employee's with mediacal restrictions this would be just another reason to get rid of more of the employees they feel they have no need for. You talk about waisting money you should walk around there in plant when no one expects you and you'll see a waist of money
- Cynthia Strong, New Durham

One thing the readers seem to be overlooking at this point is the article states that the Joint Strike Fighter will replace ALL similar current military aircraft. As such, GE will be forced to exit this segment of the military engine business entirely, leaving NO competition to keep Pratt & Whitney honest. Future military engines of this type will most likely come ONLY from Pratt & Whitney, and will cost much more owing to there being no competition.

Monopolies are NEVER a good thing, especially in the military industrial complex. A few billion now will save billions more in the long run.
- Dick Campbell, Peabody, Ma

Ever notice we are all for cutting wasteful federal spending as long as it does not impact in our area? Talk about double standards , and the fight for a wasteful not nededed program like this goes on and yet we want economy and effective government. It is impossible to have both . So tighten up the belt you fat wage hogs and face it, should we still make buggy whips for defense just because it saves a few jobs?.
- albert, northwood

I work at GE Hooksett, and my job is now on the line because of this. I didn't want Obama, I didn't want Shaheen, and now I'm shown right about them both, as well as the new liberal Washington. How is it saving money to can the proven, effective F/A18E-F Super Hornets and replace them with the JSF? I could be losing my job, my home, and my entire life because Washington is so eager to prove how into cost cutting they really are, when in effect, they are... generating further costs. Thanks for nothing Washington. It's small consolation that I did NOT vote for our current socialist administration. Can we survive three more years of this???
- Dave, Alton

Can those who support having GE build an alternative engine that the Defense Department does not want say,

"EARMARKS! EARMARKS! EARMARKS. WE LOVE THEM! ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE IN MY HOMETOWN!"
- Doug, Chichester

I've never liked the idea of keeping all ones eggs in one basket and have little problem with having a choice of two engines for the planes we depend on for our defense. I know some have spent a lot of time ensuring society changes its view that competition is good into it being bad. But that same competition is also about having a choice. Take away the choice and we could be left with the big dig of fighter planes where more money is spent keeping them flying than building them. Remember it was Senator Kerry who stated the big dig would be a bargain at any cost and look what the people of Massachusetts got with that thinking by those who knew nothing about such a project for the most part, any more than they know the complexity of building jet fighters.

For my self it's not about the jobs but security. It's not as if we have never seen issues with military equipment come up long after they were put into service. Let’s keep the engines and ensure we have a fighter jet that can do what is needed if it is needed. Our security is not something we should take as lightly as what computers to place in the classrooms of our schools. There is so much other waste our leadership could focus on but choose to ignore.
- Deb, Derry

As Jeanne Sheehan votes away our jobs, and helps fuel the economic slowdown, and as this project is being developed at the GE plant in Hooksett, we have to remember that the liberals in Washington are the people saying that this is such a wasteful project. These are the people who are giving away our national secrets, putting our soldiers in harm or even prosecution now just for doing their service to our country. These are the people who created this huge loan, or our stimulus package from borrowing money from countries like China, and really has done nothing, except create more unemployment throughout the country, and he slow our economy down even slower without reading the paper the bill was printed on, and now wanting to give immunity to millions, giving away what’s left to our Social Security system, and now try to force feed health care to us. As a country we just keep selling out technology such as our cars, our farms, even our beer, and a majority of our manufacturing abroad to these countries who are going to be controlling our kid’s future economy. People are complaining about pork barrel spending going on with this project, but no one is complaining about a two hundred million dollar multiple bridge project going from Merrimack to the Manchester Airport, or the ridiculous wooden wall that are popping up all over Southern NH. Since Jeanne Sheehan’s governorship, there has been so much industry that has left Hampshire, and nothing has come in to replace it, except Wal-Mart’s, Pharmacy’s on every community’s corner, or another prison for our state which the people in the local community can’t even work in if they are over thirty six years old. If you like Jeanne Sheehan’s brand of politics, I guess you can say she is doing a great job.
- tom, Manchester

Wasteful spending? People need to get their facts straight before they open their mouths! Pratt and Whittneys engine program is 1.2 billion dollars over budget and also behind schedule. GE/RR is on time and under budget.Let one supplier have the whole contract and you'll see wasteful spending!
- Kevin, Manchester,NH.

Interesting exchange on the probable loss of the Joint Strike Fighter engine for GE and Hooksett. What's worth remembering is that the workforce at GE Hooksett is first rate, extremely competitive, savvy,productive and rises to meet every challenge. This will be no exception.
- Bob Madden, Philadelphia, PA

Seriously folks, if you could only buy parts for your car that were manufactured only by Toyota, Honda, or Ford you would pay more for the parts. When you buy parts from VIP Auto or Autozone, they are aftermarket parts and are cheaper. Why wouldn't the same apply for jet engines?
- JayCee, Litchfield

I love all the "conservatives" in this paper and it's cronies around the state who rail against wasteful government spending - and then criticize politicians when they actually try to do something about it. If these jobs were in CA or VA, not one person here would be against cutting a program the Pentagon doesn't want. Since they are in Hooksett, the politicians are once again abandoning their constituents. Cue the critical UL editorial about how Shaheen only cares about party politics in 3...2...1.

One man's pork is another man's job. Either support cutting government spending across all districts (including the one you live in) or shut up.
- Jason, Londonderry

Ed Murray, Bow There has to be a way. They blamed Bush for Katrina
- Bill, Andover

Everyone assumes that our representatives are the only ones that can be bought off. The reality of this situation is that Pratt and Whitney (with the help of Joe Lieberman from their home state) bought off the Department of Defense, and suprise, the DoD decided that they don't need competition any more. Since when is a Monopoly good for anyone, especially on a 100 Billion dollar purchase of engines over the next 30 years.
- JC, Manchester

“The Pentagon has determined the GE engine is a wasteful and unnecessary alternative to the primary engine…” What else does anyone need to read?

I’m sorry for the families of the folks who lost jobs.
- Peter Sotrrentino, Manchester

The Pentagon said they don't need the engines. The aircraft is designed around a certain engine with a certain set of dimensions. In order to make the aircraft accept both engines you would have to do a complete redesign of the aircraft. Instead it is the politicians that want to keep the engines just so their district keeps the jobs. It's nothing but corporate welfare.
- Don Armstrong, Henniker

The empire has too many war machines as it is.
- Jack, Concord

take some of the 3.4billion given to ACORN and build engines...typical liberals..get the union support during the election then leave them by the wayside in support of liberal feel good social programs...when will the unions open their eyes and realize they are being used by the dems...
- skip, hooksett

How can we blame Obama for this?
- Ed Murray, Bow

In the 2009 Federal budget, 54 cents of every tax dollar goes to military spending. Eisenhower warned us about the perils of the military industrial complex. And here is what it looks like - we have to spend money on defense that we don't need so Senators can bring home the bacon. In the long run, we all get screwed by this system. But in a practical sense, how can you look at these GE workers and say your jobs have to go? The system is broken, but I sure don't know how to fix it.
- Ken, Kingston

So, on the one hand you want government to slash wasteful spending such as this unnecessary engine program while on the other hand you want them to keep wasteful spending such as this unnecessary engine program.

We cannot spend billions of dollars to save 200 jobs, that’s just a painful reality. The article did say a new engine is on the horizon so perhaps this will help in the future.

What Shaheen and Gregg should be doing is asking for some of this savings in a grant for retraining and assistance for these employees during their transition but they’d have to ask for earmarks to do that and we all know how “evil” earmarks are.

I must ask Jay and Tony should people upset with Gregg too? Or does Shaheens vote count twice?

With 22 trillion dollars missing from this economy some tough and painful decisions have to be made. It’s unfortunate that some will lose their jobs in the process and I will support any assistance our representatives can get to you.
- Jim, Raymond NH

If the engine program is truly wasteful, then killing it is the correct thing to do. The good news is that all of the defense money we are saving by killing these wasteful programs will go to illegal aliens' health care, benefits and more immigration and welfare programs for the non-working!

So there is a good side to all this change.
- Melvin, Keene

No wonder why we are in such a mess! Congress deciding which engines to go into the jets. In the private sector this would be comprable to MacDonalds share holders wasting time and bickering on what type of toilet paper to put into the rest rooms. I don't wan't to see folks lose thier jobs by all means. Just want to see our elected officals do something more productive than micromanage and political grandstanding!
- Mark, Pembroke

Everybody complains about wasteful spending until it effects them. Too bad guys.
- Mike Pelham, Pelham Nh

Great idea, Tim!

The only businesses that will stay viable are the ones that can adjust to changing times. We don't need that kind of pork, no matter how many jobs it creates (or keeps).

You must like pork, Jay.
- Jet, Manchester

Timothy in Durham...
Whay dont you support our state and our country? We dont need the ability to defend our country? Doesnt it make sense to have redundancy in sources? Or would you rather have Pratt&Whitney holding us hostage with a sole source engine. Think people...
- John, Manchester

Military engines MUST be made in the USA per gov't rules. However, wind turbines can be made in China and imported. So, the plant cannot retrofit as Tim in Durham proposes...unless the gov't wants to mandate that wind turbines be built in the USA. Luckily, due to the size of the larger wind turbines, they are currently made in the USA due to shipping costs but that can easily change in the near future.
- Mike, Goffstown

I just want to make sure I have this straight. Some are bashing Shaheen for supporting the Pentagons view that funding for the engine was wasteful? You'd rather have her vote to continue wasting money?
- jon, hooksett

Ask the question, do we really need fighter jets now? Yes the jobs are a hit but isn't the country trying to cut down the budget and not raise taxes? How do you do that? Build jet engines for jet fighters we don't need?

I swear we go to war with countries just so there are jobs for military contractors.
- Bob, Manchester

How is it that doing the right thing - we don't need the engines - is transformed into some political fault? Why is it assumed that GE has some sort of right to free money from the government. It seems to me business should focus on making something that someone wants to buy, at a price that is reasonable, and quit with the requests for tax breaks, no bid contracts, and the latest - buying life insurance policies on their older workers so that they can cash in. All this worship of business which has trashed unions - who brought you the week end, pleas for special consideration while cutting wages and benefits. The American worker's productivity has increased by 45% since 1980, wages have slightly declined. Why didn't the rest of us get to share in the prosperity?
- Robert, Deerfield

"Maybe GE can retrofit the plant to build something the world actually needs like... wind turbines... or hybrid engines? It's just a thought." -Tim in Durham

Roll eyes...ho hum. Liberals don't get it. They never will. A good national defense program has kept this nation relatively safe for 200+ years. You know, Tim, I wish the world were such a place that we didn't need national defense, but it's not a realistic wish. To say that a facet of National Defense is less useful than a hybrid engine or a windmill is downright ludicrous. Maybe someday that will be so, but judging by the number of totalitarian tinpot dictators around these days and the Obama Administration's (and the previous Bush and Clinton Admins as well) unwillingness to see real threats for what they are, National Defense is pretty important.
- Mike, Temple

Rep. Shea-Porter, you are on the wrong side of this one; America does not need to build weapons just so that we can have jobs. Please see President Dwight D. Eisenhower's exit speech.
- Tom, Dover-Foxcroft, Me.

Not that I agree with them much but this time they were right to vote against this. If it is not needed then don't spend the tax payers money on it. Most comments were against pork barrel spending a week ago in these postings.

Where is the outcry for GE to bring more work here. Why not forget Rolls Royce and build US military planes in the US. Why rely on other countries for our military engines and spare parts. Bring that work in RR right to Hooksett, and more jobs back from outside this country. If we are going to spend taxpayer money, then do it where it is needed and in the US.
- Jim, Loudon

Why should we keep funding something we don't need? It's artificially propping up a business that shouldn't exist and creating waste. Maybe the funding could be redirected as an incentive to produce something we need, and still maintain the jobs.
- Maureen, Manchester, NH

The UL has to be careful here. This is pure unadulterated pork, and they know it. All those that holler about Shaheen (yet strangely not Gregg) will have to hold their fire on other porkers if they want this pork passed.
- Steve B, Derry

There it is, a perfect example of what's wrong with things. Don't vote for Shaheen(or any politician) unless she gets more money for your state, who cares if it's wasted money as long as the politician gets money to our state!
The same people complaining will be the first to complain the deficit is too high and that poiticians over-spend. Now you know why. They can't get reelected without proving how much money they get for their state. Term limits will go a long way to solving this. This vote was 100% the right vote, just need alot more votes like it all across the country. Kill useless programs, that's a good thing.
- Kevin, Derry, NH

GE is currently building plants in China.The labor costs are much lower there.This is very good news for shareholders.I see no reason why the engine couldn't be developed there.Our economies are so intertwined at this point,they are no longer considered an enemy.China would provide 10 times the workforce as Hooksett,for the same cost.The U.S. has gone Global.The labor unit costs are behind the curve though.As Americans we have got to toughen up if we're to compete.Our manufacturing competition does not drive cars or live in houses with plumbing.We have got to give up these luxuries.The minimum wage must be suspended as well.
- Jerry, Claremont

GE wants something. I have no sympathy sorry. Let's see, I seem to remember GE was the first plant built on a parcel of property in Mexico, a gate for management to enter on the United States side of the border, while a gate on the other side of the property opened into Mexico for the Mexican workers.

I won't buy a GE appliance nor even a GE lightbulb nor anything else with a GE logo. As far as Im concerned they are a traitor to this country and should have been delisted from our stock market and the corporate headquaters told to get out.
- Jack Alex, Manchester

Shaheen is wonderful, isn't she! See you all on the unemployment line, with NO hope of finding another job anywhere. At least you can be on unemployment for a year and a half with food stamps and fuel assistance (and if you are a woman with kids [WIC] there are plenty of other benefits for you). Also, say hi to all of your friends with anti-defense round magnets on their cars. Socialism is wonderful and the US is about to see what it is like...
- Kevin, Portsmouth, NH

I am against 99% of everything Shaheen stands for.

However, this is one time she is correct.

You can't justify keeping a program going just for the sake of jobs. That is a weak argument, and you need more than that. Perhaps that is a big problem with this country today, people are simply focused on jobs and not creating and making a product that there is a demand for.

I run a private business with about 20 employees, and I know the gov't wouldn't just keep me going if I cried about job loss, there must be a NEED to keep me in business.
- John, Dover

You're absolutely right! We need to increase the Federal Budget/Deficit to keep building things we don't want or need. As long as it's not Healthcare for all.
- Tom, Northwood

Shaheen is another Democrat who has forgotten who her constituents are. Just like the Health Care Bill, she thinks she is smarter than all of us. I would think that those 200 people will not vote for her again.
- Bob, Salem

Why is anyone, anywhere, proposing that GE continue building an engine that is "wasteful and unnecessary"? If the engine is something the military doesn't need, then to fund its continued development would be nothing more than a pork project.
- Brian, Farmington

REally? to Jay and Timothy: This is about real people losing good jobs. This is not a place to be flip! These are skilled employees providing the tools needed to protect our country. That means yours too. Retrofitting? I cannot believe you would even say that. Now is not the time. Try doing those projects when people are working and the economy is stronger. You just don't experiment in economic times such as these. You should be putting your efforts to better use.
- Brenda, Concord

In this economy more jobs lost? New hampshire cannot take ant more job loses .Come on shaheen step up to the plate.For once do whats right for new hampshire
- Randy, Loudon

Shaheen once again on the side of New Hampshire workers! lol
- Tony, Manchester

All GE Hooksett employees that voted for Jeanne Shaheen should hang their heads in shame. Keep drinking the cool aid, no matter how bitter it becomes. Jeanne Shaheen is an Obama pawn, who couldn't care less about job losses in Hooksett or in any other town in New Hampshire.
- Jay, Manchester

Maybe GE can retrofit the plant to build something the world actually needs like... wind turbines... or hybrid engines? It's just a thought.

These defense programs are always structured to have subcontracts in as many states as possible, by the way.
- Timothy Horrigan, Durham, NH