F135 JSF Engine Blog

More "Four-ward" Progress

2011-06-01T09:53:00.001-04:00

In today’s hyperactive 24/7 media landscape, good news rarely gets the same level of attention as bad news, especially when conflict can be added to the mix. Nevertheless, Pratt & Whitney’s F135 continues to go from strength to strength. Most recently, the company announced the mid-May award of a $1.13 billion Department of Defense contract for F135 production engines to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

The $1.13 billion award, which follows initial selection in July 2010, covers low-rate initial production of the fourth lot of F135 engines, plus spare parts, sustainment and delivery. LRIP 4 will comprise 18 conventional takeoff and landing (CTOL) and 19 short takeoff/vertical landing engines for the United States, United Kingdom and the Netherlands. And in an era when F-35 costs have attracted widespread attention, it is well worth noting that the LRIP 4 contract will provide a 15 percent savings on the CTOL/CV variant compared to LRIP 3.

These savings, along with others still to come, are possible because the F135 continues to mature as production rates increase. Yet, there are still some members of Congress on the House Armed Services Committee and elsewhere who support resurrecting the defunded and cancelled F136 extra engine through a deceptively clever self-funding scheme that (like most freebie offers) is actually too good to be true.

“This comes despite the fact that the Defense Department has been saying for five years that the replacement engine wasn't wanted or needed,” noted the Sheboygan Press in a May 18 editorial. “Although GE and Rolls-Royce will be spending their own money on the engine in the near future, we can't help but wonder how soon they will be back in front of the Armed Services panel asking for tax dollars to keep the alternative engine program alive.”

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on May 20, Pratt & Whitney President David Hess debunked a number of misunderstandings and misrepresentations about the F135, which has powered all 900+ F-35 flights, including 100 vertical landings. Such strong performance, combined with staunch opposition from Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, completely obviates the need to waste an additional $3 billion in vital taxpayer funds for a second engine that is years behind the F135 and would necessitate the doubling of training, logistics and maintenance costs without adding any additional capability.

First Hess notes, “Rep. [Buck] McKeon refers to a $3.5 billion cost overrun but does not explain that most of these costs are due to government-directed changes to the original requirements and schedule. Much of the remaining costs are associated with the unique challenges of the short takeoff, vertical landing F-35 variant. Having an extra engine would not have made any difference but would simply have added cost.”

Moreover, Hess adds, “Rep. McKeon incorrectly states that the cost of the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine powering the F-35 ‘has risen by almost 500% in the past three years.’ The cost of our engine has actually decreased by more than 22% over that period.”

Those facts, on top of an additional 15 percent savings to come on LRIP 4 engines, are merely sensational, not sensationalist. Yet we’d still shout, “Stop the presses.”

– EagleBlogger

Return of the Zombie Earmark?

2011-05-24T15:00:00.001-04:00

Like a bad B-grade horror movie monster, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 extra engine is threatening to rise from its grave. No matter that Congress eliminated all FY2011 funding just weeks ago, marking the culmination of years of stoic determination expressed by consecutive Republican and Democratic presidents, as well as their respective secretaries of defense.

Instead, the F136’s dwindling but vocal advocates are now trying to hold the entire F-35 program hostage by arm-twisting the House Armed Services Committee. Still smarting from the extra engine’s defunding and subsequent termination by the Department of Defense, its backers have conceived a seemingly innocuous plan to “self-fund” the remaining development. Yet there is no free lunch for the American taxpayer here, since any military engine testing will require access to government-owned property and facilities, not to mention ongoing government oversight. And all that costs money.

Moreover, they’ve devised a "scorched earth" tactic that would withhold performance improvement funds for the proven Pratt & Whitney F135 unless their developmental engine is brought back to life. Never mind the fact that the F135 meets all current and anticipated thrust requirements, they say, let alone the prospect of further duplication and senseless waste at a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty and more pressing defense priorities.

Even before these latest parliamentary gimmicks were fully exposed, the Boston Globe remarked in a May 1 editorial, "It’s the height of corporate entitlement for a defense contractor to keep trying to sell the Pentagon a fighter engine that the Pentagon manifestly doesn’t want."

As news about the HASC maneuver surfaced, Paul Bedard of U.S. News reported in a May 4 article that fiscal conservatives might face “an embarrassing second vote on the funding for the engine." Bedard went on to quote a conservative House adviser who said, "It’s unbelievable they could be that thick-headed. With the deficit at $1.7 trillion this year, my GOP has to get serious."

GE had told the government it needed $450 million annually in FY 2011 and 2012 in order to compete in 2015. Now that GE is faced with spending their own cash, they claim they’ll do it for $100 million and compete in 2016. So, what was the other $350 million a year for and who will fund the additional $3 billion really needed to get the F136 to competition?

Such intransigence stands in stark contrast not only to continued strong performance by the F135 in more than 800 F-35 test flights, including roughly 90 flawless vertical landings for the STOVL F-35B, but also in deliveries. All 20 engines from low rate initial production (LRIP) lots 1 and 2 have now been delivered, along with the first LRIP 3 engine in early May. F135 engines in LRIP 3 meet established affordability targets and include engine modifications and improvements based on findings from the F-35 flight test program. Moreover, that engine’s close relative, the Pratt & Whitney JSF119, is literally now part of aviation history, following its recent installation at the Smithsonian Institution at the National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center.

Here’s hoping majorities in both houses of Congress charged with the twin burdens of austere fiscal responsibility and judicious defense spending will continue to beat back the extra engine. We’ve said it before, but feel compelled to say it again: no means no. Even an addlebrained zombie should understand that much.

– EagleBlogger

Progress Versus Promises

2011-05-04T15:26:00.000-04:00

Avid readers of this blog and F135engine.com know that the Pratt & Whitney F135 is a direct descendent of the F119 that powers the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 Raptor. Now, the F119 has successfully reached its first hot section full-life capability of 4,325 total accumulated cycles during a recent test at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. This achievement was made possible through an accelerated engine maturity program and the resulting overhaul will provide additional insight into the long-term performance of this engine, as well as the F135.

This accelerated program, called “Compass Vector,” is a Pratt & Whitney and U.S. Air Force partnership to fly certain engines twice the normal rate under various environmental conditions. The resulting data highlights new sustainment opportunities that will maximize readiness for the world’s most advanced operational fighter jet.

Meanwhile, production numbers for the F119 and F135 continue to climb at 360 and 21, respectively. The F135’s scorecard now stands at more than 828 flights, 1,200 flight hours and 86 flawless vertical landings.

Fortunately, the Department of Defense has now terminated the F136 extra engine that never flew, wasn’t wanted by two consecutive presidential administrations, and wouldn’t be used by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps and other initial F-35 customers. In stark contrast to attempts by others to override the express wishes of the customer and taxpayer, Pratt & Whitney’s latest ad pays tribute to those House members (later joined by the Senate), who rejected earmark-laden, pork barrel politics in favor of fiscal responsibility when it’s needed most.

Implausibly, GE claimed until the very end that their still-developmental F136 engine could somehow outperform the Pratt & Whitney F135 that has powered every F-35 flight as above. But don’t take our word for it; check out the latest reasoned opinion delivered by defense industry sage Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute.

We commend Congress and Secretary Robert Gates for their courageous decisions to defund and then terminate the F136. Whether it’s on the flight line or Capitol Hill, actions continue to speak louder than words.

– EagleBlogger

Truth: An Unfortunate Casualty of the GE Ad War?

2011-04-27T14:43:00.001-04:00

Defense industry sage Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute recently followed up a Forbes.com article critical of the F136 extra engine with another entry on his own site, this time chastising GE for their increasingly desperate advertising tactics.

Thompson applies his keen eye to GE’s misleading portrayal in a recent print ad about a single Government Accountability Office report that purports to suggest “total savings of about 21 percent in overall life.” In fact, he states, “The 21 percent savings are unsubstantiated claims about an earlier program that GAO acknowledges it has not analyzed in depth. The actual savings GAO thinks possible from the current program are in the 10-14 percent range -- but you wouldn't know that from reading the ad because GE has cropped the picture so you can't read the full text on that page of the report.”

No other authoritative source in the government is projecting such savings from a so-called competition and with good reason. Moreover, a $62 billion GAO figure is magically rounded up to $100 billion by GE, further obfuscating the fact that the actual amount up for grabs in a dual-source scenario is much smaller. Why? Because as Loren Thompson notes, “Most of the money in the lower figure would fall outside any competition, because it consists of spare parts and support that only one company can supply.”

Saving roughly 10 percent of $20 billion would only net $2 billion and that just isn’t worth another $3 billion to finally complete the F136’s protracted development. This gamble looks even worse when you consider it would really just create a forced split buy scenario, primarily burdening the U.S. Air Force since the Navy and Marine Corps have repeatedly said they only have room on their ships for one engine, the Pratt & Whitney F135 that’s already government certified and in production.

Thompson concludes that the Pentagon “already have an engine that works fine, and that's all they need -- just like on every other plane the military services have developed for the last quarter century. But at least GE is honest about one thing: if Congress wants to keep developing its unneeded engine in the near term, it's going to cost taxpayers money that won't be available for more pressing needs.”

No wonder the White House and Pentagon have rightly opposed the F136 under both Republican and Democratic administrations. Their unwavering leadership, recently augmented by a new generation of fiscally conservative legislators, culminated in separate decisions by the House and Senate this year to defund the program. The Department of Defense directed the F136 team on March 24 to halt work, stating “The stop work order ended the expenditure of $1 million per day on an extra engine that the DoD has assessed as unneeded and wasteful.” Now, one month later, the program has been officially terminated. The truth is that powerful.

– EagleBlogger

Beware the Zombie

2011-03-22T14:56:00.000-04:00

As veteran analyst Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute wrote in a late February blog on Forbes.com, the F136 extra engine has never made much sense, in large measure because the defense industry simply doesn’t work the same way as the consumer-driven marketplace.

Thompson notes, “Pentagon policymakers have argued every year since 2007 that GE’s ‘alternate engine’ is a waste of money that would duplicate efforts already made to develop the Pratt & Whitney propulsion system without providing corresponding benefits.”

Yet the F136 has lived on even longer than that. Its protracted gestation dates back to losing campaigns on the part of General Electric to have its engine chosen by Joint Strike Fighter finalists Lockheed Martin and Boeing, both of whom independently chose Pratt & Whitney’s F135 design instead. The F135 has gone on to power every F-35 flight to date, been certified by the government, and made a smooth transition to production.

Thompson argues the F136 has been buffeted by the turbulence of overriding the Pentagon’s oft-expressed wishes and best interests. “As the sole customer for the two engines, the government must cover all the costs of designing a second engine, developing and testing it, equipping and manning a second production line, funding a second supplier network, and sustaining a parallel maintenance and support infrastructure across the lifetime of the program.” In short, there’s a reason why no American military aircraft developed in the last three decades has featured multiple engines, nor for that matter do you see choices in avionics, landing gear and other major on-board systems.

Moreover, the cost of sustaining the F136 and bringing it to the market could equate to $8 billion in total, according to the federally funded Institute for Defense Analyses. The chances of such a massive investment ever being repaid is primary reason why the Pentagon and White House under both Democratic and Republican control have repeated sought to terminate the F136.

And that daunting figure presumes no further F136 teething troubles. By contrast, Pratt & Whitney’s F135 is derived from the proven F119 aboard all F-22 Raptors. Thompson adds, “Since the GE engine was begun later and not based on any prior design, its team is not as far down the learning curve and thus is likely to produce a less reliable engine.”

Lastly, Thompson debunks the notion that two engine suppliers will create more jobs, because the total number of engines will not change. “As a study by the consulting firm Whitney, Bradley & Brown pointed out, that means twice the number of vendors (with smaller amounts of work), twice the tooling, and twice the oversight…If there was a net gain in jobs from splitting the work among two teams, that presumably would be due to the inefficiency of the arrangement — inefficiency that raised rather than lowered the government’s costs.”

Two hundred and thirty-three cost-conscious members of the House of Representatives, especially dozens of Republican freshmen, took a big step in the right direction recently by voting to eliminate further funds for the wasteful F136.

– EagleBlogger

Escaping From No Man's Land

2011-03-09T10:20:00.004-05:00

As the White House and Congress turn their attention to the 2012 budget, battle lines are already being drawn. However, the war isn't just being fought from either end of Pennsylvania Avenue. On Capitol Hill, many members of the legislative branch found themselves uncomfortably caught between their party leaders and their constituents' clearly articulated desire to lower the national debt by eliminating waste in all its forms.

And as Pratt & Whitney have cleverly portrayed in our recent "Monumental Waste" ad, what could be more redundant than an extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter when the F135 has powered every flight to date, earned all necessary government certifications, and made a smooth transition to production?

To their credit, 233 members of the House of Representatives, including many freshmen, demonstrated ideologically rock-solid fiscal fortitude by voting to kill future funding for the $3 billion extra engine, despite the unwanted attention of the General Electric/Rolls Royce lobbying machine.

USA Today's Fredreka Schouten noted in a recent article, "Total lobbying by GE and its subsidiaries soared to $39.3 million last year, a nearly 50% increase over 2009 levels. A team of 21 in-house General Electric staffers, including former Capitol Hill and Pentagon officials, lobbied on defense issues for the company during the last three months of 2010, congressional records show."

In light of the recent House vote, we commend President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates and the rest of the Pentagon senior leadership, including Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mullen, who told the Armed Services Committee, "I've been doing money a long time - I can't make sense out of a second engine." Kudos are also due for our supporters on Capitol Hill and even Speaker Boehner for allowing a free vote on this important issue. All of them have shown this debate is about doing what's right, not what's politically expedient. Eliminating the extra engine once and for all would be a great way for Washington to start winning the budgetary war and the voters' respect.

-- EagleBlogger

Secretary Gates on the Extra Engine, May 2010

2011-02-23T15:46:00.001-05:00

SEC. GATES: The Bush administration opposed this engine. The Obama administration opposes it. We have recommended for several years now against funding this engine, considering it a waste of money. And to argue that we should add another $3 billion in what we regard as waste to protect the billion and a half (dollars) that we believe already has been wasted, frankly, I don't track the logic.

Let me just say we think -- with respect to the -- to the proposal for the alternate engine, we think the proposal is based on unrealistic cost estimates. We do believe that the full-up costs for us are about $2.9 billion. This department has a long and unhappy experience with overly optimistic contractor estimates.

The proposal does provide a fixed price, but not for the engine we need. The proposed engine is based on the design they currently have on the test stand, which we are deeply concerned may not meet the performance needs of the Joint Strike Fighter. Any cost to take the design to required JSF performance levels would presumably be paid by taxpayers.

The current engine -- their current engine, the alternate engine proposal, the engine is far less mature than the JSF engine. The proposed engine is still in development, has about 200 hours of testing compared to 13,000 for the F-135. Even the immature engines in the proposal would be more expensive than the JSF engine during the critical period of the program. And finally, the GE proposal assumes receiving a guaranteed buy of over half the JSF engines for three years in order to allow them to catch up.

As I've said before, only in Washington does a proposal where everybody wins get considered a competition, where everybody is guaranteed a piece of the action at the end. Yeah, we're in favor of competition. But my idea of competition is winner takes all, and we don't have that kind of a situation here.

Q Is there a safety readiness and operational readiness concern that the alternate engine may actually boost operational readiness?

SEC. GATES: I don't think that anybody -- I haven't heard that argument by anybody.

ADM. MULLEN: I mean, I have no concern. The services have not expressed that concern. We've flown with single engines historically and done so very well.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen on the Extra Engine

2011-02-22T14:05:00.003-05:00

Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen testifies before the House Armed Services Committee on February 16, 2011

ADM. MULLEN: One of the things that we do in this town is we focus on getting stuff out the door as opposed to what it costs for life cycle. And this -- and it certainly applies on aircraft carriers, but it applies actually in all three services. This is two separate lines, two separate training, two separate maintenance manuals, two separate supply sources, all those kinds of things. And they lag each other significantly. I mean, I've been doing money a long time. I cannot make sense out of this second engine. It is two to three years behind. It's not going to compete, quite frankly.

We cannot afford to buy the second engine, I mean, from my perspective. And there have been multiple airplanes that are single- engine airplanes that are single source.

So I don't accept it; 95 percent of the fleet is going to go down at once. It just doesn't happen. We're better than that. If -- you know, the first engine will be, I think, more than adequate to meet the needs that we have for that airplane. And if I thought any different, I would, you know, be encouraging this engine, the second engine. I just categorically can't see that it's going to make any difference. It's going to cost us a lot of money, not just to get it out at the door, but over the life of its -- over the life cycle.

Rep. Joe Courtney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen Discuss the Extra Engine

2011-02-16T17:17:00.001-05:00

Vote YES on Rooney-Larson

2011-02-16T10:36:00.002-05:00

Today’s House vote on the Rooney-Larson Amendment to H.R. 1 offers the first true test of Washington’s seriousness towards cutting deficits and ending earmarks. Fiscal conservatives are unanimous in supporting this Amendment, and many will be scoring it for their annual ratings of Congress:

American Action Forum’s Doug Holtz-Eakin: "Buying two engines is not real competition and does not lower costs. It is a test of the spending discipline of both parties to defeat this amendment." (2/15/2011)

National Taxpayer’s Union: “A ‘YES’ vote on the Rooney-Larson-Westmoreland-Pingree-Griffin Amendment to H.R. 1 will be significantly weighted as a pro-taxpayer vote in our annual Rating of Congress.” (2/15/2011)

Americans for Tax Reform: “The CR currently contains funding for the wasteful Joint Strike Fighter F136 alternative engine, a program the Department of Defense has routinely argued it doesn't need or want.” (2/15/2011)

Freedom Works: “The current engine for the JSF has already proven to be sufficient for our defense needs, spending over $2.5 billion on an additional engine is wasteful and unnecessary.” (2/15/2011)

American Conservative Union’s David Keene: “The three billion dollars that supporters of this program are seeking for a favored contractor through the earmark process is money that the White House and the Pentagon under both Republican and Democratic Presidents feel does not need to be spent for any valid national security or defense purpose.”

Citizen’s Against Government Waste: “The decision on funding the alternate engine will be one of many tests to determine whether the talk about cutting waste by the incoming House Republican majority is rhetoric or reality.” (12/22/2010)

Cal Thomas (USA Today): “The alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter is the military’s version of a Bridge To Nowhere.” (8/26/2010)

Vote YES on Rooney-Larson.

Rachel Maddow talks Extra Engine

2011-02-15T08:10:00.001-05:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Three (More) Wrongs Still Don’t Make A Right

2011-02-15T07:00:00.000-05:00

Poor General Electric. Sure, they generated $150 billion in revenue last year, squirreled away $79 billion in cash and equivalents, as well as boast $175 billion in backlog (which sure is a lot of light bulbs and dishwashers). But forget all that, not to mention the double-digit growth year on year. Instead, GE sheds crocodile tears over the “barrage of attacks” they’ve apparently suffered while trying to justify the unwanted, unnecessary and unaffordable F136 extra engine.

GE’s response has been swift, though it’s come from the rhetoric department, rather than engineering. While Pratt & Whitney’s F135 continues to power every F-35 flight and the F136 languishes on the test stand, GE has turned up the heat (they make nifty ovens too) through an ad campaign that sadly falls far short of the term self-cleaning. So let’s debunk three of the most egregious myths.

One frequent refrain of recent GE/Rolls-Royce ads concerns a so-called $100 billion monopoly. In fact, page 9 of a GAO report dated March 24, 2010 lists the figure at $60 billion, half of which is sustainment often performed at government depots. Of the remaining $40 billion, only about $20 billion covering initial engines and spares would be available for competition.

Another misleading claim is that F-35 competition will save $20 billion. The closest GAO comes to estimating savings is that “it may be reasonable to expect savings of” 10-12%. Applied to our $20 billion figure above, maximum savings would be $2.4 billion during 25 years of production. In reality, the extra cost of fielding two engines in a 50/50 split buy environment will likely negate any savings.

Last, but sadly not least, is the spurious charge about a $2.5 billion F135 cost overrun. The fact is $1.7 billion of this alleged cost growth comes from new scope directed by the government. Of the remaining $800M, approximately one third is attributed to the lift system hardware developed by Rolls-Royce as a subcontractor to Pratt & Whitney for the F-35B STOVL variant. The same Rolls-Royce who is partnered with GE on the F136! Wonder what that says about the future cost growth of the extra engine!

We could go on, but to read our previous myth debunking blogs about competition, risk and the industrial base, please click here.

Put aside the clever visuals, headlines and body copy and some basic facts remain irrefutable. First, the F135 was chosen through marketplace competition at the contractor level years ago. Second, its performance since that time has garnered all necessary government certifications. Third, two presidents representing both major parties, their secretaries of defense and senior leaders in the Pentagon have all advocated killing the F136. Fourth, one engine provider is the norm for DOD aircraft, a situation that has given GE roughly 75% of the military engine business from Apache helicopters to F/A-18 fighter jets.

Such a dominant position should allow GE to put away the handkerchief and perhaps discontinue using the “hot air fluff cycle” too.

– EagleBlogger

Connecticut Machinists Urge Congress To Cancel the Extra Engine

2011-02-10T16:38:00.004-05:00

Dear Members of Congress:

On behalf of thousands of hard-working members of District 26 of the International Association of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, we urge you to end funding the extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. We understand that as a part of the FY11 budget process there may be an opportunity to vote on this program and we ask that you stand with President Obama and our Secretary of Defense, reject funding wasteful earmarks and stop spending on this unwanted and unaffordable extra engine.

As Americans, we are proud and unwavering supporters of our military and securing a strong national defense. As taxpayers, we are determined that our dollars be spent responsibly. As union members, we are committed to preserving U.S. jobs. The facts show that the FI35 meets these criteria; the extra engine does not.

If the extra engine is funded, it will take much needed funds from the development of the F35, further delaying its completion. In the process, new jobs will not be created; they will simply shift from the F135 to the F136. This will most certainly have a negative impact on our workforce and U.S. jobs because a full 40 percent of the extra engine is projected to be manufactured by Rolls-Royce in the U.K. The result: almost half of the extra engine’s jobs will be moved offshore. With thousands of aerospace jobs expected to be lost in the U.S. due to the projected end of the F-22 program this year, backing an unwanted program that will negatively impact the skill base of the U.S. aerospace industry and related jobs is counter to the interests of America’s working men and women and our membership.

Meanwhile, we are pleased to report that the FI35 is doing its job well while reducing costs, generating U.S. jobs and preventing Congress from having to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on an extra engine earmark that according to the military is not needed, wanted and a waste of money. We are particularly proud that our engine is in full production, flying flawlessly on the aircraft and is within budget parameters.

Given the F135’s performance, it is hard to make the case to delay the program and spend more for a second competition – as GE/Rolls-Royce is now demanding. The fact is, in 1995 there was a competition for the F-35 engine and the three prime contractors unanimously selected the F135 engine over GE’s. GE lost the bidding process and did not appeal the Air Force’s award.

We hope we can count on you to stand up for American jobs and end wasteful earmarks. At a time when we are all concerned about cutting the deficit and saving U.S. jobs, ending the funding for the extra engine is the right thing to do.

Sincerely,

Everett C. Corey, Directing Business Representative, I.A.M.A.W District 26

James Parent, President, Connecticut State Council of Machinists

F-35B BF-5 First Flight takeoff

2011-02-03T14:19:00.002-05:00

The last Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II assigned to developmental flight testing departs Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base on its first flight Thursday, January 27, 2011.

The F135 Engine is the ONLY engine powering the Joint Strike Fighter through all of its flight testing.

Rep. Tom Rooney: A Common Sense Approach to Trimming the Defense Budget

2011-01-31T09:53:00.002-05:00

Rep. Tom Rooney (R-FL) is out with a letter to his colleagues, urging them to support cancellation of the wasteful extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

*A Common Sense Approach to Trimming the Defense Budget*
From: The Honorable Thomas J. Rooney
Date: 1/28/2011
*Oppose Funding for the "Extra" Engine*

Dear Colleague:

At a time when our country is facing a projected $1.5 trillion deficit, it is extremely critical that we spend every taxpayer dollar wisely. In the area of defense spending, a dollar wasted is a dollar that we will not have for vital equipment to keep our country and troops safe. Unfortunately, Congressional earmarks in the Pentagon’s budget have led to wasted money and unnecessary, duplicative programs.

For example our next generation fighter jet, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is currently in production, and will replace many of our military’s aging aircraft. The F-35 has proven successful during flight testing with its current engine, yet Congress continues to earmark funding for a second, “alternate” engine in the defense budget year after year.

General Electric/Rolls Royce claims that with an additional $1.8 billion they will be able to field the extra engine for the F-35; the trouble is we have heard this before. In 2008 GE spokesperson Rick Kennedy stated: “…$1.1 billion still needed in U.S. funding to deliver a fully competitive unit.” Three years of defense dollars has gotten us no closer to a working engine and GE/Rolls Royce continues to ask for more earmarked spending.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates has repeatedly stated that he is opposed to the development of a second engine for the F-35. U. S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford and Maj. Gen. Johnny Weida said the alternate engine is “…unnecessary, too costly, and risks diverting resources from production.” Marine Corps Brig. Gen. David Heinz stated that funding the alternate engine project would “take 50 to 80 tails out of the program.”

Spending billions on a duplicative program does not efficiently utilize our defense budget to best serve our men and women in uniform. The extra engine will not make our country any safer, but instead will take limited resources away from our troops.

I plan to oppose continued funding for this wasteful program, and I urge my colleagues to join me in calling for the program’s elimination.

Sincerely,

Thomas J. Rooney
Member of Congress

Reason.TV on Porkers of the Month

2011-01-28T15:28:00.001-05:00

New Actors, Same Script

2011-01-26T13:36:00.001-05:00

Call me crazy, but I thought last November's election delivered an unambiguously clear message from voters of both parties plus highly coveted independents that the old ways of Washington, from backroom deals through wasteful earmarks, needed to be reformed once and for all. And, yes, some initially promising steps were taken beginning in the waning days of the 111th Congress.

Yet, if you look closer, it becomes apparent that the real-life home makeover of Congress has stalled following the delivery of new window dressings, especially when it comes to judicious use of the family piggy bank.

And if ever there was a prime example of wasteful spending, it's the F136 extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Despite losing multiple down-select decisions to Pratt & Whitney's F135 (which has since powered every JSF flight, earned all necessary government certifications, and made a smooth transition to production), the F136 continues its zombie-like march, consuming billions of taxpayer dollars along the way while providing absolutely nothing in return.

Why has Congress allowed this travesty to continue unabated? Surely, voters don't want their legislators to further perpetuate monumental waste on the F136. After all, the past two presidents have tried to cancel it, plus civilian and military leadership at the Pentagon have said they don't need it, don't want it and won't use it.

Even worse, the defense bill in the last Congress did not authorize the F136, the Senate has specifically singled it out to be de-funded,and President Obama has repeatedly vowed to veto any bill that included it.

So, what keeps the F136 alive, despite being inherently duplicative and years behind the proven F135? Sadly, it comes down to politics as usual. Apparently, the Republican commitment to cut wasteful spending stops at their respective district boundaries when pie-in-the-sky promises are made. It's hard to draw any other conclusion, based on successful lobbying by General Electric of House Speaker John Boehner and others, combined with Rolls-Royce's skillful wooing of Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Rep. Mike Pence plus the House of Commons (whose interest let's remember is British jobs, not American ones).

Over the years, the F136 has become the quintessential earmark: kept alive by spending that is not authorized, nor requested by the Obama administration. Yet, it survives despite strong rhetoric from House and Senate GOP leaders who have made a big show of eschewing earmarks. If only irony wasn't so recklessly expensive.

One has to wonder if the new 112th Congress arrived for their opening night performance forgetting the lines voters so tightly scripted for them. Admittedly, these are still early days, yet this is clearly not the show for which we bought very expensive tickets. As those of us with theatre backgrounds know, today's hit can find itself cancelled well before its intended run is complete. Today's cast now just hitting the stage would be well served to remember who paved their way to stardom. Now is not the time to lose the plot.

- EagleBlogger

Rep. Pete Stark criticizes "engines the Pentagon doesn't even want"

2011-01-26T12:44:00.004-05:00

Rep. Pete Stark criticizes colleagues who say they want to cut spending but continue to support "extra planes and engines the Pentagon doesn't even want".

White House reaffirms veto threat against extra engine

2011-01-21T14:00:00.002-05:00

Press Gaggle by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs aboard Air Force One en route Schenectady, New York

GE is still being paid to work on a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. And the Obama administration has threatened to veto that, but it’s still going on. Is the veto threat still stand? And why does the spending keep happening, given our economic times? Is it jobs?

MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this -- look, the Secretary of Defense, the President have made the point that this is not something that we need. I think whenever the military tells you that something that -- the military is spending money on something the military doesn’t need, especially in these times, it’s important that we pay heed to that.

Look, we’re going to go through obviously another round of appropriations over the course of the coming year. And the President and the Secretary of Defense will again reiterate as we’re tightening our belts, as everybody is tightening their belts, we don't need -- there are things we simply don't need. And that's certainly one of them.

Question: Does the veto still stand though, the veto threat?

MR. GIBBS: Yes.

Old News Is No News

2011-01-19T16:51:00.002-05:00

Sometimes proverbial smoke leads to fire. And in other cases, there can be far less to a story than some might infer.

Such is the case of “screech” in which certain pressure pulsations occur when operating in full afterburner mode. This phenomenon is not new to military aviation and therefore not unique to Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, although it was inaccurately reported as a “new” problem by the Air Force Times this week.

Nonetheless, Pratt & Whitney discovered screech around May 2009 during development testing at low altitude and high speed. It has already been addressed with minor hardware and software modifications that eliminate the issue. In fact, design of this fix benefitted directly from tools and processes developed for our F119, the only engine to power the F-22. Together, the F119 and F135 are the only two production engines to provide augmented stealth capability, particularly noteworthy at a time when would-be stealth aircraft elsewhere in the world have garnered a disproportionate amount of media attention.

Now that the modifications have been identified and implemented, the F135 provides maximum thrust throughout the flight envelope. Modified test aircraft have shown excellent results, while the production configuration is being validated this year for both the F135 Conventional Take-Off and Landing / Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV) and Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) model. After all, full thrust throughout the flight envelope was a prerequisite for the government granting Initial Service Release for the CTOL/CV engine in March 2010, followed by the STOVL one in December 2010. No other fifth generation propulsion system has even come close to certification, let alone production.

Therefore, a mention about screech contained in an annual report from the Pentagon’s Office of the Director, Operational Test & Evaluation hardly qualifies as breaking news or even news. We now return you to your regularly scheduled programming already in progress.

– EagleBlogger

NBC's Michael Isikoff on the Extra Engine

2011-01-18T15:58:00.002-05:00

Rachel Maddow and NBC's Michael Isikoff discuss what's been keeping the extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter alive after it was targeted for cancellation by the White House and the Pentagon.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

MADDOW: One of the great unanswered questions of 2011 is whether or not the new supposed anti-spending zealotry in Washington this year means that defense will be cut, too or whether defense gets to keep growing indefinitely - indefinitely, inexorably because we`re all still living in the world Ike described 50 years ago.

Michael Isikoff, NBC`s national investigative correspondent, has been looking into the new Congress and its approach to historically untouchable, uncuttable(ph) spending. Mike, thanks very much for joining us. What have you been finding?

MICHAEL ISIKOFF, NBC NATIONAL INVESTIGATIVE CORRESPONDENT: Well, Rachel, what I`ve been finding is the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower warned about is as awesome and as powerful as ever.

And we`ve seen some pretty dramatic examples in just the last two weeks. Secretary Gates announced that he wanted to cut some $78 billion from the Pentagon budget, unnecessary, unneeded programs.

And you would think in this current environment in which cutting discretionary spending has been identified across the board as the absolute number one priority in Washington, he would get a receptive hearing.

In fact, what he got was a ferocious pushback from members of Congress who have gotten generous campaign checks from defense contractors who would be identified for cutting and/or who have defense plants in their district which would lose jobs.

It`s the military industrial complex in full play. Two examples that really left out - one is that Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle for the Marines that you mentioned, and we`ll get to that in a moment.

Another one that`s pretty interesting is the alternate engine for the joint strike fighter brought to you by General Electric, which, of course, owns this network for at least currently, and Rolls Royce.

In both cases, and certainly in the joint strike fighter case, both the Bush administration and the Obama administration targeted this for elimination saying we don`t need two engines for the same airplane. It creates all sorts of logistical problems. It`s a waste of money.

And in fact, Congress consistently has pushed back, both getting - both because of large campaign checks and also a ferocious and awesome lobbying campaign by General Electric and Rolls Royce.

In fact, one kind of an example that I thought was kind of fun is, right now, everybody in Washington reads that "Politico" Mike Allen`s playbook every morning. Well, all last week, the week after Gates made his announcement, you would have gotten that playbook sponsored by GE and Rolls Royce plugging the alternate engine for the joint strike fighter.

Who is for the joint strike fighter? Well, let`s start with the Speaker of the House, John Boehner. He said in an interview with Brian Williams two weeks ago that cutting defense spending would be on table.

But he`s a big supporter of the alternate engine. Why? The Evendale, Ohio plant where the engine is primarily made, right outside his district. Who else? House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. He`s got a Rolls Royce plant in his district.

Who else? Mike Pence, the deficit hawk, arch-deficit hawk, got a Rolls Royce plant in his district in Indiana. Now, it`s one to be bipartisan about this.

Among those who are trumpeting pushing hard last week, writing the White House letters on this to release funding for the joint strike fighter, Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown in Ohio, trying to protect those jobs in Ohio. It`s the military industrial complex at work.

MADDOW: But Mike, you mentioned the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle as well. We highlighted that as a stupidity test for Congress. Who is going to fight to safe this very expensive, over-budget thing that doesn`t really work, that the military doesn`t want? Do we have results yet on that stupidity test?

ISIKOFF: Yes, we do. And I`m afraid some of the very same characters, Sherrod Brown, Democratic senator from Ohio. Why? Lima, Ohio has one of the plants that the EFV is being made.

But who else? The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Howard McKeon, and the chairman of the subcommittee that oversees it, Aiken of Missouri, both got maxed-out contributions from the maker of the EFV, General Dynamics.

And by the way, if you were looking for any better example of the military industrial complex, take a look at General Dynamics, a company that spends millions on campaign contributions, millions on lobbying Congress. And just for fun, I looked at its board of directors the other day. And of the 10 board of directors, at least five former admirals, former generals, top Pentagon officials, the revolving door from the Pentagon and the military to the defense establishment helping to keep those defense dollars flowing.

MADDOW: Michael Isikoff, NBC`s national investigative correspondent, I`ve been looking forward to getting your report on this for a very long time since I knew it was coming. Mike, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it.

ISIKOFF: Thank you.

Video of the Second F-35B Test Jet Making a Vertical Landing - VIA DefenseTech.org

2011-01-13T10:55:00.003-05:00

From DefenseTech

"Here’s some film of the second F-35B short take-off and vertical landing Joint Strike Fighter test plane making its first vertical landing on Jan. 10 at Naval Air Station Patuxent River in Maryland."

More...

The F-35B is powered by Pratt & Whitney's F135 engine, the only engine powering the Joint Strike Fighter through its flight tests.

GE "Iceberg" Ad Full of Distortions

2011-01-07T16:29:00.007-05:00

You’ve been told: P&W’s engine to power the JSF is already 2.5$ Billion over budget with more than $1 billion in overruns within the past year.

You should know: $1.78 of this alleged overrun is the result of new requirements ordered by the Pentagon because of added weight to the aircraft. Of the remaining $800M, approximately one third is attributed to the lift system hardware developed by GE’s partner Rolls Royce as a subcontractor to P&W.

Additional costs were attributed to a redesign of the third stage turbine blade in 2009. This redesign was a normal part of development and test of propulsion systems and yields a safer, more reliable engine.

Pratt & Whitney has worked very aggressively through the last year to bring down our engine costs. We have invested significantly towards achieving our cost reduction goals. The F135 is on track to meet its cost targets and the Joint Assessment Team agrees that we have an executable plan as demonstrated in our most recent contract proposal which offers a double digit percentage savings to the government. The Joint Assessment Team which evaluated cost and affordability of the F135 program validated that Pratt & Whitney’s cost reduction plan was achievable, and in the DoD response to the GAO report said “Pratt & Whitney can realistically achieve their cost goals.”

The additional funding provided to Pratt & Whitney in 2010 is to support the extension of the F-35 flight test program following the program’s restructuring. It IS NOT related to development of the F135 engine. (Pratt defends cost-cutting measures on F-35 engine, Reuters, 3/12/10)

You’ve been told: GE Rolls-Royce F136 engine performs better and costs less.

You should know: An engine that hasn’t left the ground can’t perform better. The F135 is in production, in the air and the only engine powering the F-35 today.

You’ve been told: Competition will fix P&W’s cost overruns.

You should know: Competition Already Determined the Winner. Competition for the JSF engine happened at the contractor level when competing airframers selected a P&W engine under government rules. This process of selecting subsystems, including the engine, as part of the overall weapon system, is standard during concept demonstration. The DoD has concluded that further competition will NOT save taxpayer dollars. No other military aircraft developed in the past three decades has been procured with multiple engine suppliers. There is no extra engine for the F-22, F/A-18, C-17 or the BlackHawk and Apache military helicopters. GE thinks the government should pick the winners and losers. Pratt & Whitney believes the marketplace should pick the winners and losers.

Why Fast Became the Enemy of Good

2011-01-05T10:18:00.005-05:00

Against all odds, the lame-duck session marking the post-election end to the 111^th Congress proved surprisingly productive with just enough bipartisanship to mark the passage of numerous high-profile bills for President Obama to sign into law.

Yet, attempts by some in Congress to push a wasteful $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill have thankfully been turned back by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine). These two principled New Englanders understand that rushing a bad bill with more than 6,600 earmarks and a cost of $8.6 billion was far worse than simply passing the National Defense Authorization Act, which the House finally did with just hours to spare.

Chief among the waste that needs to be cut in 2011 is nearly half a billion dollars for the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 extra engine, which is years behind Pratt & Whitney’s proven F135 now in production. Moreover, the F136 continues to suffer numerous developmental setbacks, adds no additional capability, complicates future military logistics, creates no net jobs since the number of F-35 aircraft will not change, and diverts vital funds that could support the warfighter in countless other ways. No wonder this engine has been opposed vigorously by Presidents Bush and Obama, their defense secretaries and military service chiefs, along with a coalition of third parties that spans the political spectrum from organized labor to fiscal conservatives.

As our recent ads in the Hartford, Connecticut and Portland, Maine daily newspapers note, we appreciate Sen. Lieberman and Snowe’s “vigilance and astute stewardship of the American taxpayer’s money.” Clearly, government agencies need a predictable and transparent funding stream; this is especially true for the Defense Department as they continue to wage war in southwest Asia. But in an age of unprecedented belt-tightening and voter discontent with politics as usual, a bloated omnibus bill infected with thousands of earmarks totaling billions of dollars was simply irresponsible, as would continuation of the F136 through the NDAA or other means.

As the holiday break ends and the new 112^th Congress take their seats, they should seriously consider what “gifts” they bestow on themselves, our warfighters and the American taxpayers. Wasteful earmarks like half a billion dollars for the F136 extra engine aren’t just woefully out of style or even a souring lump of coal. They are the dreaded leftover fruitcake no one can swallow.

– EagleBlogger

Jobs Here and Now, Not Over There and Gone for Good

2011-01-03T15:53:00.001-05:00

It’s an undeniable fact that the aerospace and defense industry provides some of our nation’s most vital and valued jobs. Any new aircraft that takes to the skies to move people and cargo or defend the nation is a testament to the skilled labor of love by thousands of engineers, machinists, test pilots, sales and support staff, as well as government overseers. And the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is no exception. Thanks to a strong team at the Department of Defense, Lockheed martin, Pratt & Whitney and hundreds of suppliers, the F-35 will deliver unmatched capability for the U.S. and its allies for decades to come.

Yet, if the F136 extra engine team had their way, nearly 40 percent of the jobs to bring their underperforming, over-budget engine to market – through the discredited earmark process no less – would be outsourced to England, which isn’t a state the last time I checked my trusty desktop atlas.

That’s the simple point made in Pratt & Whitney’s latest print ad, which has garnered support from the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District 26 and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Organized labor understands that high value aerospace jobs are an irreplaceable strategic asset, especially when unemployment stands at 9.8% and 15.1 million American citizens remain out of work.

Meanwhile, the Pratt & Whitney F135 engine goes from strength to strength. Over the holiday break, Initial Service Release for the F135 Short Take-Off/Vertical Landing variant was achieved as anticipated. This milestone means the propulsion system is now certified as the production configuration and cleared for flight in the Lockheed Martin F-35B stealth fighter.

We also sold our first two STOVL production propulsion systems and delivered them to Lockheed Martin in December. Of the 12 production engines delivered to date, eight have already been installed in their respective aircraft, while negotiations for an LRIP 4 contract have moved from a “cost plus” to a firm fixed price basis.

Not content to rest on our laurels, Pratt & Whitney is taking aggressive steps to work from Pentagon acquisition chief Dr. Ashton Carter’s “will cost” curve and looking for additional opportunities to lower prices, The company plans to sell the F135 at the same cost as the F-22 powering F119 by the 250th engine, which is significant since the F135 is 1,500 pounds heavier and generates 25% more thrust.

Bottom line, Pratt & Whitney’s engine is real, gaining its last ISR certification, performing at a 98% readiness level, and being installed in an increasing number of production aircraft. It simply makes no sense to cut deliveries of this proven engine in favor of the F136 that is years behind, seemingly always “just one more billion dollars” from completion, living off of wasteful earmarks, and inherently duplicative – except when it comes to the ever-present issue of American jobs. On that last topic, the F136 falls on the wrong side of the pond and as they say in Britain, that’s just not cricket.

– EagleBlogger

White House: 2nd Engine Is Fat That Can Be Cut

2011-01-03T10:38:00.003-05:00

On Sunday's This Week With Christiane Amanpour, White House economic adviser Austan Goolsbee responds to ABC's Jake Tapper's question about fat in the budget (spending discussion begins at 6:30) :

Tapper: Where specifically does President Obama want to cut spending? Where is there fat to cut from the budget?

Goolsbee: Well, as you know the President's going to release his budget. We are going to have to make in the immediate run a series of tough choices. And the President's not afraid to do that and I think you will see that in his budget.

Tapper: Give me one. One spending cut the President's willing to do.

Goolsbee: Well, last year you saw they put out $20 plus billion in terminations and reductions. The President obviously doesn't just get to dictate what those cuts would be, but you saw with the Joint Strike Fighter second engine and a series of other specific cuts.

Former Pentagon Correspondent: American engine-uity at its best!

2010-12-22T16:22:00.003-05:00

Former CNN Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre on the extra engine:

So I totally get why having two manufacturers make two different engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter makes so much sense.

Oh sure, the Pentagon and all the services say they don’t want or need an extra engine that they can’t afford, but really, what do they know? Blah, Blah, Blah…

When I was at the Pentagon I sat down with then Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England back in 2008, he explained in great detail how the second engine would not actually save money, improve reliability or increase safety. But really, he was in the Bush Administration, and so was Bob Gates, who opposes the extra engine, too. Do they really know what’s best?

And sure the whole idea of the F-35 was to give every service the same basic plane, with variations, so that you could have one common supply chain and training for mechanics.

But for only an extra $2.9 Billion we the taxpayers can have two production lines, two supply chains and two sets of military maintenance personnel. What a deal! As they sang in the old Doublemint chewing gums commercials, “Double your pleasure, double your fun…”

The full post is here

A Wasteful Earmark of Monumental Proportions

2010-12-13T11:14:00.003-05:00

In Pratt & Whitney’s latest print ad, entitled “Monumental Waste,” the company cleverly reminds Washington lawmakers and other key audiences that despite all the diversionary tactics employed by the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 team, their engine simply attempts to duplicate what the F135 already does, just like a mythical second Washington Monument on the National Mall. Such needless waste, at least $2.9 billion more according to the Defense Department, to stage a farcical split-buy “competition” years from now flies in the face of long-standing, bipartisan presidential and Pentagon policy, as well as basic common sense.

As James Hackett noted in a November 18^th article in The Washington Times, “With the Congressional Budget Office forecasting a $1.3 trillion deficit next year, for the third year in a row of trillion-plus deficits, the Senate action [eliminating additional F136 funding] makes sense. We no longer can afford such costs for hypothetical future savings.”

Yet, some members of Congress, including on the House Armed Services Committee, are so bewitched by the F136 mirage that they are trying to insert – yes, you guessed it – an earmark potentially valued at $465 million into a continuing resolution. This parochial tactic is usually reserved for appropriation bills, not continuing resolutions. Moreover, doing so would betray recent post-election commitments to American taxpayers to pursue a path of fiscal prudence, most notably the abolition of wasteful earmarks.

To make matters worse, GE is seeking $25 million in new tax credits from Massachusetts in return for laying off fewer people than planned in the months to come. This cynical ploy becomes even more distasteful when you take into account the $1.8 billion in military work done at a plant in Lynn, Massachusetts. Yet the corporation still laid off 600 workers there and paid no federal income tax last year on $11 billion in profits by claiming its U.S. operations lost money overall. Undaunted, GE fights on to preserve the unaffordable and underperforming F136 extra engine. Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi put it succinctly on November 21 when she wrote, “In other words, GE is demanding $25 million in tax credits for a plant that makes jet engines the Pentagon doesn’t need or want.”

Thanksgiving may be over, but clearly there is at least one more turkey still hanging around. The F136 and the shameful politics that keep it alive have more than earned their just desserts.

The “Right” Battle Against a Wasteful Earmark

2010-12-06T12:11:00.005-05:00

As new, predominantly conservative members of the 112^th Congress arrive in Washington and begin their freshman orientation, they might find that a prime example of wasteful earmarks in an era of nearly unprecedented economic and geopolitical challenges is closer than they thought. Numerous otherwise well-intentioned legislators from both parties are preaching fiscal restraint while at the same time supporting a further $2.9 billion through FY2015 for the unnecessary, unwanted, underperforming and unproven General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Not surprisingly, a chorus of fiscal conservatives has joined two consecutive presidential administrations and the Pentagon leadership in an unambiguous call to end a multi-billion dollar gamble whose only assured outcome is the outsourcing of hundreds of aerospace jobs to the United Kingdom. We’ve highlighted some of these “voices from the right” in one of our newest print ads.

Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform was unequivocal when he urged members of Congress over the summer to “vote against any funding for the F136 engine program.” He added, “There is nothing competitive about an entrenched political subsidy for an unnecessary and unwanted product.”

Conservative syndicated columnist and radio host Cal Thomas called the F136, “The military’s version of a Bridge to Nowhere,” a reference to one of the most infamous examples of earmarks in contemporary American politics. Like that would-be bridge, the F136 would merely duplicate a proven solution (Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine) with something far more expensive and immature.

Keeping his eye on the big picture, Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union, noted, “It’s time to get out of the alternate engine morass and instead work harder to keep the whole F-35 program on-time and on-budget.” As Mr. Sepp rightly acknowledges, the F-35 and other weapon systems will only prove their value to the warfighter and taxpayer if they are fully developed and deployed. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have already said there is no room for a second engine on their aircraft carriers and the U.S. Air Force surely can’t relish the prospect of repeating the F-16 nightmare of supporting two different engines across the globe. Yet, that’s precisely what the myopic GE/RR F136 team would foist on America.

Last, but certainly not least, FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe concluded, “GE typifies the large rent-seeking companies that wage battle not in the marketplace, but in the halls of Congress. Taxpayers and consumers cannot afford to fund the pet projects of politicians and corporations, especially in an economic downturn.” Kibbe’s comment rings especially true because the competition to power the JSF was waged years ago and culminated in multiple decisions in favor of the Pratt & Whitney F135 over the F136 through the widely accepted Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE) procurement system.

Following a rancorous midterm election cycle, the time to govern will soon begin for the 112^th Congress. For Capitol Hill veterans and newcomers alike, fiscal restraint at home and success on the battlefield should be of paramount importance. Taxpayers and warfighters want to believe their leaders, like their doctors, are committed above all to “First, do no harm.” Surgical removal of the unwanted F136 earmark is a necessary remedy that will alleviate acute fiscal and battlefield pain. Paging would-be budget hawks: billions of savings holding on line 136.

– EagleBlogger

Senator Mark Kirk says no extra engine for F-35

2010-11-29T17:49:00.002-05:00

Senator Mark Kirk appeared on "Morning Joe" this morning and talked about the need to cut spending---including the extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Pratt & Whitney VP Bennett Croswell will answer questions on Twitter on Tuesday 11/30 from 1-1:30pm

2010-11-29T16:35:00.002-05:00

On Nov. 30, 2010, Pratt & Whitney will host its second ever executive availability on Twitter tomorrow. Pratt & Whitney Vice President of F135/F119 Engine Programs, Bennett Croswell will be available to F135 fans, followers and media representatives to answer questions and provide F135 engine program updates.

DATE: Tuesday, November 30, 2010
TIME: 1:00-1:30 p.m. (Eastern Time)
LOCATION: Online @ Twitter
HOW TO PARTICIPATE: Bennett Croswell, Vice President of F135/F119 Engine Programs will answer questions live on Twitter from @f135engine. Follow @f135engine or the #f135 hashtag on Twitter. Submit questions ahead of time or during the event using the #f135 hashtag on Twitter, an @reply or message to the @f135engine Twitter account, or by posting on our Facebook page.

Time to Put Earmarks out to Pasture

2010-11-19T10:31:00.002-05:00

A growing tidal wave of reform is poised to sweep the long-standing, lucrative earmark process out to sea. And when it comes to misguided pork barrel spending, the F136 alternative engine truly is the mother of all earmarks, as stated in a recent print advertisement.

Simply put, the General Electric/Rolls-Royce F136 would not still exist were it not for those who have consistently put parochial interests ahead of common sense. Why pay for a second engine when Pratt & Whitney’s F135 has logged more than 20,000 ground test hours and another 700 in flight? Neither the U.S. Navy nor Marine Corps have room for a second engine on their ships, while most international customers won’t buy nearly enough F-35s to split their buy. So, funding the F136 over the objections of two presidents, two secretaries of defense and top military leaders will have the unintended consequence of forcing an uncompetitive split buy on the U.S. Air Force, a service that has already experienced the logistical challenges of supporting two F-16 engines around the world while no other modern U.S. military aircraft has been saddled with a second powerplant.

Some extra engine proponents say the F136 will save money – eventually. Yet, $2 billion in earmarks have already been allocated and the Pentagon estimates another $2.9 billion will be consumed through FY2015. In fact, a second engine is likely to cost more in the long run when you take into account duplicative training, logistics, spare parts, future upgrades, extra government workers to oversee a redundant program, and the fundamental undermining of potential savings based on economies of scale.

Others argue that a second engine will create jobs. I know we’re talking about pork, but that’s just bull. The same number of airframes will be built regardless of whether there is one or two engines on offer. Continuing to fund the F136 only ensures that some of those jobs will go to Rolls-Royce in the United Kingdom, surely an unintended and unwelcome consequence in a time of dire job insecurity.

As Air Force Gen. John Michael Loh (Ret.) said in an op-ed published by The Hill on November 16, “This is not a head-to-head competition between the current Pratt & Whitney engine and the yet to be developed General Electric engine. It is a procurement directed by Congress to guarantee production for GE.”

President Obama has been consistent in his threat to veto the upcoming defense bill if it includes additional funding for the wasteful, duplicative, job-killing F136. But it shouldn’t have to come to that. If Congress is truly serious about killing earmarks, the F136 is the ideal place to start. Where else can Congress save billions in taxpayer funds without compromising national security in any way? Now that would be a completely different flavor of bacon well worth bringing home for once.

– EagleBlogger

No Time to Waste...$3 Billion

2010-11-16T14:43:00.003-05:00

Before the newly elected 112th Congress is seated, the current 111th still has some unfinished business to complete here in the waning days of 2010. And while these post-election interstitial sessions are pejoratively labeled “lame ducks,” occasionally they can be quite productive. We’d humbly suggest to our federal legislators that putting an end to a $3 billion earmark would be nothing short of a capital idea, so to speak.

As our most recent print advertisement reiterates, a March 2007 Government Accountability Office report suggested that renewed competition to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter could save 10-12% at best. And with only $20 billion of the $100 billion program truly open to competition (for reasons we’ve explained in earlier postings), any savings would total $2.0-2.4 billion by 2040.

This number, though seemingly impressive in isolation, pales in comparison to the additional $2.9 billion the Pentagon and White House believe will be needed to get the trouble-prone GE/Rolls-Royce F136 extra engine anywhere near the proven performance of Pratt & Whitney’s F135, which has logged roughly 20,000 test hours, powered every JSF flight and transitioned smoothly into production.

No wonder the woman photographed in the ad has such a shocked expression on her face; spending $3 billion to save $2 billion hardly makes sense in the best of times. For Congress to allow such a wasteful earmark to continue in light of current fragile economic conditions would simply be a dereliction of legislative oversight when it’s needed most. The F136’s potential cost to our nation is simply too high to bear, whether you measure it in squandered dollars, wasteful redundancy or lost jobs to the United Kingdom.

As Democrats and Republicans return to Washington, we urge them to read this ad and take note, not just of the arresting visual, but also the growing coalition supporting Pratt & Whitney. Our partners now include Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, American Conservative Union and the Center for Fiscal Accountability. This broad base supports a common message: Regardless of party or ideological affiliation, stop the tragic waste to buy what the taxpayers can’t afford and the warfighter doesn’t want. Together, we can give you three billion good reasons.

– EagleBlogger

Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart discuss the "wasteful F-35 second engine"

2010-11-15T10:20:00.004-05:00

The Rachel Maddow Show
November 11, 2010

MADDOW: I think that you think of it differently. But I think a lot of people who watch your show and who watch cable news think of what we do as not being that different, which sucks for me, because I used to be this sort of mildly amusing person talking, like using humor to tell the story of the wasteful F-35 second engine on that fighter jet.

STEWART: Right.

MADDOW: And now, I`m the person trying to be Jon Stewart and sucking.

STEWART: I love that F-35 that you did.

MADDOW: Yes.

STEWART: That wasteful engine bit - that killed them. That used to be my bit.

WSJ: A New Push To Ban Earmarks

2010-11-09T11:45:00.004-05:00

Today's print version of the Wall Sreet Journal includes a great infographic featuring the alternate engine as an example of an earmark. The graphic accompanies a story by Janet Hook on a push by Tea Party aligned new members of Congress who want to ban earmarks.

The full story is here.

Election Over, RIP Earmarks?

2010-11-09T06:18:00.001-05:00

Following one of the most contentious and expensive mid-term election campaign cycles in American history, the votes have now been counted, winners declared, and composition of the 112th Congress finally determined. At the top of the winners list must surely sit House Speaker-Elect John Boehner. Yet he will quickly find that increased power comes with a commensurate level of accountability, not least of which from the newcomers in his own caucus, many of who ascribe to a pseudo-libertarian view of pure federalism.

Under such a paradigm, it would seem impossible to defend the proliferation of earmarks, doggedly championed by those with the most to gain, while simultaneously deriding similar requests elsewhere as “pork.” We would humbly submit to the new members of Congress that the unwanted, unaffordable and underperforming F136 extra engine is the most flawed of all earmarks regardless of your district’s location and therefore ripe for the knife.

What began in the early 1990s as the Joint Advanced Strike Technology program evolved into what we now know as the Joint Strike Fighter. Lt. Gen. George Muellner, then assigned to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, told Aerospace America in September 1995, “We are going to have a competitive fly-off, with two design families competing against each other and a down-select by the year 2000. With regard to the engine, we told the contractors that they were free to select any engine that was or could be available.” This Contractor Furnished Equipment process led to multiple independent selections by the airframers in favor of the F135 (derived from the F-22-powering F119) over what would become the GE/Rolls-Royce F136.

Those losses stunned GE into a rare moment of candor. "Pratt's been more at the forefront with these things because they have a brand new engine," acknowledged GE spokesman Rick Kennedy, as reported by the Hartford Courant on March 12, 1996. "We've been forced to be a little more creative."

Nearly 15 years later, GE’s creativity has been more noticeable in the halls of power and on the airways, rather than on the test stand, spending a breathtaking $8.2 million in the recent year on lobbying for an engine shunned by the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as the Pentagon, while Pratt & Whitney’s F135 is already in service. Yet, the congressional duplicity persists.

As Bloomberg’s Caroline Braum noted in an October 27, 2010 column, “House Minority Leader John Boehner rails against government spending yet votes for a $485 million appropriation for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternative engine, which the Pentagon wants to kill. Boehner’s district is near the General Electric plant that’s building the engine.” Her insightful column on earmarks also noted that the F136 was over budget and behind schedule, at least until GE pressured her to amend the lead paragraph, despite a highly publicized September 23rd engine failure on the test stand.

As the fiercely independent Sen. Joe Lieberman said on July 23, 2009, “I believe there was a competition. General Electric lost. It has gone the other way on other occasions. And this is a legislative attempt to achieve by legislation what could not be achieved through competition.” Newly minted members of the 112th Congress looking to obliterate wasteful earmarks: the line forms at the F136.

– EagleBlogger

The Extra Engine & the Deficit

2010-11-05T09:52:00.002-04:00

Gail Collins discusses the extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

MADDOW: John Boehner as speaker -- is John Boehner more serious about the deficit than this tax thing would suggest? Is there anything about him as a politician that suggests he does get this as an issue?

COLLINS: There`s one thing, a plane, the F-35, which has two engines. Every time they build one, they build two engines, an extra engine just to put in your pocketbook in case the extra one you lose it somehow.

The Pentagon has been begging forever, please, please can we stop building two engines? They are built near John Boehner`s district. And John Boehner will throw his body on the second engine any time. He`s that serious about cutting the deficit.

MADDOW: I think I get the point.

"New York Times" columnist Gail Collins. It is a pleasure to read your column and it`s even more of a pleasure to have you here.

COLLINS: It`s great to be here.

MADDOW: Thank you.

D.C. Forecast:Hazy with Increased Chance of F136 Spin

2010-11-04T16:05:00.001-04:00

The leaves have finally changed color here in autumnal Washington, yet a new season doesn’t necessarily equate to any variety in behavior among backers of the F136 extra engine. Despite losing multiple industry-driven and government-sanctioned competitions to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, followed by clear opposition from two consecutive presidential administrations of opposing parties, the extra engine team persists. Like an ill wind, nothing will neutralize their campaign to foist an unwanted, unaffordable and frankly underperforming powerplant on warfighters and taxpayers alike, even when Pratt & Whitney’s F135 has met or exceeded all performance milestones from testing into production.

So, how has GE stayed “in season” despite these and other setbacks? By buying influence for wasteful earmarks. According to an October 20th story by Bloomberg’s Rachel Layne, GE spent roughly $8.2 million since mid-2009 to lobby for their extra engine, including massive print and radio ad campaigns designed to generate grassroots support where none would otherwise be found. In doing so, GE has promised far more than their engine can deliver in horsepower or U.S. jobs.

Increased air pressure of the heated variety is also expected from across the Atlantic, home to F136 partner Rolls-Royce. First the UK government paid a visit to the White House and to Congress to request the continuation of the F136. Then, in light of severe budgetary pressure, their Strategic Defense and Security Review (SDSR) called for a dramatic and surprising departure from the Short Take-Off / Vertical Landing F-35B to the F-35C Carrier Variant. While not in the SDSR, the door is apparently open for the UK to significantly reduce its planned buy of 138 F-35 aircraft. And while these latter developments should be good news for the U.S. Navy with regard to future Anglo-American aircraft carrier interoperability, it will not increase the number of holiday cards postmarked Derby, England.

As Flight International Defense Editor Craig Hoyle noted in his UK defense review analysis posted October 22, “Rolls-Royce will also suffer directly from the [SDSR] decision, with the US Marine Corps and potentially Italy now the only remaining buyers for the STOVL version, which features its lift fan technology. And it makes a continuation of its alternate F136 engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter with General Electric ever more important.”

Regardless of how you might feel about the UK’s parochial support for an engine they are increasingly unlikely to procure or the SDSR’s F-35 guidance, the combined Conservative-Liberal Democratic government at least has demonstrated once again bipartisanship exists and that extremely difficult decisions about national security priorities can be taken decisively. As members of the next Congress prepare to serve, they might pause and remember that fiscal conservatism is more than a bumper sticker pledge. It occasionally necessitates hard choices, ones that may not please K Street lobbyists or their domestic and foreign paymasters, who should embrace the cardinal business rule: the customer is always right. That’s what governing and serving the warfighter should be about, regardless of which way the wind blows.

– EagleBlogger

F135 STOVL Testing: The Heat Is On

2010-10-22T11:40:00.005-04:00

The relentless march of the Pratt & Whitney F135 short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) variant towards government certification in the form of an Initial Service Release (ISR) edged even closer to reality this month with the successful completion of a grueling high temperature margin test.

At Tennessee’s Arnold Engine Development Center, the F135 was intentionally run to generate turbine temperatures in excess of design conditions, while simultaneously powering the turbo-machinery at or above 100 percent. This test, which went far beyond normal operational flight, not only demonstrated the durability of the F135, but also showed it could exceed the thrust specification by a remarkable 34 percent.

The same F135 STOVL engine, designated FX642 and still in excellent condition, will now complete STOVL performance qualification testing at P&W’s West Palm Beach facility, in preparation for ISR certification. Once this occurs later this year, the STOVL F135 will join its sibling, the Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) / Carrier Variant (CV) engine (which earned ISR in February 2010), as the only government-certified F-35 powerplants available now and for the foreseeable future, especially given current challenges facing the F136 extra engine team.

Congressional incumbents and would-be members alike should pause from their relentless last-minute campaigning to recognize that cancellation of F136 funding is the perfect way to demonstrate that fiscal prudence is more than a slogan. Saying no to GE’s latest “moving target” request for yet another billion dollars to waste on the trouble-prone F136 is the right thing to do, especially when the true figure is probably closer to three times that amount. Here are five reasons.

First, killing the F136 would show voters that it really is possible to slow deficit spending in the face of a potentially crippling national debt that certainly wouldn’t be helped by an extra wasted $2.9 billion.

Second, it would validate the Contractor Furnished Equipment competition that saw both Joint Strike Fighter finalists (Lockheed Martin and Boeing) choose the F135 over the F136 with government approval.

Third, it would reward the fifth generation F135 for nearly 20,000 test hours, thanks in part to the engine’s proven F119 heritage on the F-22.

Fourth, the F135 has already made a smooth transition from testing, bolstering future American and allied defense capability with production engines already being installed and powered up in production F-35 airframes.

Last and certainly not least, eliminating the F136 in favor of the F135 will ensure thousands of vital aerospace jobs remain here in the United States, rather than being exported to the United Kingdom.

Bottom line: this month’s successful high temperature margin test and other milestones demonstrate that only one F-35 propulsion system – Pratt & Whitney’s F135 – can really take the heat.

– EagleBlogger

Single Source Engines: The Rule, Not the Exception

2010-10-07T09:31:00.002-04:00

We at Pratt & Whitney would like to congratulate our colleagues at GE on their recent sole-source award of another 250+ engines to power an additional buy of F/A-18’s. We’d also like to congratulate them on surpassing 15,000 sole source deliveries of T700 engines to power the Blackhawk and Apache helicopters. Their sole source engine position on these platforms appears to work well for GE and their customers.

The fact is, we all believe in competition when it makes sense for the customer and the taxpayer. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn’t. But, GE’s success as a sole-source manufacturer of these engines is but one example that a “two of everything” competition through the life of a program isn’t always a good deal for taxpayers or in the best interest of our warfighters. The reason it’s rarely done quite simply is that it usually doesn’t make sense.

Take for example, the extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. When you consider what portion of that program can actually be competed during the life of the program, it amounts to only $20 billion of the $100 billion program that also includes spares and lifecycle costs that aren’t competed. Using the GAO’s very optimistic numbers, you may be able to save approximately 10-12 percent. On $20 billion, that’s $2 - $2.4 billion. Yet to get to competition will require a short term investment of $2.9 billion according to DoD. Losing money to compete isn’t in anyone’s interest. And, then there are the logistical complications and the doubling of risks that two engines present.

Using contemporary acquisition policies, there are a number of methods to hold contractors accountable and keep them performing effectively and efficiently. Good examples of this include the highly successful F119 program for the F-22, the F117 for the C-17, or even the two previously cited GE examples. You have to ask yourself if you already have a proven engine that by all measures is performing well and is years ahead of its potential competitor why you’d spend almost $3 billion for something that costs more than it saves, and the DoD says it doesn’t want or need, at a time when our nation is facing a fiscal crisis and has so many other pressing priorities for scarce budgetary dollars.

Those in favor of the F136 extra engine argue that engine competition on the F-15 and F-16 programs have saved money and resulted in greater reliability. Yet the evidence for this rose-tinted analysis of the “Great Engine War” remains almost as dubious as revisiting a 1980s procurement model in the midst of a multi-war, economically challenged early 21^st century.

For 60 years, the DoD has selected defense contractors to provide products and services to the government and competition has played a role. In October 2001, DoD selected the Pratt & Whitney powered Lockheed Martin F-35 concept demonstration aircraft as the winner of the advanced tactical fighter competition, and the JSF program entered the System Development and Demonstration (SDD) phase. Since then, the F135 has remained several years ahead of the F136 in development. The F135 has demonstrated excellent performance in flight testing and continues to support flawless vertical landing operations. In addition, as the F135 has evolved from the F119, it will have more than 22 years of experience to rely on. GE, on the other hand, is relying on the power of lobbying and earmarks from Congress to get funding when there is absolutely no advantage to the taxpayer or the U.S. military in having a duplicative engine.

During the last two decades, the DoD has seen Pratt & Whitney design, develop and produce the safest, most reliable fighter engine in the world -- the F119, which is the foundation for the F135. So why should the government continue to spend billions of dollars on an insurance policy for an extra engine? The premiums are far too high a price for the taxpayers and our military men and women to pay when the F135 engine is performing exceptionally well. In the view of Secretary Gates, President Obama and their predecessors, based on the reliable performance of both the F119 and the F135, an extra engine is nothing more than a waste of taxpayer dollars in the interest of corporate welfare.

The F135 is reliably powering flight test and is in production today, while the F136 continues struggle achieving only a fraction of the hours planned.

Remember: It’s not competition if the customer doesn’t want your product, the taxpayer can’t afford it, it isn’t as proven as the F135 (which already won the competition to power the JSF), and the basis of any potential cost savings is a mandated, split buy of future engines.

– EagleBlogger

England: Gates is right about Defense Efficiency

2010-09-29T11:07:00.000-04:00

Former Bush Administration Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England weighs in on the extra engine debate in today's Hill newspaper.

England points out that:

• DoD studies concluded funding an extra engine will not actually save money, improve reliability or increase safety.

• Secretary Gates has stated forcefully and repeatedly that DoD does not want or need an extra engine and can’t afford it.

• $2.9 billion spent on the extra engine could be better spent on things that keep our troops and our nation safe, such as increasing procurement of F-35s to reduce the unit cost of the airplane itself. This would constitute real F-35 procurement savings.

• The extra engine is still in development with only 400 hours of testing compared to the 19,000 hours accumulated by the primary engine. Thus, there is still high development and financial risk with the second engine.

• Rolls Royce of the U.K. has significant work share content in the second engine. Hence, funding the second engine will result in the exit of jobs from America.

The full column is here.

Good News from Washington, Even Better from Beyond

2010-09-27T12:06:00.000-04:00

Despite recent developments from Capitol Hill that continuing resolutions will be needed before the end of Fiscal Year 2010 to fund the Pentagon and other government agencies in the short term, President Obama stated through the Office of Management and Budget on Tuesday, September 21 a call for the passage of S. 3454, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2011. The statement read in part, “The Administration appreciates that the [Senate Armed Services] Committee supports the President’s budget request, specifically by not authorizing funding…for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter extra engine…”

The unwavering support from President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates for Pratt & Whitney F135’s engine was reinforced this week by news it has surpassed 19,000 ground test hours and 560 flight test hours. Add those together and you’ll see the F135 is about to exceed 20,000 total test hours, an undeniably noteworthy milestone. Moreover, 394 flights as of September 20th, including a dozen flawless vertical landings, mean yet another landmark is about to be reached.

However, the real significance of all these numbers, though individually and collectively impressive, is they translate into tangible program advancements that benefit the warfighter and taxpayer alike. The short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) variant is in the final stages of testing prior to earning initial service release (ISR) certification from the U.S. government later this year. That milestone, combined with earlier ISR certification of the conventional take-off and landing/carrier variant (CTOL/CV) means that F135s powering all three versions of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will have been fully tested and certified well before the F136 extra engine ever graduates from the test stand.

Yet for all the good news about F135 testing and certification, it’s worth remembering that this is now an engine well into the production phase. Nine production engines have been delivered and in recent days the first production F135 installed in a production F-35 was run to full power.

As the November congressional elections draw ever nearer, taxpayer calls for budgetary prudence and deficit reduction are increasing in intensity. Traditional budget hawk Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) stated earlier this year, “I don’t think any agency of the federal government should be exempt from rooting out wasteful spending or unnecessary spending. And I, frankly, I would agree with it at the Pentagon. There’s got to be wasteful spending there, unnecessary spending there. It all ought to be eliminated.” But his continuing parochial support for the needlessly duplicative F136 extra engine puts him at odds with his own political philosophy and a potential tidal wave of voter anger that might propel him to the speaker’s podium.

Following the fall elections, Congress will need to pick up where the continuing resolutions leave off. And whether the eventually solution for FY 2011 is settled via multiple bills in conference or through an omnibus package, lawmakers have the opportunity to serve the warfighters, heed the citizenry, and save money. Defunding the F136 would accomplish all three goals. Thanks to the continued support of F135 allies across the nation, the best news may still be to come.

– EagleBlogger

Sun, Surf and the Smell of Jet Fuel

2010-09-20T15:44:00.001-04:00

While many Americans made the most of the warm late August weather by catching a few final rays of summer, Pratt & Whitney used the occasion to indelibly scorch the image and sound of the F135 engine at full throttle into the minds of a select few journalists invited to the company’s test facility in West Palm Beach. Rather than try to describe it myself, I’ll leave it to one of the professional scribes in attendance.

“Stand on the edge of the Everglades with the August sun beating down on your head, the summer humidity wrapping your skin and the thunderous beat of 43,000 pounds of power causing your chest and the very ground beneath you to thrum,” observed Colin Clark of DoD Buzz. “I wagged my jaw a couple of times so the seal on the hearing protection broke and my ears absorbed the awesome roar of the test engine firing about 100 feet away, hung high in the air. That’s what it’s like to experience testing of Pratt & Whitney’s F135 STOVL engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. It was my first military jet engine test and you can take it to the bank that I was impressed with the technology and with the brute power unleashed and then channeled.”

Government certification (known as initial service release) of the STOVL variant F135 engine is expected before the end of the year and will mark a final achievement in a development program that has already logged more than 19,000 hours and irrefutably proven the maturity of the F135 in the process. It will also serve as an emphatic milestone in a noteworthy year that has already included CTOL variant certification, delivery of the final test engines, 10 flawless vertical landings and counting, a smooth transition to production, supersonic flight of the STOVL variant F-35, affordability goals that are being met, and delivery of eight production engines with about a dozen more before the ball drops in Times Square to usher in 2011.

But the West Palm Beach event was more than just a celebration of what’s come before. As Guy Norris wrote in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, “Pratt & Whitney is upping the ante in the ongoing F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine war by revealing the F135 has achieved combat-rated thrust 20% higher than the specification” – an accomplishment demonstrated on both test and production engines.
This level exceeds even the wildest claims from GE and Rolls-Royce, whose F136 engine has logged only about 400 test hours, despite a protracted gestation process that dates back to lost propulsion down-select competitions to the F135 for both the Boeing X-32 and Lockheed Martin X-35 JSF finalists.

Norris added, “Nevertheless, [Pratt & Whitney Military Engines President Warren] Boley says even though Pratt has demonstrated measured thrust with the conventional-takeoff-and-landing (CTOL) engine variant well in excess of the F135’s advertised 43,000-lb.-thrust capability, the focus remains on providing a systems-level solution to the F-35 thrust requirement.” In other words, a core that can generate more thrust than the lift fan or nozzle can accommodate will remain an untapped resource for which the customer has not expressed a need.

And because of the F-35’s stealthy characteristics, extra weapons and stores are unlikely to be carried externally and the platform itself will not be prone to the growth seen on fourth generation, non-stealthy F-15s and F-16s. Translation: “F-35 thrust requirements are set at the beginning of the program and are unlikely to change significantly.”
As the lazy, hazy days of summer yield to autumn and intense policy battles on Capitol Hill, images of the F135 exceeding specs and achieving major milestones are anything but a mirage.

– EagleBlogger

Tough Choices, Right Reasons

2010-08-30T09:56:00.000-04:00

In an era dominated by shallow, partisan politics designed to perpetuate the status quo through the next election and beyond, we applaud the unadorned selflessness and courage demonstrated by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates at his August 9th press briefing on acquisition reform.

Shunning the well-worn path of least resistance, Secretary Gates boldly identified a plan to reign in spending on his terms, rather than kick the proverbial can from the Pentagon across the Potomac and up to Capitol Hill. Generating $100 billion in overhead savings in five years won’t come easily, especially in the midst of relatively stagnant job market that drives politicians to be even more parochial than usual. However, the opportunity to restructure the right way, while also empowering the services to redirect savings towards higher priority warfighter needs, proved far too compelling to ignore.

“It is important that we not repeat the mistakes of the past, where tough economic times or the winding down of a military campaign leads to steep and unwise reductions in defense,” Gates said. And while newly stated measures garnered the majority of press coverage, it’s important to remember that more established saving priorities, including cancellation of the F136 extra engine, remain vital to long-term success.

“To see these initiatives in context, I think you need to step back and see them as the next move in a process that has been going on for two years,” Gates stated. “It began at the National Defense University with my speech in September of 2008; the far-reaching decisions on programs for fiscal year '10 that were made in April of 2009; the decisions on the alternate engine and C-17s earlier this year; and the Eisenhower Library speech in May.”

Lest anyone miss the F136 reference or doubt the Obama administration’s continued opposition to spending an additional $2.9 billion on an engine the military doesn’t need nor want, Gates added, “Any bill that takes the alternate engine…to the president, I am confident will be vetoed.”

The myriad reasons for canceling the F136 persist. It lost early competitions to power the Lockheed Martin X-35 and Boeing X-32 Joint Strike Fighter finalists. Years later, it remains very immature having accumulated a few hundred system design and demonstration (SDD) hours, while Pratt & Whitney’s F135, benefitting from its F119 predecessor that continues to power the F-22, has accumulated nearly 15,000 SDD hours. Today, the F136 remains in a test cell undergoing incremental development, while the F135 continues to prove itself in rigorous F-35 flight tests and has made a smooth transition to production. Further expenditure on the F136 is unlikely to ever be recouped, compared to the economies of scale that will only help lower F135 unit costs, benefitting all domestic and international F-35 customers and their taxpayers.

Secretary Gates has challenged Americans to “be mindful of the difficult economic and fiscal situation facing our nation” while also conducting two wars and countering numerous terrorist threats and rising powers. Tough times call for smart solutions, yet canceling the F136 remains a relative no-brainer.

– EagleBlogger

Imaginary Numbers: Repetition ≠ Truth

2010-08-23T10:47:00.002-04:00

A basic tenet of advertising is that one’s message must be repeated ad nauseam before being retained by the target audience. Yet the monotonous drumbeat of F136 headlines belies the truth, especially when it comes to the imaginative claims about future savings at the expense of the taxpayer and warfighter.

The F136 team’s central argument begins with creative math. They claim that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) forecasts $20 billion in savings through a new competition to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Yet the March 24, 2010 report by the GAO cited does no such thing. In fact, the report on page 11 states, “Total saving of about 21 percent in overall lifecycle costs.” And yet even that figure applies only “when comparing actual costs to the program’s baseline estimates,” despite the fact the latter is always higher than the former due to initial program risk.

Next, the F136 team commits a sin of omission, conveniently ignoring the GAO disclaimer “we did not do an in-depth analysis” of the so-called Great Engine War. Even if they had, it would have been nigh on impossible to prove that decreased costs were solely the result of competition rather than program maturity, which includes decreasing risk and economies of scale.

So, from whence does the elusive $20 billion savings figure originate? Simple.GE and its F136 allies estimated the total value of the F-35 propulsion program at $100 billion and multiplied that number by 21 percent.

Et voilà!

Yet most of that notional $100 billion can never be competed. The GAO’s analysis could support estimated savings of $2B - $2.5B over 20 years of engine production but why should the U.S. taxpayers pay $2.9B up front in the HOPES of saving $2.5B over the next two decades? There will also be the added cost of dual Component Improvement Programs and mid-life upgrade programs as well as other costs due to inefficiencies inherent in duplicate logistics systems.

Historically, sustainment (personnel, logistics, spare parts, etc) accounts for two-thirds of an engine program. But F135 and F136 sustainment can’t be competed since each engine features proprietary design, components and tooling. Additionally, the federal government will be a major provider of sustainment services. Bottom line: no competitive benefit for roughly $60 billion of the F-35 propulsion program.

Production accounts for the other third of an engine’s lifecycle cost, yet in reality, competition will be limited here too. There are several engine components common to both the F135 and F136. Both the F135 and F136 Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) engines will utilize a common Lift System – half the cost of that variant. And for all CTOL/CV engines, Pratt & Whitney will deliver the augmenter duct/liner and nozzle. All this common hardware takes another $5 billion off the competition table.

Next, remember there won’t even be an F136 for the first five lots, followed by a government-mandated quantity split for lots six, seven and eight. That means no real competition until 2017 and thus another $7 billion subtraction.

Lastly, there is the international partner share of production valued at $8 billion. Will theoretical savings from competition in the international market benefit the US taxpayer? No.

These exceptions bring the actual figure theoretically open for future competition down to about $20 billion. The GAO report went on to state that it is reasonable to save 10.3-12.3%. Therefore $2.0-2.5 billion could be recouped through yet another JSF engine competition.

That’s about a tenth of what the F136 team claims.

But, the Department of Defense has stated numerous times in the past, an additional $2.9 billion will be needed to bring the F136 to competition in 2017, presuming no additional setbacks.

Spend $2.9 billion to save $2.5 billion at most? President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates and the Pentagon leadership aren’t the only ones who are saying no to the F136 extra engine. Countless taxpayers agree, especially math teachers. Imagine that.

– EagleBlogger

Influential Taxpayer Organization Joins Call To Eliminate Funding for Extra Engine

2010-07-26T17:37:00.002-04:00

Americans for Tax Reform, an influential grassroots taxpayer organization, has joined the call to eliminate funding for the costly and wasteful extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

ATR President Grover Norquist and Center for Fiscal Accountability Executive Director Mattie Corrao wrote to House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Norm Dicks today urging him to, “swiftly reject any funding for the F136 Alternative Engine Program in the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill or the National Defense Authorization Act."

Norquist and Corrao explain that, “While proponents argue that the Alternative Engine Program is necessary to maintain a competitive engine market, there is nothing competitive about an entrenched political subsidy for an unnecessary and unwanted product” and reminding the chairman that “almost all of the Department of Defense’s engine contracts are already single source and there is no evidence that this has negatively effected engine production or national security.”

They also note that the extra engine “has been unwanted for four years by the officials charged with keeping the country safe is one that should be expeditiously removed from all future funding considerations.”

The full letter is here.

A Brief History Lesson

2010-07-26T06:47:00.002-04:00

Following GE Vice Chairman Rice’s imaginative opinion about his perceived lack of any past F-35 Joint Strike Fighter engine competition, we thought we’d provide a public service and jog his memory, by providing a brief reminder of historical facts.

For major platforms like the F-35, complex systems may be procured via a Contractor-Furnished Equipment (CFE) or Government-Furnished Equipment (GFE) acquisition strategy. Either option provides a full and open competition with government participation. When the GFE process is used, the government solicits competing proposals, chooses a winner, and that system is provided to the prime contractor. Conversely under CFE rules, the prime contractor conducts the competition and selects a winner with government oversight and approval.

This latter option was chosen for the F-35 propulsion system, resulting in proposals submitted by Pratt & Whitney and GE to Lockheed Martin, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, the original JSF contract competitiors. The Pratt & Whitney engine won that competition, and the government approved the process.

Separately, GE was awarded a contract to begin developing the F136 extra engine. But it has since lost the support of two consecutive presidential administrations, prompting the Defense Department to urge Congress to discontinue F136 funding as the Pratt & Whitney F135 has proven itself at every stage of the development process and now into production.

Yet, GE and their congressional allies still want to “re-compete” what they failed to win through the transparent down-select process described above. The fact that the F135 is meeting the requirements of the program and has successfully powered the F-35 through flight test stands in stark contrast to GE’s doomsday scenario that an extra engine is needed in case of a devastating, but heretofore completely mythical, fleet-wide grounding issue. But, if such occurrences were really a potentiality, wouldn’t the White House and Pentagon – charged with defending our nation – ask for such a redundancy? And for that matter, why not also mandate duplication in avionics, landing gear and other flight-critical systems?

The answer, as we’ve stated many times before, is that the best engine already won the competition, and has proven itself beyond a shadow of a doubt, through the most rigorous test program to date. As U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said in March 2010, “We are not in the 1980s any longer, where high-performance engines had suspect reliability.”

But despite all the rhetoric in Washington and elsewhere on this issue, this debate really isn’t about “us versus them.” Admittedly, the stakes are high for both engine teams, but they are far more critical for warfighters (who deserve only the best) and taxpayers (who crave fiscal restraint, not politics as usual).

Speaking at an event sponsored by The Hill newspaper on June 23, Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen encapsulated the overlapping interest of these two publics when he frankly stated, “The biggest threat we have to our national security is our debt.” He went on to admit that while incentivizing savings is difficult, it has been done over time. If not now, after the competition has already been won, then when?

School may be out, but GE Vice Chairman Rice might want to consider a summer class or two. We recommend History of JSF Procurement 101.

– EagleBlogger

The Danger of Hubris

2010-06-28T09:52:00.001-04:00

Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ frank comment on June 16 to the Senate Appropriations Committee that, “We think that the current engine GE is offering… probably does not meet the performance standards that are required, and the taxpayer would be required to pay for any enhancement that would bring it up to the performance standards that we require” appears to have so exacerbated the extra engine team that one can argue a delicate line has not just been crossed, but obliterated.

We’re talking about the occasionally tense, but absolutely vital relationship between the defense industry and the customers we serve. Although disagreements often surface through the natural course of procurement, recent actions by the F136 team to undermine President Obama, Secretary Gates and senior military leaders are arguably unprecedented in their audacity and severity.

A combative GE Vice Chairman John Rice brazenly contradicted Gates and the Pentagon’s assessment of the F136. From performance to cost, Rice painted a rose-tinted picture at complete variance to what their customer has stated time and time again. And while reality may sometimes be influenced by one’s point of view, what happened to the basic business principle of “The customer is always right?”

Most bizarrely, John Rice claimed that GE “has never been given an opportunity to compete” for the F-35 primary engine contract, conveniently forgetting that his engine was evaluated by Joint Strike Fighter airframe finalists Lockheed Martin and Boeing, both of whom ultimately chose Pratt & Whitney’s F135 for all Concept Demonstration Aircraft flights. So now Rice isn’t just asking for a mulligan to make up for a bad shot, but an entire new round of 18 holes?

According to Paul Bedard of U.S. News, Secretary Gates tops the list as President Obama’s best cabinet secretary and is widely recognized as one of the most effective Pentagon chiefs ever, now balancing the demands of two wars while simultaneously trying to reform how the DoD does business. Yet despite Gates’ unquestionable competence, selfless service and reasoned analysis under two presidents of opposing parties, GE still believes its interests, already bolstered by near-monopolistic positions in commercial and military aviation propulsion, are somehow of paramount importance and should therefore trump those of increasingly burdened taxpayers and warfighters.

Not surprisingly, GE’s unprecedented display of hubris was promptly characterized as an “open challenge” by The Hill’s Roxana Tiron and “an extraordinary move” by Megan Scully of Congress Daily. Meanwhile, recent high profile events have clearly demonstrated the risks associated with disrespecting the federal government’s authority over military affairs. Pratt & Whitney has learned from our historical missteps decades ago. We humbly recommend the F136 team do the same.

– EagleBlogger

Never Too Much of a Good Thing

2010-06-23T07:53:00.001-04:00

In As You Like It, William Shakespeare penned the question, “Can one desire too much of a good thing?” More than 400 years later, we can answer emphatically no, you can never have too much, especially when it comes to good news. As the tempo of F-35 Joint Strike Fighter test flights increased in June, so has the frequency of major milestones achieved. In fact, we can count at least three during the last two weeks.

First, the U.S. Navy F-35C carrier variant made its inaugural flight earlier this month, taking off from Naval Air Station Fort Worth Joint Reserve Base. Powered by a production configuration F135, the F-35C logged about an hour of flight time. The F135 Conventional Takeoff and Landing (CTOL) / Carrier Variant (CV) engine received federal government Initial Service Release certification in February, indicating that the engine meets all requirements for safety, reliability, durability and performance, and is therefore cleared for use in the field.

Second, Pratt & Whitney recently celebrated the first installation of a production F135 into a production F-35 aircraft. This marks an important step as this will be the first F-35 aircraft powered by an F135 engine that is destined for our U.S. military.

Last but certainly not least, the F-35B short takeoff, vertical land (STOVL) aircraft achieved supersonic flight for the first time, climbing to 30,000 feet near Naval Air Station Patuxent River and then reaching Mach 1.07. Future tests will eventually expand its flight envelope to its Mach 1.6 maximum. However, it is already clear that the F-35B’s unique combination of short take-off/vertical landing capabilities and supersonic performance will provide the U.S. Marine Corps, United Kingdom and Italy with unprecedented performance and flexibility to operate from smaller ships or austere bases worldwide.

The sum of these milestones is further undeniable proof that the Pratt & Whitney F135 is performing exceptionally well; first in development testing and validation, followed by full production and sustainment. Yet proponents of the F136 extra engine still wage a misleading campaign with brazen disregard to our warfighters, Secretary of Defense, two Presidents and the taxpayers, to try to encourage Congress to continue earmarking funds for this unwanted, unneeded, unaffordable piece of hardware.

In testimony to the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16, – Defense, Secretary Robert Gates fired back by stating, “We have reached a critical point in this debate where spending more money on a second engine for the JSF is unnecessary, wasteful and simply diverts precious modernization funds from other more pressing priorities. Accordingly, should the Congress add more funds to continue this unneeded program, I will continue to strongly recommend that the president veto such legislation.”

Clarity of language, backed by singular intent, is no less important now than in Shakespeare’s time, especially when the stakes are so high. And while the Bard of Avon might not have posed his question in the context of a fifth generation fighter propulsion system, we won’t shy away from celebrating success at every turn. Production of the ISR-certified F135 is more than our job, it’s an integral part of serving American and allied forces today and in the decades to come. We’ll leave the drama to others.

– EagleBlogger

Gates: "Serious mistake" to conclude the President won't veto legislation funding the alt engine

2010-06-16T15:51:00.001-04:00

An Inconvenient Truth: The Myth of F136-Style Competition

2010-06-09T15:51:00.000-04:00

Supporters of the F136 extra engine have hijacked a convenient, but ultimately misleading notion to breathe life into a patient declared dead on arrival by two presidents, the Pentagon and both Joint Strike Fighter airframer finalists (Lockheed Martin and Boeing). “Competition” makes a great bumper sticker, but as we’ve explained in the past, the facts often point in a different direction.

To illustrate our point, let’s revisit the U.S. Government Accountability Office report entitled “Analysis of Costs for the Joint Strike Fighter Engine Program” (March 22, 2007). F136 supporters have elevated this document to near mythical status, yet ironically, their interpretation based on selective reading is probably the source of many of today’s “competition myths.”

For example, while the GAO admitted the potential for some cost savings based on future F136 funding, it then stated on pages 1-2, “These results are dependent on how the government decides to run the competition, the number of aircraft that are ultimately purchased, and the exact ratio of engines awarded to each contractor.” So, in order to achieve savings, beyond those already delivered by Pratt & Whitney and others still to come based solely on F135 maturity, the U.S. government would have to rig a future competition to create enough F136 sales to recoup their investment.

Continuation of the F136 would certainly help “spread the wealth” (at least at the very top of the supply chain), yet the GAO advisory groups note such a diversification strategy was “made independent of the services’ ability to fund the program–meaning overall affordability should be taken into consideration.” However, the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps have consistently stated they lack the inclination, budget and physical space to support two F-35 engines. International customers are unlikely to divide their orders either. Therefore, a forced 50/50 split buy “competition” would rest primarily on the shoulders of the U.S. Air Force, dramatically and disproportionately increasing its training and logistical costs, as well as further complicating overseas deployments based on past F-15 and F-16 experience. The Air Force Chief, General Norton Schwartz has repeatedly said this is something he does not want forced upon his service.

Contrast this sub-optimal scenario with the clear advantages of retaining just one F-35 propulsion supplier. The GAO notes on page 6 of the report, “In the event that Pratt & Whitney is made the sole-source engine provider, future configuration changes to the aircraft and common components could be optimized for the F135 engine, instead of potentially compromised design solutions or additional costs needed to support both F135 and F136.” So, while the F136 team continues to divert attention from their own late, underperforming engine languishing on a test bed, the GAO has already recognized that future funds will be best spent on continuous improvements to the F135 already in production.

As the fight continues on Capitol Hill and in the court of public opinion, we maintain that the benefits of JSF engine competition have already been derived in the form of the F135, itself an evolution of the trusted and proven, F-22 powering F119. Bottom line: the best engine has already won, it continues to power every F-35 in flight, and it will continue to cost less as quantities rise. Diverting vital and scarce public funds to the F136 in the name of competition threatens to betray taxpayers and warfighters alike – and that is perhaps the most inconvenient truth of all.

– EagleBlogger

PW's Hugh Risseeuw cuts through the spin in the alternate engine debate

2010-06-07T14:56:00.000-04:00

CNN Contributor: GOP votes for spending boondoggle

2010-06-04T13:37:00.004-04:00

CNN Contributor John Avlon has a piece out that's worth a read.

New York (CNN) -- In a time of voter anger at unsustainable government spending and Washington hypocrisy, here's a story that should get your blood up.

Last week, the House of Representatives considered eliminating a nearly half-billion dollar earmark that was snuck into a defense authorization bill. But members of both parties voted to keep the corporate pork in the bill -- despite a supposed moratorium on earmarks and despite that the Pentagon has repeatedly said it doesn't want the money.

Only in Washington would bureaucracy be force-fed a project it doesn't want or need.

But so far, we haven't seen this contempt for taxpayer dollars make its way to protest signs or talk radio driven talking points. That's because President Obama opposes the earmark and the Republican congressional leadership voted for it.

This doesn't fit neatly into the hyperpartisan narrative of screaming about socialism -- in which Republicans bewail overspending by Democrats -- but it's a perfect illustration of how deep the dysfunction is in Washington.

Full story is here.

Machinists/Aerospace Workers Union Supports Cancellation of Alternate Engine

2010-05-27T13:45:00.006-04:00

In a letter to House members, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers offered its support for the Larson amendment to eliminate funding for the alternate engine:

“The Pingree Larson amendment addresses this issue by withholding funding for the alternative engine unless the Defense Department finds that the extra engine would reduce the costs of the F-35 program, improve the operational readiness of the program, and would not result in fewer aircraft being purchased. The IAM strongly supports…the Pingree Larson and asks that you vote for these amendments." click here for .pdf copy

AMVETS Opposes Alternate Engine

2010-05-26T13:02:00.002-04:00

Congressman Murphy,

Over the last few years, both the Bush and Obama Administrations have sought to remove funding for the wasteful F35 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine program. As a leader in veterans’ advocacy for more than 65 years, AMVETS supports this year’s latest efforts to kill funding for the alternate engine, diverting funds to directly support the brave men and women tasked with fighting on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The alternate engine for the Pentagon’s F35 Joint Strike Fighter program is a perfect example of a program that wastes funding desperately needed by our military men and women serving in harm’s way. Billions have already been spent on a wasteful extra engine, even though the current engine is already in production and performing well.

Our nation’s top military minds have consistently voiced their opposition to the alternate engine, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, and the service chiefs for the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, the services set to receive the Joint Strike Fighter.

Sadly, even though the Pentagon insists it will never field the new engine, Congressional leaders have continued to approve funding for the program each year. Supporters say the alternate engine would save money, but independent studies commissioned by Congress clearly refute this assertion.

This money must be spent on the needs of our soldiers and veterans today—not five or more years down the road. Congress has earmarked more than one billion dollars on this project since President Bush first tried to cancel it, and taxpayers will foot the bill for another $2.9 billion just to complete development and testing on the extra engine; never mind production costs.

That same amount of money could pay the health care costs of every single Iraq and Afghanistan veteran this year. The $465 million spent last year could have been used for mine resistant vehicles and helicopters that are badly needed by our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but instead was wasted on an engine our military leaders have repeatedly said they don’t want or need.

As a fellow veteran, AMVETS hopes you will join us in proudly supporting the amendment to divert much of the wasteful alternate engine funding to the National Guard & Reserve Equipment Account, which faces a $42.5 billion equipment shortage in 2010. It’s time we make a commitment to giving our brave American troops what they need today.

Sincerely,

Raymond C. Kelley
AMVETS National Legislative Director

Letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the alternate engine

2010-05-26T10:35:00.005-04:00

Dear Representative Larson:

Thank you for your recent letter regarding the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. This program is one of the Defense Department's (DOD) most important, largest and costliest acquisition programs. The JSF budget request reflects DOD's careful, analytical judgment of the best way proceed with a program that is the backbone of future tactical aircraft inventory for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and international partners.

It is true that the DOD identified problems with this program in 2009. Therefore, earlier this year, we took aggressive action to restructure and manage the program. These actions included providing additional funding, replacing the program manager, withholding $614 million in contractor award fees and reducing the number of aircraft purchased in FY11 from 48 to 42. It is DOD's judgment that further reduction of the number of aircraft will increase cost, delay the program and negatively impact our international partners. DOD is confident that the JSF restructuring properly balances production rate with other relevant factors.

Further, I firmly believe that the interests of the taxpayers, our military, and the JSF program are best served by not pursuing an extra engine. Despite the continued opposition by the DOD under two Administrations, Congress has provided $1.3 billion in unrequested additional funding for continued development of this program. We have reached a critical point in this debate where spending more money on an extra engine simply makes no sense and diverts limited modernization funds from more pressing DOD priorities.

DOD's independent Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) estimates that an additional $2.9 billion would be required to take an alternate engine, the F136, to competitive procurement in FY17. While the $2.9 billion cost is real and certain, the benefits of a second engine are not. CAPE has concluded that a second engine might provide savings ifboth engine vendors respond to competitive pressures and drive prices lower and the second engine supplier matches the F135's vendor prices for the duration of the competition. Some international partners are almost certain to only buy the F136 engine made by the General Electric (GE) and Rolls Royce team, and the Navy has stated they will only buy one engine to avoid having to maintain two different engines aboard a ship. While DOD favors competition where possible, in this case there would not be a true competition between the engine vendors, with accompanying reductions in cost. Therefore, it is DOD's strong judgment that these real costs outweigh the theoretical benefit.

In addition, we believe the new GE proposal for the F 136 engine is based on overly optimistic assumptions. This proposal offers a fixed price for the existing engine, but not necessarily the engine that meets DOD specifications. If development problems on this immature design require design or other changes, DoD would be responsible for funding those changes. The proposal also calls for a large number of engines being produced while testing is ongoing, with that risk borne by DOD. The F136 engine is also far less mature than the F 135 engine, with only 200 hours of testing compared to the more than 13,000 hours for the F135 engine. This proposal would simply delay the current F135 engine's progress so the F136 engine could play catch up.

A single engine strategy is not new and does not create unacceptable levels of risk. Contrary to some assertions, the use of a single engine production source has seen a successful strategy for critical tactical fighter programs such as the F-22 and F-18. Further, since the F135 engine is derived from the successful F119 engine program for the F-22, the risk of a fundamental design flaw or other circumstance that would ground the fleet is significantly reduced and manageable.

Given the many pressing needs facing our military and the fiscal challenges facing our country, we cannot afford a business as usual approach to the defense budget. Tough choices must be made -by both the department and Congress -to ensure that current and future military capabilities can be sustained over time. This means programs and initiatives of marginal or no benefit -like the F136 engine -are unaffordable luxuries.

Accordingly, as I have stated repeatedly, I will strongly recommend that the President veto any legislation that contains funding for an extra JSF and unneeded engine.

Sincerely,

Robert M. Gates

ABC News: Pentagon Chokes On Pork

2010-05-25T14:04:00.000-04:00

The Fallacy of Trying to Have Cake and Eat it Too

2010-05-25T14:01:00.000-04:00

You would think that an emphatic, “Thanks, but no thanks” from two consecutive presidents representing both main political parties and the studiously principled secretary of defense they share would deter business-as-usual Capitol Hill posturing and runaway spending. Yet, like a “middle-of dinner telemarketer,” the team pushing the F136 extra engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and their Congressional allies just can’t take no for an answer, even in a year when the American public has made it abundantly clear that wasteful and unnecessary projects and programs are not worth causing greater damage to the American economy while also handicapping our warfighters in their time of greatest need.

As Defense Secretary Gates said during a May 20^th press conference, “The Bush administration opposed this engine. The Obama administration opposes it. We have recommended for several years now against funding this engine, considering it a waste of money. And to argue that we should add another $3 billion in what we regard as waste to protect the billion and a half (dollars) that we believe already has been wasted, frankly, I don't track the logic.”

But what about competition, the extra engine team pleads? After all, “monopoly is not a game.” The competition to power the F-35 took place years ago, and Joint Strike Fighter prime contractor finalists Lockheed Martin and Boeing each chose Pratt & Whitney’s F135 over the F136 to power their concept demonstrators.

Ironically, the same team that lost the competition to power the F-35, has upped the rhetoric on “monopoly” despite the monopolistic position they enjoy on the 14,000 engines powering the entire Blackhawk and Apache helicopter fleets, the more than 4,000 engine monopoly they have on the entire F/A-18 fighter jet fleet, and even the ubiquitous Boeing 737 airliner (just to name a few). Apparently, living in a glass house really doesn’t deter the casting of stones.

Along the way, the extra engine team has pedaled multiple unsolicited so-called “fixed price” proposals claiming notional savings as a result. But, ever the wary consumer, the Department of Defense, led by Secretary Gates, isn’t buying. “The proposal does provide a fixed price, but not for the engine we need,” Gates said. “The proposed engine is based on the design they currently have on the test stand, which we are deeply concerned may not meet the performance needs of the Joint Strike Fighter. Any cost to take the design to required JSF performance levels would presumably be paid by taxpayers.”

And let’s remember that the F136 is years behind the F135. Test hours stand at merely 200 for the F136 compared to more than 17,500 for the F135. The F135 has powered every JSF to date, including a flawless vertical landing, has received government certification, and has made the transition from development to production, having delivered the first four F135 engines that will power the first F-35 aircraft for the U.S. military.

Finally, the extra engine team’s vision of competition is actually built on the perverse notion of a “guaranteed” split buy. To quote Secretary Gates one more time from May 20, “As I've said before, only in Washington does a proposal where everybody wins get considered a competition, where everybody is guaranteed a piece of the action at the end.”

The problem isn’t competition. First, it is the F136 team’s stubborn denial of multiple decisions by prime contractors years ago, two presidential administrations since then, and even the Senate as recently as 2009. Second, it’s their engine, which is years behind the proven F135 and might not meet DoD requirements. Lastly, it is the prospect of a rigged split buy that’s more consistent with socialist central planning than our meritocratic system where warfighters only get the best solutions the market can engineer, produce and support.

Rather than swallow the bitter pill summed up by these dispassionate facts, the F136 team enjoys their own monopolies, while at the same time ratcheting up the political posturing and scare tactics to save the unwanted, underperforming and untenable extra engine. Guess they think they can have their “competition” cake and eat it too, while the American taxpayers and warfighters continue to foot the bill.

– EagleBlogger

The FACTS on the extra engine for Joint Strike Fighter

2010-05-22T06:58:00.001-04:00

FACT: The DoD says it will cost an additional $2.9B to finish the F136 engine.

In a press conference on May 20, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said, “We do believe that the full-up costs for us are about $2.9 billion. This department has a long and unhappy experience with overly optimistic contractor estimates.” Spending $2.9B in the hopes of saving $1B is not a responsible use of taxpayers’ dollars. The fact is, the extra engine team just keeps asking for (and receiving) billions of dollars despite having made very little progress. In 2008, the extra engine team said they only needed another $1B to finish development. Two years (and $1B later) the extra engine team is STILL saying they only need an additional $1B to complete development.

FACT: There was already a competition to power the F-35.

Competition for the JSF engine happened at the contractor level with all three JSF competitors selecting the P&W engine. This process of selecting subsystems, including the engine, as part of the overall weapon system, is standard during concept demonstration. Last year Senator Lieberman said: “There was a competition to build the engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. General Electric, in its proposal, lost that competition. Pratt & Whitney won that competition. Now, by way of legislation, the proponents of the second engine for this plane are trying to achieve, by legislation, what they could not achieve by competition.” GE has several military engine monopolies including the F-18, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters and the A-10 and they are not pushing an extra engine for those aircraft. GE is only in favor of competition when they lose.

FACT: The manufacturer of the extra engine is the largest supplier of military engines in the world and has several military engine monopolies.

GE is the largest military engine company in the world, producing 70% of U.S. military engines and has extensive military and commercial engine programs including sole-source contracts for more than 14,000 T700 engines for the Apache and Blackhawk helicopters and more than 4,000 F404 engines for the F-18. The extra engine manufacturer isn’t advocating for extra engines for those aircraft. The customer (DoD) has stated repeatedly that it does not want the extra engine, especially if the taxpayers are footing the bill.

FACT: Terminating the extra engine will save U.S. jobs and will not harm the U.S. industrial base.

U.K. based Rolls Royce is developing and manufacturing 40 percent of the extra engine, and a large portion of the Rolls Royce content will result in U.K., not U.S. jobs. In addition, the same number of engines will be built, regardless of manufacturer. A 2007 Institute of Defense Analysis study examined the top extra engine component suppliers and concluded that it is "unlikely that any supplier would exit the domestic industrial base because of F-136 termination".

FACT: Having an extra engine will cost more money, not save money.

The DoD has repeatedly stated that the notional cost savings that would result from further engine competition for the F-35 are based on unrealistic assumptions that they cannot accept. As Secretary Gates put it, “To argue that we should add another $3 billion in what we regard as waste to protect the billion and a half (dollars) that we believe already has been wasted, frankly, I don't track the logic.” The extra engine team claims that the F-35 engine program is worth $100B and that having a competing engine will generate savings. This is incorrect on both counts. First, a GAO report released in March 2010, reports that the engine program is closer to $60B. Second, the upfront cost to design and develop the extra engine will outweigh any potential savings because taxpayers must pay the full cost to develop both engines and foot the bill for two sets of parts, two production and maintenance lines, two technology advancement programs and duplicative personnel and training.

FACT: The firm fixed price offer put forward by the F-35 extra engine team is unrealistic.

Secretary Gates said on May 20, “With respect to the proposal for the extra engine, we think the proposal is based on unrealistic cost estimates. The proposal does provide a fixed price, but not for the engine we need.”

FACT: Funding of the extra engine has and will continue to reduce the number of JSF aircraft the U.S. can afford to buy, will take many away from other, more pressing DoD needs, and will have a negative impact on the warfighter.

When Congress continues to fund the extra engine against the judgment of the President and the DoD, the funding must come from somewhere else. In the past, it has come at the expense of the overall F-35 program and has already cost the JSF program four aircraft--a negative and direct impact on national security. In Congressional testimony, senior military leaders have testified that continued funding would come at the expense of 50-80 additional aircraft, aircraft our military needs. On May 20, Secretary Gates said, “We will strongly resist efforts to impose programs and changes on the department that the military does not want, cannot afford, and that takes dollars from programs and endeavors the military services do need.”

FACT: An extra engine for the JSF increases operational complexity and risk.

Single engine sources are the norm for military aircraft. No other military aircraft developed in the past three decades has been procured with multiple engine suppliers. In testimony in February Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen Norton Schwartz said, “The reality is that the F-22 and the F-18E/F are single engine airplanes. And, you know, there’s no dispute about that, and it’s because we collectively in the defense community, have become comfortable with the reliability and so on of those respective engines, one of which is a predecessor to the 135.” A case in point is the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine, powering the F-22, which is the safest, most successful fighter engine ever. The reliability of the F119 continues to set records without an extra engine. Inserting an extra engine into a program slows cost and learning curves and present operational risk and challenges to military men and women who will operate and maintain them. Proponents of the extra engine claim that a sole-source engine provider is risky. However, they are the sol-source engine provider on numerous military platforms and have never suggested those platforms need an extra engine.

FACT: The DoD is concerned about the performance of the extra engine program

On May 20, Secretary Gates said, “The proposed engine is based on the design they currently have on the test stand, which we are deeply concerned may not meet the performance needs of the Joint Strike Fighter.” The extra engine, which has yet to power an F-35 in flight, has only accumulated approximately 200 hours in 17 months of testing and has encountered significant technical difficulties. By contrast the F135 has logged more than 17,500 hours, has achieved government certification, has powered vertical flight operations, has delivered the last test engine and has transitioned to F135 production, already having delivered the first four production F135s for use by the warfighter.

FACT: The P&W engine is serving the JSF needs now and into the future and the DoD is concerned about the performance of the extra engine.

On May 20, Secretary Gates said, “The engine is far less mature. The proposed engine is still in development, has about 200 hours of testing compared to 13,000 for the F-135. The proposed engine is based on the design they currently have on the test stand, which we are deeply concerned may not meet the performance needs of the Joint Strike Fighter. Any cost to take the design to required JSF performance levels would presumably be paid by taxpayers.” By contrast, the F135 has logged more than 17,500 test hours, has achieved government certification, has powered vertical flight operations, has delivered the last test engine and has delivered the first four production F135s.

FACT: The DoD does not want or need the extra engine for the JSF.

Secretary Gates thinks funding the extra engine is wasteful and unnecessary. So does President George W. Bush, President Obama, 59 Republican and Democratic Senators, the Chiefs of the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, Citizens Against Government Waste, Taxpayers for Common Sense, and many more.

FACT: The extra engine is at least 5 years behind the F135, and has delayed fielding of F-35 aircraft.

The extra engine is 5-7 years behind in development, has yet to power a plane in flight and has logged only a small fraction of the hours expected for this point in their test program. In approximately 17 months of testing, the extra engine has accumulated around 200 hours compared to the more than 2,300 hours that the Pratt & Whitney F135 had accumulated at the same 17-month point. Last year, the extra engine was paid for by delaying the purchase of multiple JSF test aircraft.

FACT: Procuring the F136 will delay Air National Guard deliveries.

The remaining $2.9B needed to complete the extra engine is not included in the defense budget, and must be taken from elsewhere the DoD. Money will have to be taken away from a defense program the military needs in order to fund a program they don’t need. The Air Force and the Air National Guard needs to replace its aging fleet of fighters, bombers and tankers, and wasting $2.9B on an extra engine when their fleet modernizations are underfunded makes no sense. Whether the delay is in JSF deliveries or some other impact to fleet modernization the impact to the Air National Guard will be negative.

FACT: The international JSF partners do not want to fund an extra engine.

The international partners have stated they do not want an extra engine if it will have a negative impact on the program. Buying two engines for the JSF increases the cost to the overall program limits the international partners’ on the quantity of aircraft they can afford, and delays deliveries. Extra engine supporters claim that the original the Memorandum of Understanding signed with the International Partners assured them that they would have an engine choice. In fact, the memorandum simply stated that if there were two engines, the partners could choose.

FACT: A vote for the extra engine is Washington “business as usual".

On May 20, Secretary Gates said, “Let me be clear. I believe the defense budget process should no longer be characterized by business as usual within this building or outside of it….Accordingly, as I have stated repeatedly, should the Congress insist on adding funding for a costly and unnecessary JSF extra engine or direct changes that seriously disrupt the JSF program, or impose additional C-17 aircraft, I will strongly recommend that the president veto such legislation.” Canceling funding for the extra engine has strong bi-partisan support. The Senate sent a loud message last year when a bipartisan group of 59 Senators voted for cancellation. Funding was slipped back in during conference by certain House conferees, voted against it. However, the funding was slipped back in during conference by certain House conferees

Secretary Gates Outlines His Objections To the Alternate Engine

2010-05-21T14:54:00.003-04:00

Separating Myth From Fact

2010-05-18T12:18:00.013-04:00

With lobbying intensifying over the wasteful extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter on Capitol Hill, it’s worth addressing a few of the more outrageous claims being made by supporters of the alternate engine with some facts from the Department of Defense's paper on the issue.

Myth: “Past experience shows that two engine manufacturers competing drives down costs, spurs technological innovation and improves contractor performance.”

Fact: The Pentagon says the alternate engine would still require a further investment of $2.9 billion, and there is no guarantee that having two engines will create significant enough long-term savings to outweigh the additional costs and the burden of maintaining two logistical systems. In the middle of two wars, DoD has other higher priority uses for $2.9 billion.

Many proponents of a second engine cite the “Great Engine War” of the 1980s – when the DoD purchased engines for Air Force F-15 and F-16 fighters from two manufacturers. While much has been made of this example, the facts tell a more nuanced and inconclusive story. According to the Department of Defense, while the competition did appear to improve contractor responsiveness to Air Force needs, there were only minimal reductions in the acquisition unit price of the engines. Accordingly, it is difficult to cite this example as proof that substantial savings will occur as a result of having two engines.

In addition, the current engine contractor achieved savings of about 40% on the F119 engine on the F-22 without an alternate engine. Instead, the savings were the result of aggressive government management, improvement in the manufacturing process, and investment by both the government and the contractor. Pratt & Whitney is prepared to duplicate these results on the F135 engine for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Myth: The extra engine is 70% complete and only needs an additional $1.3 billion over the next five years

Fact: According to the Pentagon, the alternate engine would still require a further investment of $2.9 billion. Some have suggested that the necessary additional investment is much less; however, they are only looking at the cost to complete development of the second engine. The investment of $2.9B includes the costs to finish the development, conduct directed buys to prepare the second source for competitive procurement beginning in FY 2017, and create the necessary logistics support to operate and sustain engines on deployed F-35 aircraft. In short, $2.9B is the total additional cost required to take the alternate engine to full competition. The $1.3 billion figure only gets you part way there.

Myth: The Joint Strike Fighter will be the primary military fighter in the future, replacing many existing aircraft. It will represent 90% of our fighter power for 30 years. So, to not provide for an alternate engine to the sole sourced primary engine would have us assume a risk for much of our country's active fighter power that we never have before.

Fact: According to the DoD, the Department currently maintains two tactical aircraft programs, the F-22A and the F-18, which utilize a single source engine provider. Both programs have enviable safety records, and DoD is satisfied with the engines for both programs. Over the years, significant advancements in engine design, testing, and production have enabled DoD to manage the risks associated with single engine systems without having to ground an entire fleet.

Myth: General Electric’s new fixed price contract proposal for the alternate engine requires the contractor to assume all the risk for cost overruns.

Fact: According to the DoD, the fixed price for the engines would require GE to assume the normal amount of risk for a fixed price contract. The price is contingent upon a fixed configuration, so any changes to that configuration would require modification of the contract price. The remaining portions of the contract may be cost-type line items, which shift the risk for performance of those line items to the Government.

Myth: The second engine is not very far behind. It will start production after only 100 of the current engines are produced.

Fact: The DoD says A direct comparison shows that the F-136 Initial Service Release (ISR) dates are at least 2-3 years behind the F-135 ISR dates. The F135 Conventional Take-off and Landing/Carrier Variant achieved its ISR date in February 2010, and the same ISR date is planned for the F-136 in December 2012. The planned F-135 Short Take-off and Vertical Landing ISR date is fourth quarter of FY10 and the same ISR date for the F-136 is planned for fourth quarter FY13. There is also no guarantee that a second engine program will not face the same challenges as the current program has already faced and be forced to delay its own program.

Resist the Call of the Sirens

2010-05-17T10:52:00.001-04:00

It’s budget markup season in Washington, which means a plethora of seemingly well-intentioned funding requests emanating like songs from the mythical Greek sirens, who lured nearby sailors to the rocky shoreline. Congress would be wise to be wary of these enchanting, but ultimately perilous calls.

Yet some Congressional leaders seem to be swayed, once again, into lending their support for the F136 extra engine for the JSF, despite billions wasted to date, decades of successful single engine military aircraft, strong performance by the F135 primary engine, and the crushing expense of higher priorities in a climate where our nation is facing record budget deficits.

On the one hand, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) expresses his admiration for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ passion for fiscal restraint by stating he “deserves high grades for courage” and that Congress would “like to be helpful.” But then he embraces the false notion of future competition for the engine to power the JSF, despite the Pratt & Whitney F135’s numerous wins throughout the F-35’s development and detailed reports that show that the F136 will consume another $2.9 billion in the unlikely hope of saving $1 billion later.

This knee-jerk reaction to buck the oft-stated wishes of the White House and Defense Department is puzzling, especially given Gates’ most recent comments on the urgent need to reign in runaway spending. En route to Kansas City on May 7, he told the media, “The message that I've had for the Congress over the last couple of years (is) that a dollar that they make us spend on stuff we don't need is a dollar we can't spend on what we do need. And in this constrained budget environment, that becomes all the more important.”

It’s also puzzling that the Senate, which ultimately rejected funding the F136 by a vote of 59-38 in 2009, would now follow the House and re-insert funding during their own committee markup process. The rhetorical similarities are disturbingly striking. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) and chairman of that body’s air-land panel said, "The committee has always believed that, to be a balanced program, competition needed to be an element of the engine program." Yet, this competition argument has been debunked before, and for good measure, the Pentagon’s acquisition chief Ashton Carter reiterated on May 4, “There is not a good analytical case that the upfront costs of the second engine would be paid back."

During his airborne press conference, Gates added, “One of the members of Congress, I'm told, said, ‘Well, why is $3 billion for the alternative engine such a big deal when we've got a trillion-dollar deficit?’ I would submit that's one of the reasons we have a trillion-dollar deficit, is that kind of thinking.”

In light of the current economic crisis, ongoing war efforts and the strong anti-earmark political climate, it seems Congress would want to make a clean break from pork barrel politics. Resist funding the F136 not simply to avoid the embarrassment and needless conflict associated with a potential Presidential veto. Do so because if this sort of wasteful spending isn’t stopped now, then there is little hope such budgetary recklessness will ever be curtailed. Ignore the selfish and deceitful sirens; instead, heed the clarion call of truth. If not now, when?

-- Eagleblogger

A billion here, a billion there...

2010-05-12T11:21:00.001-04:00

New Video: Alternate Engine = Fewer Joint Strike Fighters

2010-05-11T10:38:00.001-04:00

Just the Facts

2010-05-10T10:27:00.000-04:00

As the Pratt & Whitney F135 team this month celebrates two important milestones – delivery of the last F135 test engine, as well as the fourth and final engine in LRIP Lot 1 – the F136 team appears more concerned about trying to relive the past, or rather their perception of what might have occurred.

We are, of course, referring to the so-called “Great Engine War” – an event that supposedly generated up to 20% cost savings for the taxpayer thanks to F-15 and F-16 engine competition. And while this handy bit of revisionism makes for a catchy slogan or two as part of the latest campaign to save the F136, it doesn’t necessary reflect reality. But don’t take our word for it.

In 1989, Donald Pilling of the highly credible and fiercely independent Brookings Institution released a study entitled Competition in Defense Procurement. As part of that work the author references USAF analysis that was presented to the House Committee on Armed Services and entered into the Congressional Record of the 98^th Congress in 1984. The Air Force analysis is presented below, labeled Table 2-2.

Table 2-2. Air Force Analysis of Alternative Procurements for Fighter Engines
Billions of fiscal 1983 dollars unless otherwise specified

		Savings relative to a split award
Contract award	Cost to Government	Amount	Percent
		Six annual purchases

Split	17.32	…	…
All to Pratt & Whitney	16.39	0.93	5.3
All to General Electric	16.25	1.07	6.2

		One purchase followed by five annual purchases

Split	16.90	…	…
All to Pratt & Whitney	15.99	0.91	5.4
All to General Electric	15.74	1.16	6.9
Source: Defense Department Authorization and Oversight, Hearings on H.R. 5167 before the Committee on Armed Services,
98 Cong. 2 sess. (GPO, 1984), pt. 2, p. 255
Cited from: Competition in Defense Procurement, Donald L. Pilling, The Brookings Institution, 1989, pg 28.

Pilling’s analysis showed that split buys in two different scenarios would actually cost 5-6% or roughly $1 billion more than choosing a sole source acquisition strategy with Pratt & Whitney or General Electric. Sadly, the Air Force saw little option at the time but to continue along the path of competition for other arcane reasons, but in Pilling’s words, “Reducing program cost was not a factor…” Yet it’s worth noting that since then no military aircraft program has recreated such a contrived construct. Either way you look at it, full credit goes to the Defense Department, which has learned the true lessons of the past and vigorously opposes an extra engine for the F-35. As Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn wrote on February 23^rd to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton, “While much has been made of this example (The “Great Engine War”), the facts tell a more nuanced and inconclusive story.”

Despite all the rhetoric, the F-35 engine debate really needs to focus on the customer. This debate is about delivering the best and most affordable solution to DoD so that the true beneficiaries are American and allied warfighters, plus the taxpayers who support them. To that end, the Pentagon’s position, reinforced by Presidents Bush and Obama, begs the question: why does the F136 team think they know more than the Defense Department? If they’re looking for a slogan, we humbly suggest, “The customer is always right.”

– Eagleblogger

Triple Threat: Good News on F135 Engine Testing, Production and Cost

2010-05-06T11:03:00.001-04:00

As F-35 testing accelerates, so do the milestones for Pratt & Whitney’s F135, the sole engine powering the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. Significant progress is worth noting in three crucial areas: increased testing, production deliveries and cost containment.

First, completed test hours now stand at roughly 13,500 out of a planned total of 14,832. The remaining hours will be logged this year now that all 11 ground test and 18 flight test engines have been delivered. Following the dramatically flawless first F-35B vertical landing in March, initial service release tests for the STOVL version have begun, marking the final phase of development for the F135.

Second, the completion of engine development on the CTOL/CV variant was marked by the official certification by the F-35 Joint Program Office on January 31, 2010. The first four CTOL/CV production engines have been delivered to the customer with 18 more to come before the end of 2010. This rate of roughly two engines per month should double in 2012 to four per month for low-rate initial production (LRIP) Lot 5.

Finally, this undeniably positive news about the F135 was reinforced during Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) testimony given recently, On April 13, U.S. Navy and Air Force officials recognized cost reduction progress on the F135 and reiterated opposition to the F136 alternative engine.

In prepared remarks delivered to the SASC’s Airland Subcommittee, U.S. Navy Vice Admiral David Architzel and his colleagues stated, “The Joint Assessment Team assessed that the F135 engine cost goals are achievable with the proper investment in cost reduction initiatives. The focus in the coming year will be to ensure the engine manufacturer and the government implement the necessary efforts to achieve the cost goals. The current LRIP 4 engine proposal shows that the engine manufacturer has begun to reduce cost in alignment with the JAT assessments and recommendations.”

U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark D. Shackelford and Maj. Gen. Johnny A. Weida said, “Continued funding for the F136 engine carries cost penalties to both the F135 and F136 engines in the form of reduced production line learning curves and inefficient economic order quantities. The department concludes that maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance of cost and risk. We believe the risks associated with a single source engine supplier are manageable due to improvements in engine technology and do not outweigh the investment required to fund a competitive alternate engine.”

When asked later in the hearing about the projected additional $2.9 billion associated with continued F136 development, Shackelford added, “Given the precious resources we have, we're better spending the money by continuing to refine the F135 and press forward with that as the engine for the F-35.”

-- EagleBlogger

Déjà Vu All Over Again

2010-04-27T09:19:00.002-04:00

During a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing earlier this month, U.S. Air Force Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, was questioned by Sen. Joe Lieberman about the notion of a fixed price for the F-35 powerplants. As his colleagues have done in the past, Gen. Shackelford confirmed that no such arrangement has been agreed upon or accepted by the DoD. He confirmed that no firm fixed price offer would be accepted until such time “As we have confidence in the design baseline and the ‘producibility’ of the engines.”

The reason is simple: at this stage of a new and complex program, a traditional “cost-plus” contract provides the federal government with complete transparency and oversight into the program including cost, schedule, performance and more. If any issues arise, the customer is made aware of them and can clearly see the price and process of amelioration.

A firm, fixed price arrangement, whether offered for single or multiple lots, might sound attractive in an uncertain economic environment. But when applied prematurely, it incentivizes the contractor to estimate and then add the cost of potential test failures, production changes and just about any other variable to ensure an eventual profit. So, either the government pays an inflated bill if development goes better than expected, or it can’t see how and to what extent any problems are being addressed. Either way, the taxpayer stands to lose rather than win, especially when the engine in question is the still developmental F136, which like any new engine, has faced, and will continue to face, numerous development challenges that will result in design changes.

Yet, those of you who have followed this discussion will remember that we’ve been here before. Last September and again more recently, the alternate engine team presented the government with an unsolicited firm, fixed price “concept” for their first four deliveries, ironically minus an actual price. The September offer was not deemed by the government to be worthy of evaluation and therefore no negotiations took place. Another recent offer was for the same four engines, now delayed from Low-Rate Initial Production (LRIP) Lot 5 to LRIP-6 due to well-known problems encountered throughout their protracted System Development and Demonstration phase.

Based on past government actions and Gen. Shakelford’s recent testimony, it’s hard to believe that the outcome of this latest offer by the makers of the back-up engine for the F-35 will be any different than those that have been announced before, simply because far too much about a production F136 is still unknown and unproven, not to mention strongly opposed by the White House and Pentagon on the grounds of cost, logistics and shear wasteful duplicity.

By contrast, Pratt & Whitney has transitioned confidently from development to production. Every F135 ground and flight test engine has been delivered to the customer, as have the first three production engines. And, in the interest of full disclosure, Pratt & Whitney also offered a fixed price arrangement. In fact, we originally did so prior to the F136 team and it would have applied to LRIP-4 engines at the current capped “cost-plus” price point. But even this offer, which was based on a far more mature engine, was declined by the customer.

Therefore, one can conclude that for the short term, the most pressing issue is not about pricing, but performance and accountability.

-- Eagleblogger

Three Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

2010-04-23T14:46:00.000-04:00

Part 3 of 3: The Industrial Base

Some in the F136 camp argue that continued funding of their engine is vital to their survival in the aircraft engine business. Yet General Electric, one of the world’s most diversified conglomerates, continues to dominate the development, production, and aftermarket aerospace engine market, manufacturing six times more commercial engines than Pratt & Whitney every year. Their status includes sole source positions with the GEnx (747-8), GE90 (long range Boeing 777s), CF34 (CRJ700/900, E170/190), CF6 (C-5 re-engining), not to mention the ubiquitous CFM56 (all B737s and more than half of Airbus A320 family deliveries in recent years).

Moreover, GE currently produces nearly 90% of U.S. made military engines, including helicopter engines. Their dominance of this market includes sole source positioning with the T700 on more than 4,900 twin-engine Blackhawk/Seahawk and Apache helicopters. Including spares, this equates to nearly 12,000 powerplants delivered through 2009 with at least 2,300 more forecast between now and 2019 for a total expected to exceed 14,000 T700s.

Another sole source position GE enjoys is through their F404 and F414 powerplants for the twin-engine F/A-18. The F/A-18 continues to be purchased in significant quantities by the U.S. Navy, has landed a new export order (from Australia), and may win other fighter procurement contests around the world. More than 1,900 airframes later, GE has delivered 4200 F404/414 engines with the possibility of another 400 engines before the end of this decade.

GE’s dominance of the installed base and backlog of jet engines positions them well for decades to come with a strong aftermarket business. Furthermore, consider that since the design tools, development processes, advanced technology and materials have become closely aligned between military and commercial products, it is the same people who design these engines for civil or military applications. And one more very important point, GE is heavily involved in two important DoD programs called ADVENT and HEETE. These two research and development efforts are investigating advanced military engine technologies, and will keep GE engineers working for years to come.

Regardless of whose name is on a commercial or military engine, the reality is that roughly 80% of the content is procured from suppliers. Given the highly specialized nature of building jet engines, many of these suppliers are common to GE, Pratt & Whitney and other manufacturers. Castings, forgings, composites, electronics, controls and accessories all come from the same overall industrial supply base, not from one engine manufacturer’s military business segment. For most suppliers, the difference between one or two F-35 engines simply fails to constitute a “make or break” moment.

In considering America’s aerospace industrial base, you cannot overlook the fact that the F136 engine is the fruit of the General Electric / Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team Partnership. 40% of the F136 is under the control of UK based Rolls-Royce, and a large number of those RR parts will be manufactured abroad. This fact further undermines the positive impact GE imagines the F136 would have on American industry.

Despite a global recession, the American jet engine industrial base remains strong, thanks to diversification across civil and military platforms, a continuing emphasis on research and development, and a significant military and commercial aftermarket requirement. GE’s viability as a continuing source of military jet engines simply is not threatened by a single military program Most suppliers wouldn’t be adversely impacted should Congress cease funding for the F136, as repeatedly requested by President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates and others. Add in the current operational needs of our military along with other pressing budgetary matters and the choice becomes more apparent than ever.

-- EagleBlogger

Three Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

2010-04-21T11:42:00.002-04:00

Part 2 of 3: Risk

Following competition, the next most commonly heard refrain from the F136 camp constitutes myth number two: that a single engine supplier for the F-35 presents too much risk to the warfighter.

Supporters of the duplicative alternate engine argue that a second engine is necessary to mitigate the threat of a fleet-wide grounding. This is nothing but a scare tactic, and quite frankly, counter to GE’s own military engine business. There are more than 4,000 GE F404s powering the entire F/A-18 fleet and 14,000 GE T700s powering all the current and future Apache and Blackhawk/Seahawk fleets. These are massive fleets of aircraft, powered by a sole source engine provider, and neither has ever experienced a fleet-wide grounding. Nor has the F-22 powered solely by the Pratt & Whitney F119. The bottom line is that no military aircraft developed in the past three decades has been procured with multiple engine suppliers because it is unnecessary.

Why? Because advances in computer-based design and simulation applications, rigorous testing regimes, highly accurate, capable, and repeatable manufacturing processes, new durable materials and powerful digital electronics have dramatically improved the safety and reliability of modern jet engines.

Furthermore, technological advancements in risk management and mitigation processes have mitigated fleet-wide groundings resulting from propulsion system design, material or logistics failures. Improved inspection capabilities, as well as the increasing use of prognostic health and condition-monitoring systems, detect problems early and thus mitigate their potential impact on flight operations. In other words, this is fifth generation technology, not first, second or third generation.

This constant march of technological progress has yielded benefits across the aviation sector. For instance, in the commercial aviation sector, the Federal Aviation Administration and similar organizations abroad have lengthened the Extended-Range Twin-Engine Operation Performance Standards (ETOPS) to allow a 180-minute diversion period for twin-engine airliners.

As U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said in March 2010, “We are not in the 1980s any longer, where high-performance engines had suspect reliability.”

Besides, consider that a fighter aircraft is a system of systems. It is critical that each of the subsystems perform flawlessly to keep the jet flying safely. There is no reason to believe the engine is any more likely to ground the fleet than the airframe, flight controls, radar, landing gear, etc., none of which are competed. In fact, when you look at the data, it has been these other systems that have been responsible for fleet groundings in the past. But, these systems aren’t procured from dual sources, and neither are engines…usually. Why? Because we’re not in the 80’s anymore.

Finally, as we’ve pointed out in the past, fielding two engines can actually have a negative impact on reliability since the chances of having issues that need to be addressed are now doubled. You will have two engines, two training and support systems, two supply chains, two of everything…doubling the likelihood that there will be issues in the field.

Past experience has proven that the best way to introduce a new engine into service is to first mature it on a two-engine fighter, then put it on a single engine aircraft. P&W has done it with the F119 on the F-22 which has more than 280,000 hours, is the safest most reliable fighter engine ever fielded, and serves as the basis for the F135 on the single engine F-35.

Safety of flight should be a “spin free” zone, because nothing is more serious in the life-or-death world of supersonic fighter aircraft. Funding the F136 may have made sense early in the F-35 program, before the F135 had proven itself. But with 10 years of development, more than 17,000 test hours, Initial Service Release, initial production deliveries, and full up STOVL operations in the rear view mirror, it is clear the F135 is fulfilling its assigned mission flawlessly. Having an insurance policy is fine when you’re unsure of the future. But the future of the F135 is now, and it’s demonstrating day in and day out that it’s ready for the mission to power the F-35. It’s time to cancel that costly, unnecessary insurance policy

-- EagleBlogger

Three Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

2010-04-12T10:32:00.004-04:00

Part 1 of 3: Competition

Backers of the unnecessary and unwanted alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have put forth three main messages to justify the billions of dollars spent to date on the development of the F136, and the $2.9 billion necessary to actually ready this redundant, back-up engine for competition with the lead Pratt & Whitney F135 engine.. And though all three claims sound compelling and make good sound bites, they simply don’t withstand much scrutiny when measured against actual facts.

Today, we’ll address myth number one: that competition lowers cost, while also increasing reliability and contractor responsiveness.

Let’s start with the facts: every fighter, bomber, cargo, attack, surveillance, tanker, trainer aircraft and military helicopter developed during the last 30 years has been procured with a single engine supplier. The illustrious roster of aircraft includes the B-1, B-2, B-52, C-5, C-17, C130, F-117, F/A-18, F-14, F-15, F-22, A-10, T-38, U-2, E-6, KC-135, UH-60, AH-64 and Global Hawk. In each case, one supplier was entrusted to power a vital platform in the defense of freedom. We’ve delivered on those promises, and so has the competition.

Next, I would remind readers that multiple competitions have already taken place. Going head to head against the GE F120, the Pratt & Whitney F119, who shares it’s heritage with the F135, won the competition to power the F-22 in the early 1990s. Then, the F135 was chosen over the F136 as the preferred powerplant of both Joint Strike Fighter finalists, Boeing’s X-32 and Lockheed Martin’s X-35. When the latter won the final down-select, the F135 went forward as the chosen propulsion system as well.

As we’ve noted in the past, numerous government and independent studies have failed to substantiate opposition claims that competition yielded real savings on the split F-16 buy. A 1989 assessment titled “Competition in Defense Procurement” by Donald Pilling from the Studies in Defense Policy, concluded that savings can only be found if you don’t include the initial development costs of the competing engine. For that reason, splitting the F-16 engine buy never produced cost savings.

Why don’t the rules of consumerism apply? Because military aircraft engines are not commodities; their complex development cannot operate in a “bargain basement” free market when lives are at stake. The U.S. has learned this lesson several times. Following the cold war, Congress drove the price of submarines sky high by legislating competition in the submarine market. In order to avoid those costly mistakes again, the US Government generally does not compete major weapon systems programs after a winning design is selected. It’s even worse for the lead and alternate engine for the F-35 since by design, the engines are identical. Splitting that buy might drive overall costs up, as all parties strive to ensure profitability in light of lower unit sales that impact the entire supply chain.

However, one important lesson we can learn from the free market about competition is that it is usually customer-driven. Yet, none of the F-35’s primary customers want an alternative engine: not President Bush, President Obama, Secretary of Defense Gates, or the leadership of the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Air Force or the international partner countries.

Concerned about unnecessary costs associated with duplication in manufacturing and test facilities, training and logistics systems, and knowing this is a “buy to budget” world stressed with urgent fiscal needs to support two ongoing wars, the Joint Program Office has stated that 50 F-35 jets might have to be sacrificed to continue funding the alternative engine. Even worse, any future Component Improvement Program dollars and future performance upgrade program dollars will either be split between two engines, lessening their impact, or have to be doubled at the expense of something else in the DoD budget. To return the $2.9B of additional investment in the alternate engine, each and every F136 would have to be produced for $1-2 million less than the F135, in order for the government to even have a hope of breaking even in 30 years or so. These assumptions, as both Ash Carter and Secretary Gates have pointed out, are unrealistic.

Supporters of the backup engine also argue that competition yields non-monetary benefits such as increased safety, reliability and contractor responsiveness. These points can, once again, be entirely refuted in the F119/F-22 story. Before the dust had even settled on the “Great Engine War,” the U.S. Government awarded Pratt & Whitney the sole-source contract to power the F-22, after a head to head competition with GE. Not only is the F119 engine the safest, most reliable fighter engine ever fielded, the Performance Based Logistics contract under which the program is executed incentivizes the contractor to perform. The F119 has met its cost targets, safety and reliability targets, readiness targets, and the customer is very satisfied. This success story has been ongoing for the last 19 years. To get to the “Great Engine War,” you have to skip over these 19 years of exceptional engine safety and reliability, as well as very responsive and customer-focused program execution on behalf of Pratt & Whitney.

Gen Schwartz said it best when he said, “we’re not in the 1980s any longer, where high performance engines had suspect reliability.” His case in point was that DoD decided to develop only one engine for the F/A-18 and F-22 aircraft. Today’s jet engines are safe and reliable right out of the box. Improvements in safety and reliability come from continued investment in trouble shooting and fixing field problems. Also, contractor responsiveness can be ensured through the use of any of a number of proven, effective contracting tools to incentivize excellent contractor performance which is billions cheaper then funding a duplicative alternate engine.
On the tails of the college basketball playoffs, it should be easy to appreciate that a losing team doesn’t get an endless series of do-overs. That’s especially true when they will cost the taxpayer nearly $3 billion on top of what’s already been wasted at the expense of our warfighters with precious little to show when all is said and done.

-- EagleBlogger

No More Rose-Tinted Glasses

2010-03-23T14:40:00.003-04:00

One of the great myths continuing to swirl around the F-35 engine debate is that continuation of the latest so-called competition (readers will remember that both F-35 airframer finalists chose the F135 over the F136 years ago) will ultimately save U.S. taxpayers through lower acquisition and sustainment costs.

Yet, independent analyses by multiple federal entities state the numbers just don’t add up. That was true in the 2007 Cost Analysis Improvement Group (CAIG) report from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and it’s even more striking in light of the 2010 Cost Assessment Program Evaluation (CAPE) update.

The original CAIG report presumed competitive pricing of two engines would occur in 2014, with immediate cost savings to be augmented by others in later production. Yet, even under these conditions, the DoD concluded that on a net present value basis, the F136 would cost an additional $1.2 billion and the potential life-cycle cost-savings were not compelling.

Now in 2010, CAPE Director Christine Fox maintains that even with the additional Congressional funding to date, another $2.9 billion will be needed to get the F136 to true competition in 2017, three years later than previously planned. Recognition of that multi-billion dollar figure is important, because lower ones quoted by supporters of the alternate engine underestimate the inevitable challenges lying ahead for the F136 team, and misleadingly omit tooling, logistical support and other inherent costs associated with bringing the alternate engine into production.

So, at this pivotal stage in the F-35’s funding stream, and in light of how billions could be better spent just about anywhere else, the CAPE update concludes the following: a two-engine program is at best at the breakeven point on a net present value basis and any lifecycle cost savings still do not make a compelling business case for the additional $2.9 billion expenditure. In fact, the net present value breakeven point would not occur until 2035 and would require average engine unit cost savings of 21%. This means the alternate engine would have to be priced $2 million lower. This scenario is improbable at best, and more than likely impossible. Classic competitive forces are not going to produce that type of savings.

Moreover, this breakeven proposition is highly optimistic as it presumes a seamless transition to production based on lessons learned from the F135, as well as an efficient mix of engines in the competitive buy. The latter point is especially troubling because very few customers will purchase from both F-35 engine teams. Thus, rather than true competition, the likely result from continuing the F136 funding stream is the cannibalization of engine orders between two supply chains mitigating any “pie in the sky” out-year savings.

The antidote to all this uncertainty is an F135 that leverages the proven F119 heritage, has now retired more than 90 percent of program risk, achieved more than 13,000 test hours, nearly completed SDD deliveries and already made its first production deliveries. A single engine program, the norm for military fixed- and rotary-wing programs during the past 30 years, will maximize dollars allocated for future safety and performance enhancements and achieve more supply chain efficiencies than an inefficient dual-track approach.

At the end of the day, it is fiscal responsibility, not politics that continues to drive unambiguous recommendations from President Obama and Defense Secretary Gates for Congress to discontinue funding the F136. The alternative: a $2.9 billion cost burden to be shouldered with no future benefit anticipated. Truly, this is a matter of dollars and sense.

--Eagleblogger

F135 Engine powers the F-35 to its first vertical landing

2010-03-18T15:55:00.001-04:00

From Lockheed Martin: “Today’s vertical landing onto a 95-foot square pad showed that we have the thrust and the control to maneuver accurately both in free air and in the descent through ground effect,” said F-35 Lead STOVL Pilot Graham Tomlinson.

Tomlinson performed an 80-knot (93 miles per hour) short takeoff from Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., at 1:09 p.m. EDT. About 13 minutes into the flight, he positioned the aircraft 150 feet above the airfield, where he commanded the F-35 to hover for approximately one minute then descend to the runway.

“The low workload in the cockpit contrasted sharply with legacy short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) platforms,” said Tomlinson.

F135 Engine achieves 1st short takeoff and hover

2010-03-18T10:13:00.003-04:00

From Defense News: "The aircraft hovered for about 96 seconds," said Chris Geisel, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin. "It then went up and down and turned right and left to check maneuverability before coming in for a slow 70 knot landing."

Graham Tomlinson, F-35 lead STOVL pilot, slowed the aircraft in flight from 200 knots, first to 60 knots, then to zero.

The Week That Was: March 8-12

2010-03-18T10:01:00.000-04:00

Perhaps the adage that March “comes in like a lion” applies to more than just weather. That’s certainly what happened the week of March 8. Seemingly overnight, the F-35 engine debate heated up, driven by significant budgetary and programmatic scrutiny.

The week began with a Monday, March 8th issue brief from Dr. Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, who encapsulated the issue of alternate F-35 engine funding by reinforcing at least five key points. First, $2.9 billion will be needed in the near term to develop the alternative F136 engine, while predicted savings over the long term are based on highly optimistic assumptions that may never pan out. Second, most modern military aircraft are developed with just one engine supplier and fleet-wide groundings almost never occur. Third, the still nascent F136 is the more likely of the two engines to suffer a significant problem, based on its protracted development and troubled performance to date. Fourth, two engines won’t bolster reliability because operations, maintenance and even future technology improvement funds would be split between two incompatible systems. Lastly, neither the taxpayer nor the F-35 customers would be well served to support two supply chains, when one has clearly outperformed the latter.

This last point takes us to a couple of mid-week articles that initially reported some inaccurate cost figures for the F135. The bottom line: there are no new cost overruns on the F135 engine, and any additional expenses are tied to ongoing restructuring of the entire F-35 program. The federal government continues to express confidence in Pratt & Whitney’s cost reduction strategy, which is illustrated by an 11% drop in the LRIP-4 contract offering. Additional double-digit cost reductions are projected for future lots as well.

These proven savings stand in start contrast to the revisionist claims of those supporting a repeat of the “Great Engine War” of the 1980s. In a February 23rd memo to House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep Ike Skelton, Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn wrote, “While much has been made of this example, the facts tell a more nuanced and inconclusive story. There were only minimal reductions in the acquisition unit cost price of the engines purchased for the F-15 and F-16 programs. Accordingly, it is difficult to cite this example to justify substantial savings due to competition.”

During a Wednesday, March 12th press conference, Undersecretary of Defense Ashton Carter reiterated the Defense Department’s concern regarding “hypothesized savings” for the F136 engine based on “some very optimistic assumptions that we don't think it is reasonable to accept.” And if recouping sunk costs doesn’t hold much allure, neither does the prospect of a second engine on technical grounds.

"We are not in the 1980s any longer, where high-performance engines had suspect reliability," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton A. Schwartz said. And he reiterated that only the U.S. Air Force is likely to buy from both engine manufacturers. "The Navy is not going to have two engines aboard ship," he said. "Our international partners are not going to have two engines. So the reality is that if we have an alternate engine and if there is a mandate for that, that obligation will ride primarily on the Air Force."

A disadvantageous “directed buy” scenario outlined by Undersecretary Carter and General Schwartz brings us to Gen. (Ret.) John Michael Loh, former commander of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command. In a Defense News editorial published on March 15th, General Loh brought up yet another important issue, stating “Air Combat Command will not receive its first operational F-35s with alternate engines until 2017. In my experience, putting an immature engine on a single engine fighter in high-rate production will result in many unnecessary, perhaps fatal, accidents while the new engine plods through its inevitable infant mortality phase.”

Above and beyond any potential safety of flight issues is the historical fact that two engines impact every facet of operations. “My firsthand experience with the F-16, after the introduction of the alternate engine, showed it limited operational flexibility significantly,” wrote General Loh. “It restricted decisions on basing because all F-16s at a base had to have the same engine, and it limited choices for deploying units for the same reason. Maintenance training and logistics support were more costly and complex.”

So, whether your primary concern is responsible government spending, empowering our military to accomplish their mission, or a combination of the two, the conclusion is the same: the F135 remains the best solution for the F-35 now and for the future.

Space: The Final Frontier

2010-03-12T08:53:00.001-05:00

With all due respect to the late Gene Roddenberry, Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan (to name a few luminaries), there are some parts of the universe where space is definitely finite.

One of those dimensionally challenged domains is the interior of an aircraft carrier. Inefficient space utilization simply isn’t an option, yet that’s what would happen if the Navy were forced to stock spare parts and tools for two completely different engines powering the F-35C fleet.

The Pentagon’s Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Gary Roughead went on record repeatedly last summer against the F136 alternative engine, including telling Congressional Quarterly last June, “Space is at a premium. Therefore you can put me solidly in the one-engine camp.” The same concern is even more acute aboard the U.S. Marine Corps’ amphibious assault ships, the future seaborne home of the F-35B STOVL version.

In testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 25, 2010, Admiral Roughead reiterated his concerns.

“One can look at a carrier and see a very large ship, but when that ship is deployed we have things packed in almost every nook and cranny in order to provide that reliability and responsiveness,” he said. “So having to stock two different types of engines is just not practical for us.”

So, if F-35B and F-35C aircraft destined for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps will be powered by the Pratt & Whitney F135 – based on the clearest of Pentagon intentions stated above, plus the insurmountable development and production lead the F135 has over the F136 – then the latter team must surely be pinning their hopes on the U.S. Air Force and select foreign customers.

This merging reality completely undermines the so-called “competition” argument on at least two fronts.

First, at least two of the three U.S. services will have a single engine fleet, powered by the F135 that continues to retire risk as we’ve previously discussed, while the F136 gets pushed farther to the right due to developmental and budgetary difficulties. The reliability and safety of the F135 is a known quantity, further validated with every hour of accumulating flight time, compared to the still developmental F136. Moreover, history has proven that the best way to introduce a single engine fighter into the fleet is to first mature the engine on a two engine airplane. The F119 powering the twin-engine F-22 has done just that, accumulating more than 275,000 hours and is the most successful fighter engine ever fielded. This proven F119 platform forms the core of the F135. The successful performance of the F135 is built on the long legacy of safety, maturity and unmatched performance established by the F119.

The other important issue remains cost. We’ll give Admiral Roughead the final word, quoting again from his February 25th testimony, “The costs associated with the alternate engine in my opinion would simply continue to pressurize a program that is already being pressurized for a variety of reasons. So from the perspective of the Navy and the support that I render to the Marine Corps and their Joint Strike Fighter…my recommendation has been and will continue to be one engine, because that’s what serves us the best.”

-- Eagleblogger

F135 Engine a step closer to first vertical landing

2010-03-11T15:07:00.003-05:00

Test pilot Graham Tomlinson guides the supersonic F-35B Lightning II stealth fighter in a 40-knot (46 mph) flight above Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., then descends for a 75-knot (86 mph) slow landing. The flight on Wednesday, March 10 , was one of the last missions before the aircraft's first vertical landing. The F-35B features a shaft-driven lift fan propulsion system that produces more than 41,000 pounds of vertical thrust, enabling airspeeds from zero to Mach 1.6. F-35B customers include the U.S. Marine Corps, the United Kingdom's Royal Air Force and Royal Navy, and the Italian Air Force and Navy.

New Issue Brief on the Alternate Engine

2010-03-08T13:01:00.003-05:00

Defense analyst Loren Thompson has posted a new issue brief on the Joint Strike Fighter today noting that the "the key to its success is holding down the cost of the fighters so that all potential users can afford to buy them."

Thompson says a major obstacle to keeping costs down is the billion alternate engine program that has been added by Congress that both the Bush and Obama administrations have found to be a waste of money. According to the brief, the DoD will have to spend a minimum of $2.9 billion beyond what has already been spent to finish developing the engine even though it will have no net financial benefit.

The issue brief also takes a clear eyed look at the so-called "non-financial" benefits offered by alternate engine proponents and finds them lacking.

The full post can be found here.

Much Ado About Something

2010-03-04T14:16:00.002-05:00

Milestones may be commonplace in the aerospace and defense industry, but some are patently more significant than others. Last week saw one such illustrious milestone; but, enough with the suspense.

Pratt & Whitney has achieved Initial Service Release (ISR) for the Conventional Take Off and Landing/Carrier Variant (CTOL/CV) F135 engine powering the F-35 Lightning II. Simply put, ISR means that the F135 meets all safety, reliability and performance parameters for operational use by U.S. and allied warfighters. The F135 engine, the beneficiary of the heritage of the F119 engine powering the F-22, has achieved more than 13,000 test hours and roughly 200 flight hours, and has thus proven itself to the F-35 Joint Program Office and all who rely on its oversight and expertise.

The ISR designation marks the culmination of the CTOL/CV System Development and Demonstration program, during which Pratt & Whitney delivered 17 flight test engines, as well as the first production F135 engine. The final Short Take Off and Vertical Landing (STOVL) flight test engine will be delivered in a few short weeks, while an F-35B continues short landing testing leading up to its first vertical landing. Such steady progress may not generate lots of headlines, but we think quiet competence and consistent performance speaks for itself.

Also last week, the Department of Defense unambiguously reiterated their firm opposition to the F136 alternate engine development program, still in its nascent form yet already having cost the taxpayers billions of dollars.

“The secretary [Gates] has made it clear to you all, and he's made it clear to the Congress time and time again, that the pursuit of a second engine, in his estimation, is a colossal waste of money, and that it will not result in any competition between companies,” said Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell on February 25. “The so-called great engine wars of the '80s, which…revisionist history would suggest…resulted in some great savings to the taxpayer. I think the actual analysis shows that, if there was a benefit, it was negligible.”

So the contrast is crystal clear. Morrell added, “It's $4 billion that we can't afford to spend, on things that we don't need or are duplicative. We need that money to support our warfighters in the fights they are in now.”

President Obama and Secretary Gates have reaffirmed a veto threat if wasteful F136 funding continues. Congress has the opportunity to fulfill its most basic obligation: direct scarce taxpayer dollars where they will do the most good without needlessly endangering the entire budgetary process. And in light of Initial Service Release for the CTOL/CV F135 and continued progress towards the first vertical landing of the STOVL version – what better argument can be made for the performance of this engine and its readiness to serve?

-- Eagleblogger

Pentagon spokesman on the F136: "This money can clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our warfighters do need."

2010-02-26T10:04:00.008-05:00

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell spoke to reporters about the alternate engine at yesterday's briefing. Calling the F136 a "colossal waste of money", Morrell reiterated that an alternate engine will cost taxpayers an additional $3 billion and is a "luxury we cannot afford".

Highlights are below and the full transcript is here.

"The secretary has made it clear to you all, and he's made it clear to the Congress time and time again, that the pursuit of a second engine, in his estimation, is a colossal waste of money, and that it will not result in any competition between companies."

"The so-called great engine wars of the '80s, which, you know, despite how -- you know, revisionist history would suggest that it resulted in some great savings to the taxpayer. I think the actual analysis shows that, if there was a benefit, it was negligible."

"There is -- to complete that engine would cost us another $2.9 billion. So we're looking at $4.2 billion being spent on an engine that we believe is not necessary and that likely will have the same problems in development that the Pratt & Whitney engine has already had, and that this money can clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our warfighters do need. This is a luxury we cannot afford."

"And it is such a redline with the secretary that he announced to you up front when he rolled out this budget that it is no longer a conditional veto recommendation on his part, regardless of whether it impacts the overall program or not."

"It's $4 billion that we can't afford to spend, on things that we don't need or are duplicative. We need that money to support our warfighters in the fights they are in now. That's what our focus is on."

Caveat emptor: The cost no taxpayer should bear

2010-02-23T11:44:00.005-05:00

You might think that consensus in Washington is rarer than snow at this month’s Winter Olympics, yet there is at least one topic that has consistently elicited a surprising level of unity among objective policymakers and analysts: the need to avoid billions of dollars of wasteful taxpayer spending on the alternative F136 engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.

Two successive administrations representing both major parties and two of three congressionally mandated studies in 2007 have all reached the same conclusion: a so-called competition between the proven F135 engine now soaring in flight as it powers the F-35 Lightning II flight test program and the redundant F136 alternate engine will cost far more than it might ever save, even under the rosiest of scenarios. (The third study concluded that savings would be possible, but only under highly favorable conditions that do not exist today.)

On top of the $3 billion invested since 1996 to create a developmental F136 engine that has suffered four failures in fewer than 100 hours of testing, the alternate engine team says it needs “less than $1 billion” more, while Pratt & Whitney agrees with the Department of Defense estimates that it will cost an additional $3 billion over the next five years. The DoD can explain their models, but suffice it to say that ours are based on the experience of developing and now delivering our second fifth generation fighter engine, including the proven F119 that powers every F-22.

What the F136 manufacturer does not wish to highlight, is that this additional $1-3B (depending on whose math you believe) will still not result in an engine that is ready for competition against the F135. The additional billions will only fund the F136 through development. But the escalating costs of the F136 won’t end with development. Production and sustainment, another area for which Pratt & Whitney can comfortably speak from a position of experience, will cost the F136 team – and by extension every U.S. taxpayer – hundreds of millions of dollars more.

Meanwhile, Pratt & Whitney continues to bring the F135 price down, not because of a perceived “competitive threat” from a notional F136, but because program maturation and rigorous supply chain management will deliver lower prices with increasing quantities of fielded engines, just like it did on the F119. In fact, our most recent proposal to the government for F135 engines offers them a double digit percentage drop in price, as well as reduced risk of cost overruns.

In addition to misrepresenting the costs remaining to fund the alternate engine to the point of being "competitive", advocates for an alternate engine would also have Congress and others believe that if engine orders were split between two suppliers, the cost of these highly engineered power plants, built with the most sophisticated materials to the tightest tolerances, would decrease even faster than the already proven economies of scale derived from a single, successful design, as was proven on the F119. This misleading notion is also tethered to what the alternate engine proponents refers to as a $100 billion market for the F-35 engine. This is a gross exaggeration and includes spares and sustainment costs that simply can’t be competed.

Again, all of this could be considered conjecture were it not for the reasoned analysis of two presidential administrations, the Department of Defense and numerous other independent studies. And whether the additional cost of the F136 is “just” another billion or more like $2.5 billion, increasingly scarce taxpayer funds will bypass countless worthy causes for an unwanted, duplicative engine with absolutely no military requirement.

The snow may have returned to Vancouver by then, but the Games will be long gone.

Another notable first

2010-02-04T09:23:00.004-05:00

As much of the aerospace community gathers in Singapore for the biennial air show there, Pratt & Whitney marked the occasion by announcing the delivery of the first F135 production engine for the F-35. This major milestone, following close on the heels of the first in flight engagement of the STOVL propulsion system, unequivocally demonstrates the continued maturation of the F135. A strong heritage from the F119 engine powering the F-22-powering, and more than 13,000 test hours have enabled this first delivery of the world’s most advanced fifth generation fighter engine, one that will serve U.S. and allied forces for decades to come.

Meanwhile closer to home, much of the news centers on President Obama’s proposed Fiscal Year 2011 budget. The language urging the termination of the F136 alternative engine program is crystal clear, and represents the fifth consecutive attempt under administrations of both major parties to cancel the F136.

So what’s changed since FY ’07 when the request to cancel alternate engine funding was first made? In addition to the undisputed progress of the F135, as well as our nation’s clear and present economic crisis, the White House, in their budget proposal released last week said that the alternative engine “is no longer needed to prepare against the potential failure of the main JSF engine program…because development of the main engine is progressing well.” Moreover, “financial benefits, such as savings from competition, have been assessed to be small, if they exist at all, because of the high cost of developing, producing, and maintaining a second engine.”

Answering questions during a February 1 press conference, Defense Secretary Gates pledged to “strongly recommend that the president veto any legislation that sustains the unnecessary continuation” of the F136, along with an unrelated program. Simply put, he said, “The level of cost is such now that we have to take a final stand.”

Despite the challenges of developing a new fighter aircraft, Secretary Gates remains bullish on the F-35, stating “it is on track to become the backbone of U.S. air superiority for the next generation.” A single, proven F135 propulsion system is now playing its full part: benefitting the taxpayers with a proven pedigree, rigorous testing, decreasing cost, and now a smooth transition to production. Who says good news is hard to find?

-- Eagleblogger