White House reaffirms veto threat against extra engine

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.

A Brief History Lesson

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

Another notable first

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