JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER - MYTHS VS. FACTS
THE ALTERNATE (EXTRA) ENGINE FOR THE F-35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
“When every dollar spent on excess overhead or unneeded programs – such as the extra engine for the JSF – is a dollar not available to support our troops and prepare for threats on the horizon.”
– Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, January 6, 2011
Both the Defense Department and the Administration have decided that Pratt & Whitney’s F135 is the right engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. General Electric’s extra engine is the “epitome of senseless government waste, diverting resources away from other important military projects and expenditures that keep the nation and our troops safe and secure,” said Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste. Funded with earmarks since 2004, the extra engine has been called the “engine that wouldn’t die.” Here are some of the more blatant myths that have been perpetuated by our competitor, followed by the Pratt & Whitney position.
Myth: The F-35 engine business is a $100 billion monopoly to P&W.
Fact: According to GAO, the accurate number is $60 billion, with half for sustainment (to be done mostly at government depots). That leaves P&W’s “monopoly” at around $40 billion. Of this, about $20 billion (for installs and initial spares) would be available for competition.
Myth: GAO says that F-35 engine competition will save $20 billion.
Fact: GAO says nothing of the kind. The closest GAO comes to a savings estimate is that “it may be reasonable to expect savings of” 10%-12%. Applied to the $20 billion available for competition, the maximum savings would be $2.4 billion over a full 25 years of production. In reality, there will be no savings. The extra cost of fielding two engines, with an average 50/50 split buy every year, will outweigh any potential savings.
Myth: The F-16 engine competition, 25 years ago, saved 21%.
Fact: No study or analysis has concluded that any savings were produced in this dual source procurement. The Air Force officials who created the dual source buy predicted savings of 21% in overall life cycle costs compared to their baseline estimate. Their prediction did not materialize.
Myth: Continuation of the alternate engine will create jobs.
Fact: The F136 will create no net job increase. At full production, there may be 4,000 jobs supporting F-35 engines, many of which are with vendors common to both P&W and GE/Rolls Royce. Funding the F136 will simply move jobs from New England to Ohio and the UK.
Myth: P&W’s F135 has overrun its System Development and Demonstration (SDD) contract by $2.5 billion.
Fact: Of the $2.5 billion, $1.7 billion is associated with new government-directed scope. Of the remaining $800 million, approximately one-third is attributed to the lift system hardware developed by Rolls Royce as a subcontractor to P&W.
Myth: Competition was good in 1985, so it must be good today.
Fact: The DoD wanted a second engine 25 years ago because it was dissatisfied with the primary engine for the F-16. Today, the department is satisfied with the primary engine for the F-35 and does not want a second engine – a fact asserted on a regular basis by the Secretary of Defense.
Myth: Having two engines could prevent a fleet grounding due to a design flaw in the primary engine.
Fact: No tactical aircraft fleet has been grounded for engine design issues in the last 30 years. The 2,000 F/A-18s and 5,000 H-60s, all with GE sole-source engines, are a good example.
“Despite vocal cries for austerity and belt-tightening on Capitol Hill, Congress and the White House, budget officials have quietly continued to pay for the development of a multi-billion-dollar military jet engine the Pentagon says it doesn't need and the defense secretary himself called a wasteful boondoggle.”
– ABC News, Jan. 21, 2011
