HASC Boosts Second JSF Engine

HASC Boosts Second JSF Engine

By Colin Clark Friday, June 12th, 2009 1:00 pm
Posted in Air, Land, Naval, Policy

Wary of the Pentagon’s wholehearted commitment to the presumed success of the Joint Strike Fighter, House lawmakers have fenced and moved program funding to ensure the Pentagon builds a second jet engine.

“The issue is that we do not believe that it is prudent for up to 80 to 90 percent of the fighter fleet to be dependent on a single engine type, provided by one manufacturer. Being tied to one engine is too high an operational risk to take,” Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), chairman of the panel, said in his opening statement this morning.

The House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee took the action in its markup this morning, continuing the years-long congressional commitment to a second engine program. This continues one of the defense world’s favorite games of chicken. The Pentagon argues it doesn’t need the second engine, built by General Electric and Rolls Royce, because it costs too much. The Pentagon knows all along, of course, that Congress is deeply worried that sticking to one engine poses too much cost, technical and schedule risks for such an important program.


Overall, the HASC subcommittee stripped only $10 million from the Pentagon’s JSF request. But it moved $603 million within the program to fund the second engine, $463 million for RDT and E and $140 million for procurement, according to a congressional staffer. Of that $35 million is for long lead items needed for the engine. In years past, the Pentagon has not spent long lead money for the engine, arguing the money just wasn’t in the budget.

During the later seapower subcommittee markup, two significant measures were included in the draft bill.

First, my colleague Megan Scully at CongressDaily broke the story this morning that Rep. Gene Taylor, who has slammed the LCS program repeatedly for being way too expensive, is relenting and will lift a $460 million cost cap he imposed on the ship. Megan’s sources tell her that taking government costs out of the cap will add about $62 million to the ship’s legally allowable cost.

If the Navy can’t hit the $460 million cap –with the government costs stripped out of it — then Taylor will force the service to open the competition up to competition beyond Lockheed and General Dynamics, the current builders.

Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.), top GOP member on the panel, pushed for and got rarely-granted multi-year procurement authority for the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

The provision also encourages the Pentagon (and appropriators) to include $108 million for advanced procurement to reduce the overall cost per aircraft in the fleet. This would probably cover 150 aircraft over five years. However, the Pentagon remains adamant that the country does not need more Super Hornets, just as it refuses to release a PA and E study that details how the military reached that conclusion.

Join the Conversation

DC2 Jennings June 12th, 2009 at 2:12 pm

Does the F-18C/D/E/F have two different engines? What about the F-22? So the reasoning behind the second enjine no longer hold water.

Am I reading this correctly? The Navy wants to provide advanced procurement for up to 150 F-18E/Fs? That is huge, especially with regards to the JSF filling the Navy’s combat aircraft gap.

DC2

Charles Phillips, LtCol USAF Ret June 12th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

I don’t think that Air Force fighters have two different engines though it would provide a lot of flexibility. I know the F-15 uses the Pratt & Whitney F-100 and the F-16 uses the GE F-110.

And the Navy would like to have more F/A-18s but is probably right when they feel that money used to buy them would be taken away from the next aircraft type. Certainly the F/A-18 would go right to work — no waiting for trained mechanics to be produced, no waiting for spare parts to appear. But no one ever got promoted for buying more of an existing aircraft (etc)!! You get promoted by ramming a new program thru the system. Of course exceptions do occur.

Steve June 12th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

F-18’s have only the GE F404 although the E/F uses an upgraded version of that engine. The F-22 uses only the P&W. F-15’s have traditionally used the P&W F100 although the Koreans bought a version of the F-15E they call the F-15K and the first 44 airframes used the GE F-110–225. The second batch of 40 or so F-15Ks will be fitted with the P&W F100-220. The reasoning behind switching was due to a bidding war between GE and P&W. GE lost. Singapore just bought a version of the F-15E and selected the GE F110. Saudia F-15 C’s are being re-engined with the GE F110-225 which will replace the P&W F100’s.
The F-16 uses both the GE and P&W engines. This was the result of the great engine war back in the 1990’s.
Having two contractors build engines for a common single engine airframe is valuable because any design or age related failure could render a fleet grounded or at best partially mission capable. The USG has benefited from dual source on the F-16 program just from a unit cost standpoint.
Probably more than you wanted to know but I have alot of experience on both the 404 and 110 programs.

Daniel June 13th, 2009 at 7:44 am

I heard about the Super Hornets study. I think it is based on available carrier decks, and current mission load.

Then again procurement is a dark process so anyone but the vendors and the requisition officers only see.

Also, the US has always had a back up provider for engines. We had one for the F-8, the A-7, the A-5, I could go on.

Daniel
Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup​.com

Gary June 15th, 2009 at 8:48 pm

Steve brought up many great points. However; we are talking about Congress. They only care about votes and people with jobs will re-elect their congressman. So we will have GE and P&W engines for the JSF because it spreads the wealth to more states.

ReconTeam June 23rd, 2009 at 2:39 am

Yet how did GE fall so “behind” on this, in terms of needing all of this extra funding? The GE F120 developed for the ATF (which lost to the P&W F119) was by most accounts a powerful and capable engine. And, just as the P&W F135 has been developed from the P&W F119 the GE F136 is said to be developed from the GE F120? So why are they having so much trouble?

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement