Pratt Floats Multiyear F135 Deal

Pratt Floats Multiyear F135 Deal

The head of Pratt & Whitney’s military engine division says the best way for Congress and the Defense Department to save significant program dollars and to make the company perform the way they want it to is to consider a multi-year logistics deal.

In a wide-ranging discussion of the company’s intense battle with General Electric and Rolls Royce over the need for a second Joint Strike Fighter engine, Warren Boley told DoD Buzz the best way to build incentives into the program would be a performance-based logistics contract.

Today, the Pentagon issues support contracts for each low rate initial production lot, he said


“The great engines war was to the 20th century what performance-based logistics are to the 21st century. Have Pratt commit in a contract to levels of readiness that have financial incentives and disincentives to drive behavior,” Boley said. “You can do that inside a contract. You don’t have to develop an alternate engine. There are much more precise and cost-effective solutions to get the performance you want.”

Congress has repeatedly funded the GE/RR alternate engine, arguing that the F-16 engine wars proved that competition meant the taxpayer and the military got engines that performed better and cost less.

“There are more elegant solutions to lock in the behavior you want than the second great engine war,” the Pratt executive said.

Boley said he met with senior congressional aides from the House Armed Services Committee last week and pressed Pratt’s case.  telling them “about the true return on investment, the true price targets.” Those discussions, he believed, were “eye-opening to them.”

In remarks directed right at the congressional aides who have championed the alternative engine program, Boley said a PBL contract would work better: “If you still are concerned about performance and attitude and arrogance – caveat emptor– there are more effective ways to address that.…Use those kinds of solutions, which are the price of a well-written contract, versus the price of developing an alternate engine. America will save billions of dollars.”

The elements of a PBL will be presented to Pentagon in the “next few months,” he said.

[Full disclosure: Pratt flew us to Hartford and paid for our hotel.]

Join the Conversation

Buy a whole bunch of motors for a grossly under-tested airframe. Great plan.

Yet again though–not brought up in any Hill discussions–is the JSF memorandum of agreement (updated in Dec2009) which states this:

“6.2.2 The Participants may designate the F135, the F136, or both in their PPRs in such quantities and in accordance with such delivery schedules as they require.”

If DOD is so much for having only one engine source…surely they could have gotten this mention of a second engine source killed in the latests JSF memorandum of agreement for all partner countries. They didn’t. Why?

The British from memory, and someone can tell me if I am wrong, have said if the GE/RR engine is pulled, they will pull out of the JSF. The British, and European, aircraft industries would benefit from it and it is not too late to modify the Queen Elizabeth Class for a catapult and arresting gear. Perthaps that was the reason behind the two-year delay. Whitehall prfeerred the Australian Air Power analysis of the program over Lackheed Martin’s.

Just some interesting trivia for those that may not know… the STOVL verison of the PW motor has Rolls/Royce made lift appliances.…

REALLY!??!?!!? NO WAY!!

A multiyear contract for the F-135 engine (which is normally expected to save 10% or greater from ordering parts economically from supplieres) bears no relationship to the alternative F-136 engine. Both can be ordered under multiyear contracts, savings us taxpayers money. The government contracting for major components was a big thing back in the 1980’s, when the prime contractors weren’t willing to help.

The more telling thing is that the P&W announcement comes after all the commentary that the GE/RR engine may actually be the far better engine from a technology perspective.

Let me see, the head of Pratt & Whitney’s military engine division says the best way for Congress and the Defense Department to save significant program dollars and to make the company perform the way they want it to is to consider a multi-year logistics deal. What a concept Mr. Smart Guy…why didn’t P&W suggest this three or four years ago? In case you don’t know Mr. Boley, a PBL has been in the mix for the JSF for a long time…so, I hate to burst your bubble if everyone already knows about a PBL and what it can and cannot do.

I especially like this quote from Mr. Boley “The great engines war was to the 20th century what performance-based logistics are to the 21st century. Have Pratt commit in a contract to levels of readiness that have financial incentives and disincentives to drive behavior. “You can do that inside a contract. You don’t have to develop an alternate engine. There are much more precise and cost-effective solutions to get the performance you want.” Nicely said Mr. Boley, too bad P&W did not take your advice earlier or have a “firm fixed price’ contract earlier which also could have persuaded some “behavior”. How’s this scenario Mr. Boley? How about the USG making the F136 a “Program of Record” which will allow for competition AND pursue a PBL for BOTH engines? If logic serves me correctly, the USG and all the FMS partners can double there so called savings which you are proposing under a sole-source PBL. You guys amaze me and the rest in the defense industry with your arrogance. The American people and those in Defense Acquisition are not stupid or born yesterday. You guys are desperate and running scared about this F136 engine and it shows.

I especially like what Mr. Boley states next: “Boley said he met with senior congressional aides from the House Armed Services Committee last week and pressed Pratt’s case telling them “about the true return on investment, the true price targets.” Those discussions, he believed, were “eye-opening to them.” What was eye opening to the committee is the desperation that P&W is portraying in trying to cancel the F136 engine. I’m not sure what senior delegate aides Boley spoke to, but the majority has stated the alternate engine “will be” part of the JSF Program.

Mr. Boley, thanks again for bringing to light to all of us tax payers just how important it continues to be for the USG and its FMS partnering Nations to continue to pursue the alternate engine for the F35. Also, thanks for emphasizing the facts concerning the PBL which when coupled with competition (the F136 engine) will result in even greater cost savings and it will greatly improve performance and attitude and reduce arrogance. It’s this solution mix (PBL and Competition) along with a well-written contract, versus the price of developing a sole-source engine which will only DRAIN America of billions of dollars more, that will make the F35 a great Fighter Aircraft. Thanks for giving our Congress and Senate the information and fore-sight they need to pursue the alternate engine and introduce both Competition and the PBL into the Propulsion Competition for the F35.

GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!

There is no technology advantage to the GE engine, so much false propaganda from those who have a financial interest in the alternate engine. UK is not going to buy enough, if any, JSF to influence alternate engine. The arguement for a second engine, never very strong except as political pork, dies altogether as the price of JSF skyrockets. Far fewer JSF will be built than originally planned, as the total budgetary amount of money available for fighters is inelastic (fixed).

F18 is going to be purchased for many years to come as Navy will have to back out of JSF. So we need an alternate engine to the GEF414 — right?

Yep.…bring on the competition for the F18 Matt. Sorry, to burst your bubble, but the alternate engine is a shoe in. This country would never put its entire Fifth Generation Fighters (F22 and F35) in a position where they are being powered by basically the same engine. Too much commonality between the F119 and F135 cores which historically have been P&W’s downfall. From legacy HPC’s to LPT’s which have had uncontained failers, it would be absolutely insane to NOT have an alternate engine for the single engine F35. Everyone reads the press what this guy says and what that guy says and that Gates will push for a veto. There is too much wrapped up in the Defense Bill for the President to veto it for a program that is not even a bleep on the radar screen. Let the contractors speak their mind and let the Defense Secretary speak his mind (after all its his job, plus I think he is using the alternate engine as a bargaining chip) because at the end of the day its all worked out behind closed doors and at Washington’s favorite watering holes. If I was P&W, I would move on and use the lobbying money to improve the F135 engine because the F136 is breathing down its neck.

So, you work for GE or RR? Sorry to burst your bubble, you could be looking for a job as alternate engine and JSF both die.

How do you know this? Are you on the JPO staff…in a position to compare the designs? Do tell…

Just to be clear. There are financial savings from economic buys (multiyear contracts), whether at the prime or subcontractor level, regardless of whether you have one or two producers at nearly all production quantities.

Competition, on the other hand, drive outs the excess profits the government would otherwise pay a sole manufacturer. Those excess profits produce no value to either operational customer (the warfighter) or the taxpayer. But they are used by the sole manufacturer to pay outrageous bonus, meetings at exotic places, and support R&D for other useless products. Boley is running scared because he loses profits two ways: lost orders and shrinking profit margins.

The lift fan assy is a Rolls Royce product. The articulating exhaust nozzle is a P&W design that both the F135 and F136 can utilize as a common design.

GE has had PBL’s in place for 10 years on the F414 (F-18E/F). Both suppliers can offer such incentive based performance contracts and would go head to head in proposing their engines. Not sure why Pratt is trying to sell as something new or unique. Pratt was set back when GE offerred a fixed price contract 4 months ago vs the Cost plus contract Pratt’s been under for 20 years of F119 engine development that evolved into a F135 engine. The USAF keeps writing checks to Pratt to the tune of 5X original estimates to keep the F119 -> F135 engine program moving.

Roger,
Are you talking about the nozzle flare open wide/wider or the 90 degree nozzle turn down (which was actually a Russian design)?

To Matt51: I’m a consultant for Military Aviation and have been in the propuslion business for over 30 years. JSF will happen, it may not be the 2400 plus Aircraft for the USAF, Navy and Marines, but it will happen. You will see the contractors step up and start eating any overruns (not all, but surely the ones they are responsible for) in the future if they want to be part of the JSF Program. You will see PBL’s and firm fixed contracts too…if fact, it has already started. I’m right on the pulse in Washington and the F135 and F136 will be competing against each other come about 2014.

Which could actually mean something if 41 cents of every dollar in the federal budget wasn’t borrowed money.

The bulk of the F-35 fleet should really use the F135. But if we continue the F136 or go purely with the F135 should be decided soon.

Formula, which gas turbine companies did you work for in your thirty years? i am willing to bet GE or RR. I see no benefit to an alternate engine, but it is not a major program impact whether it is pursued or not. Having to maintain two engines on a carrier is a disadvantage.
Cost of the overall program is the primary issue.

you are incorrect sir — it is nt 90 degrees — get your facts correct. Itis not rusian design — I was there..

GE throws blades — good idea to spend taxpayer money on sub par performance and sub par quality — caulk, lightbulbs and financing are GE’s sweet spot..

Bravo –I agree and with a fixed number less than orignally budgeted for, the price will increase. from the very beginning of hte program, it has been about political posturing on alternate providers — the best technology won this one…

Legacy HPC & LPT — if only you knew trhe facts. Just another GE bigot trying to discredit P&W. If you look at the history of aerospace and bringing us into the future, there is only one real propulsion company and it is not GE nor RR.

*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