GE/RR Claims $20B JSF Savings

GE/RR Claims $20B JSF Savings

UPDATED: Hill Worries Gates Won’t Listen; Pratt Calls It “Distraction”

Clearly responding to the persistent heat from the Pentagon and to wavering support on Capitol Hill, the General Electric and Rolls Royce F136 consortium today announced a fixed price deal they say will save $1 billion over the next five years and $20 billion over the life of the Joint Strike Fighter program.

“Today, we are announcing a fixed-price offer for F136 engines purchased in 2012, followed by further price reductions for engines procured in each 2013 and 2014,” said David Joyce, president and CEO of GE Aviation. “We can create a competitive environment that will save the government $1 billion over the next five years, and $20 billion over the life of the JSF program.”


The GE/RR team claimed “more than 70 percent” of the engine’s development is complete and the engine “is poised for flight-testing next year.”

The company has already briefed the proposal to defense staff on both the appropriations and authorizing committees on Capitol Hill. I asked Joyce how they’ve reacted. His claim: “They are very supportive.”

One Hill aide was, in fact, supportive of the GE/RR offer, but worried that opposing the F136 has become a “manhood” issue for Defense Secretary Gates, who regularly threatens to recommend a presidential veto of any bill that funds the F-136.

“With engines, both contractors are falling all over themselves, seeking advantage – Pratt to keep GE out; GE, to get GE in the game with DoD. What worries me is that the DoD position has nothing to do with programmatics so nothing will change. This is about ego and manhood. Nothing factual or substantive can change the inertia and momentum of DoD. Every time I brief someone who doesn’t have a stake in the outcome, their brow furrows, and I get, ‘why is Gates taking this position?’ It is irrational and not likely to change.”

Competitor Pratt & Whitney issued a statement, calling the fixed price proposal a “distraction.”

“This belated offer and its timing, coming just prior to Congressional consideration, is simply a
distraction. The fact is the DoD and two Presidential administrations have said an alternate engine for the F-35 is not wanted or needed. There is no military requirement for it, which is why they have requested for the last five years that Congress stop funding it and that the money saved instead be spent instead on the things that actually keep our warfighters safe,” Pratt’s Erin Dick said in an email. “Spending an additional $2.9B to potentially save a billion is not a responsible use of taxpayers dollars. Pratt & Whitney will meet government savings and cost objectives, which is what we are successfully doing today.”

Join the Conversation

Don’t know why this is so big an issue. I think the government’s poisiton is clear, the cost of running two compettors would be many times greater than the “savings” projected from introducing competition. I don’t think it’s pig headed or “manhood” (some people have no shame), rather its double damned if you do, and damned if you don’t.

The real question is why we have sole source contracts for billions on equipment/devices no one HAS EVER BUILT. It’s like a game of who can tell the bigger lie, and the winner is the one who can tell the best story about how they’re going to build something radically new without a hitch.……and make some acquisition officer believe it.

pennst98, I like your analogy about the biggest liar. But competition at the Pentagon has always saved money. With the rest of the world forcing customer prices down through globalization, why not force defense contractors to price their products down, too. Once production gets going, there is always fat in the prices which can be wringed out. Why let the biggest liar keep all the profit?

Also, since engine issues are the greatest contributor to fleet groundings do we really want all TACAIR grounded WHEN THAT HAPPENS!

The US has never put itself in the position where a single aircraft or a single engine comprises such a large part of its total airpower. With the current plan a single problem with the airframe, flight controls, or engine could endanger our ability to effectively use airpower and create tremendous opportunity for any adversary.

Sometimes when you bet the farm you buy the farm.

Great idea. Let’s borrow money to save money– works for the President.

This whole program and ideal stinks. For decades we knew that you needed various types of aircraft for various operations.( primary heavy bomber — secondary fighter/interceptor VS primary fighter/interceptor — secondary medium or light bomber). they often flew in support of each other. Now the brass feels one aircraft can do it all????? Plus as mentioned before — if an issue arises all birds can be grounded with nothing to fall back on. should have kept the F14 and procured more replacements for the remaining aging birds rather than reducing thier funding to support this abortion. granted we will need next generation aircraft but not all at once and at this cost or requirements.

Well the two-engine thing might not matter as there is no way at this time the U.S. is going to see its 2400+ or JSF Partner nations are going to see their over 700+. The answer to those that think the F-35 is “affordable” is Nunn-McCurdy.

Given that, there is a lot of JSF history that PW would hope the unsuspecting public and clueless politician doesn’t know.

The first is the update to the JSF Memorandum of Agreement dated Dec 2009 that states JSF Partner nations can order either engine type as they see fit.

“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.”

The other is this 2001 DOD Contract.….

===

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 249–01
June 06, 2001
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER ENGINE AGREEMENT SIGNED

Officials from Pratt & Whitney (P&W) and GE Aircraft Engines (GEAE) today signed an agreement to work together on the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, to assure that both companies engines will be physically and functionally interchangeable across all three variants of the JSF aircraft.

Signing on behalf of P&W was Steve Finger, president, Military Engines; signing for GEAE was Russell Sparks, vice president and general manager, Military Engines. The agreement was co-signed by Darleen Druyun and Paul Schneider, acquisition executives for the U.S. Air Force and Navy, respectively.

Pratt &Whitneys JSF119 engine was selected by both JSF weapons system contractors, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, to power their competing demonstrator aircraft designs. The engine, a derivative of the F119 engine powering the F-22 Raptor, currently has accrued approximately 150 hours of flight test performance in all JSF candidate aircraft variants. GEs JSF F120 engine is a derivative of the F120 engine originally developed for the YF-22 and YF-23, and is being further developed to power the JSF aircraft in the future. It has been the plan of the U.S. Department of Defense to compete the P&W and GEAE engines starting in approximately 2011 during the production phase of the JSF Program.

The JSF Program Offices (JPO) acquisition strategy calls for interchangeability between the P&W and GEAE engines across all three JSF aircraft variants. The engines are required to be physically and functionally interchangeable. According to Maj. Gen. Mike Hough, JSF program director, All JSF aircraft will be able to use either the P&W or GEAE engine.

A JPO/P&W/GEAE Engine Interchangeability Team has been established to integrate the management structure and technical processes necessary to assure implementation of the JPOs vision. This includes participation by GEAE on P&W-led integrated product teams for those propulsion system components that will be common to the JSF119 and JSF F120 engines. The maximization of these common components is a key element of JSF program affordability.

Eh.….but if we bought effective and affordable gear that worked we’d miss out on the drama filled he-said, contractor-said never ending trail of exuses and wasted money. To be fair to the AF this complete incoherence is present in all the armed forces, for the Army it was FCS, for the Navy it was the LCS.….

So as ELP has again pointed out, this was supposed to be a international project with two engine options from day one. As far as Gates recommending a veto, his political capital with the Senate is running on empty these days over the F-35. Pulling a veto might win this battle, but bring a premature end to his career, which of course would be the best thing to ever happen to the ANG and USAF.

The spin by P&W that this will add 2.9 billion to this already sorry program is simply a bad joke considering the track record the F135 has had to date in needing extra funding. Fancy the worry of wasting money on an aircraft that’s “on track” to be the most expensive military program in US history. Or lets all close our eyes, and pretend that 400 fighters won’t be paid for before the flight testing is even completed.

All in all, this continues to be the worst fighter program in US history, and this latest saga with the dueling engines is just another stone in the F-35 road to hell.

The USA also needs to consider the international dimension if the F-136 is cancelled. The UK and other foreign partners signed up to JSF on the basis of two alternate engines being available (that was part of the original legal agreement before money was transferred to the US) and there is growing concern that the less powerful P&W engine will be riskier in the long term. Bear in mind that many JSF partners will have the F-35 as their only combat aircraft (or at best as one of two — the UK will also have Typhoon) and they wish to have an option in selecting an engine. The UK also has some financial involvement via Rolls Royce (although it is RR USA that is the main partner with GE in the F-136). There have already been issues with the US proving reluctant to release source codes, manufacturing technology, stealth, etc, which some partners rightly or wrongly thought they would be able to access under the original agreement (let’s not get into a debate about whether the US should be prepared to share any of this). The trouble is that the US side is giving a distinct impression that ‘it’s our project and regardless of binding agreements we can change the rules any time we want’. In the short term this is of course true, but the likely consequence is that disillusioned JSF partners will look elsewhere for future defence projects (not just in Europe). I am afraid the USA is getting an international reputation as an unreliable business partner, which is good neither for US defence companies, nor the US government, nor for keeping an effective Western alliance hanging together. Most countries want to buy from the US since the technology is so good, but there is a real feeling of being taken for granted and treated in the way the Soviets used to treat its East European allies. Just spare a thought for the wider strategic implications of a second engine cancellation.

Quite early to be dismissing the whole program, don’t you think?

OK… since the 2001 DOD Contract, the PW F135 has been tested for over 13,000 hours vs. <100 hours for the GE-RR F136! The F135 has been flight cleared for all variants, fully demonstrating the F-35A CTOL Up-and-Away capabilities and successfully completing all initial F-35B STOVL Vertical Landing and Hover testing at PAX River. Thousands of hours of validation testing have been performed assessing, refining the advanced control capability need to meet the demanding thrust and thrust/split capability required to achieve Level 1 flying qualities… something that will never be common between the F135 and F136. These capabilities come from over 10 years of experience starting with and building from X-35 STOVL testing… this needs to be re-learned ALL over again with the F136. And the very first F135 Initial Service Release (ISR CTOL) F135 engine has already been delivered. How many more years will it take for the F136 to reach this point? Even the Lockheed engineers know that this is not trivial… and trying to repeat all of this work will dilute their ability to keep the F-35 flight test program on track with its aggresive schedule.

So all of these “bargain” estimates we hear about to complete development of the F136 are a fantasy… there are billions of remaining cost overuns waiting for the U.S. Gov’t to subsidize this F136 GE-RR corporate welfare program. In my opinion, a better use of taxpayer money would be to fund GE to continue development of a variable cycle F120 derivative for future UCAV opportunities — perhaps as part of the ADVENT program, than to waste any more money on an unnecessary alternative F-35 engine.
If you haven’t seen it, take a look at the F-35 and F135 in action:
http://​www​.lockheedmartin​.com/​h​o​w​/​s​t​o​r​i​e​s​/​f​3​5​_​sto…

John Beesley — Chief Test Pilot of the F-35 program is certainly very pleased with the performance of the aircraft with PW F135!

Despite what ConcernedCitizen says, proceeding with a second engine, and the resulting price competition once its ready, will more than offset the additional cost. It will also keep Pratt & Whitney on the ball about what its selling the government. That’s been the nature of competition — it alslo extends to product quality and reliability.

As to our allies, they should just get together and order the second engine as part of their procurements. That’s one way to force the U.S. government to live up to its original contract. Plus, manufacturing a second engine should go to Europe.

The Camins Island account would stop this attitude towards military contractors; while they are all very good at delivering what is spec’d in the contracts language; oversite is the only saving grace we’re not waisting our tax dollars on any program. We’ve seen lately that money makes the world go around, still. Both Pratt and GE will deliver what we need; the fact that GE is telling us there is a 5% return on a fixed price contract is possible only because they are willing to hold the price of engine’s by refusing the first years mark up for inflation. I don’t believe the return is necessary; this is a dangerous trend ot discount a state of the art engine; these contracts are watched to hold down capital gains to 5%. Both contractors have decades of evidence to support them when “Waste and Abuse” gets argued. Politicians on the other hand have a record of crying foul when the money flows and they find themselves out of the gravy train loop. I would be suspicious of where they are going to cut in order to deliver without the contractor going broke.

Even though the Research and Development are at 70% the gamble “alls well” with the last of the 30%; we know that the smallest of items can put a project on its ear; example, UV22; soft ware design needed to be tweeked; Congress shut them down. Chicken little and the sky is falling syndrome; every time. Be very careful taking back money from a project; the hardest thing to do is convince a politician who hasn’t a clue to open the checkbook for more money. GE sit on the cash and make it a election contribution if you can afford it, but don’t cut corners to impress.

The other thing about this whole “fixed price” thing is Pratt proposed this a number of years ago and was rebuffed. The reason was simple, the amount of the proposal could have been a stretch goal amount, far beyond predicted costs. Any money “left over” would have been kept by the supplier with zero oversight, if they went over they would have been forced to eat the costs…and the way most suppliers structure their costs it’s always to their best interest.

.…..will dilute their ability to keep the F-35 flight test program on track with its aggressive schedule.”

LM has already diluted the flight test schedule. We were supposed to have over 300 flight tests in FY2009. We got a few dozen. In FY2010 we are supposed to have over 1200 flight tests (plus the make-up work from FY2009)… FY2010 is half over. The F136 has little to do with the F-35s weak flight testing.

mnkjnknbbnknnbpl„l,m„lmlm,klm
6525952;/;;.´;];ç~.~~.p,.~ç,o,ç.ç,.„pok.ç,

*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