First F136 Death Blow Near?

First F136 Death Blow Near?

An important congressional supporter of the second engine for the Joint Strike fighter is “pessimistic” about the coming House floor vote on whether the engine should be funded in the House defense authorization bill. The reason for the supporter’s pessimism is simple: the majority of House lawmakers know little about defense issues and the issues surrounding the F135, made by Pratt, and the F136, made by General Electric and Rolls Royce, are highly complex. So the vote will rest largely on coalitions, the interests of major donors and constituents and horse trading — not on the merits of the issue.

The House vote on an amendment killing the F136 General Electric/Rolls Royce alternate engine program is expected Thursday. Democratic Rep. John Larson of Connecticut, where Pratt and Whitney is based, will sponsor the amendment that would strip F-136 funding from the main defense policy bill. Larson, the son of a Pratt employee, has told some in the House that he is under intense union pressure to act against the General Electric and Rolls Royce engine.

There are important tells to watch for. “A key will be how the amendment is structured — either a straight up or down, or packaged with other budget items to further confuse and mislead a very complex issue,” said GE spokesman Rick Kennedy in an email.


He also said that there is some effective lobbying going on by “A large body of Congressional members, including HASC leaders and others, such as Steve Driehaus…” They are, he said, These people are, he said, “doing a remarkable job of clarifying the real issues in this debate.”

After the House casts its votes on the defense policy bill, all eyes will move to the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, now headed by Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington. The views of Dicks, who may rise to the chairmanship of the whole committee when current chair Rep. David Obey of Michigan departs, on the F-136 are not well known. So far, the best indications are that he is willing to listen to the case for the F136 but he is not thought to be a stalwart supporter, as was his predecessor, the late Rep. Jack Murtha.

Until Thursday’s vote, GE and Rolls Royce are pulling out every stop to meet senior congressional leaders and to count heads. Senior company leaders were not optimistic yesterday about securing a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but they and their colleagues are calling and emailing everyone they can find. As anyone who has worked on the Hill can tell you, working the halls to influence lawmakers can be effective for a small number of lawmakers, but it is highly inefficient.

Pratt & Whitney, eyes firmly on Capitol Hill as the House nears its floor vote, will tell the country tomorrow that it is delivering the first set of production F135 engines for the Joint Strike Fighter to the military. That will mark an important shift to the program. While it can easily be downplayed, the movement of a program from test to production requires the government to certify that the builder has satisfied a wide range of technical milestones.

Pratt has delivered 29 test engines.

Pratt has scheduled a press breakfast for tomorrow, featuring Dave Hess, company president, Warren Boley, military engines president and Bill Begert, VP of military business development and aftermarket services.

Meanwhile, the Congressional Research Service has produced an excellent summary of the issues facing Congress as the House readies for the vote. The report concisely reproduces the principal arguments of most sides in the political and programmatic engine war and is excellent reading for anyone trying to think clearly about what will be at least a $62 billion investment for the country.

Share |

Join the Conversation

All of this conversation would be more accurate if the F-35 was a U.S.-only program. It is not. And… it will be interesting to see how partner nations react to a killed F136 motor. This would equal the U.S. going back on their word on an agreement (the JSF MOU) of which they signed.

“Larson, the son of a Pratt employee, has told some in the House that he is under intense union pressure to act against the General Electric and Rolls Royce engine.”

Oh good, a vote on what is good for the local union, not what is good for the country. I don’t know whether or not the second engine is a good thing, but I do know that i don’t want defense policy determined by what is good for the union, or good for an individual company.

Killing F-136 will leave F-35 more vulnerable. GE and RR will focus more on supporting (aka lobbying) “their” platforms, be is F/A-18/F of Typhoon. Brits will have another good reason to step out. Again, the problem is not F-136, but the whole F-35 hoopla.

This was from an article that was run in Aviation week in March 2010. It says “U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley declined to say whether the airframe, managed by Lockheed Martin, or the engine, handled by Pratt & Whitney contributed to the preponderance of the cost increase. Both have experienced cost growth. Ashton Carter’s ADM notes that the F135 engine experienced “substantial cost growth,” based on a review by an F135 Joint Assessment Team” America, the substantial cost growth for 2010 alone for the F135 exceeds what the F136 needs to finish its development. Moreover America, the 2.6B in cost overruns over the past few years for the F135 IS ONLY 400K LESS THAN WHAT THE F136 TEAM HAS SPENT ON THE ENTIRE PROGRAM TO DATE.

What can be done about this totally mis-managed F135 engine program? It’s called COMPETITION. The F136 program has submitted to the DoD and Congress a plan for America to re-coop 1B in the next five years and another 20B over the next 30 years. The JSF Program as a whole is over budget today because the F135 engine has had major technical issues, vendor problems, mis-management.….all of which can continue into sustainment. The alternate engine can return BILLIONS in precious taxpayer dollars back into the Defense Budget to better serve our men and woman in uniform. Also, Secretary Gates should withhold “Incentives” from the F135 Program and use these incentives to backfill Defense Budget requirements. Without the alternate engine America, you will see the same mis-management, the same cost overruns, sustainment costs that will negatively impact future defense Budgets, and the potential to drive our National Debt higher than it is today.…..at least t he alternate engine provides America the avenue to get back what has been lost on the F135 engine today.

Good comparison, Formula, if we want to talk about relevant costs. Thanks for looking at the big picture. Often, its the sound bites that work best.

Competition is a great thing. With it on the second engine we could save 20% or $20 billion on a $100 billion life cycle program. That’s considerably more than the $2.9 billion second engibe development costs. Plus, if we don’t compete, then Pratt and Whitney “lock in” their monopoly profits for the 30 years. That is, we would be paying them $20 billion more than we should!

Also history should teach us a lesson: PW TF-30 engines plagued F-14 fleet, limited its performance and killed scores of F-14. F-15s and F-16 were suffering from PW engine troubles (flameouts mostly) for years after their FOC. In both cases, later introduced GE engines for those jets worked, and brough competition in and pressure on PW, mostly with the F-16C fleet.
One saying goes: GE: Great Engine, PW: Plenty of Work
But taking into account Robert Gates and his qualification and natural talent in aerospace decision making, he will do the wrong thing, and therefore F-136 program may really be axed for good.

We are going into the hot summer months when test flights conducting STOVL landings will occur in not so optimal conditions. It would be wise to wait another year before killing the second engine until P&W F135 proves it can generate enough thrust in all weather conditions.

And speaking of competition, it might also be wise to test two identical aircraft, one using the F135, and the other using the F136. Test the two aircraft together doing the same flight plan and compare the data from the two. And ask the pilots, what their impressions are.

The politics needs to be totally removed from the equation, and a return to impartial empirical testing to determine a winner and a loser would benefit the program as a whole.

Well said RSF, yours is the only common sense directive with which I totally agree. The real problem is the fact that politicians aka lawyers
are involved in things for which they have no
knowledge and are influenced by coalitians /
constituents and have absolutely no interest in the total affect on the U.S.! As they have so efficiently demonstrated with Bailouts,Stimulus and Healthcare issues.Not only does politics need to be removed from Defense equations, but so too does the POLITICIANS.!!! God Bless America.!!!

Let’s compare some facts… The F135 Engine has already accumulated almost 14,000 hours of testing vs. only 200 hrs for the F136. The DoD itself says “A direct comparison shows that the F-136 Initial Service Release (ISR) dates are at least 2–3 years behind the F-135 ISR dates.” The F135 Conventional Take-off and Landing/Carrier Variant (Air Force & Navy) already achieved its ISR date in February 2010, whereas the same ISR date is planned for the F-136 in December 2012. The planned F-135 Short Take-off and Vertical Landing Variant (Marines) ISR date is fourth quarter of FY10, whereas an even greater challenge is the same ISR date for the F-136 which is planned for fourth quarter FY13. Why three more years? Because NONE of the Level 1 Flying Quality PW F135 engine control technology already developed for the F135 is transferable to the GE/RR F136. Remember the Harrier?… this is MUCH harder! The $3B estimate is most likely on the LOW side…

And by the way, how are you going to do a comparison of the F135 ISR production engine (which by week’s end will have flown on ALL three service variants) vs an F136 engine demo that has only accumulated 200 hrs? Three and a half years is a liberal estimate of how long it will be before the F136 STOVL engine can be compared vs. the F135 STOVL engine. The $3B estimate is wishful thinking and definitely on the LOW side… The F136 should be killed; keeping it just limits the number of F-35s that will be built.

As usual lawyers determining what to use in are aircraft instead of the people that are flying and the engineers working together to make the best possible aircraft. I have never seen a fighter aircraft work with a p/w engine.
It hurt the F-14 until the D model which blew the socks out of everything in the inventory. Remember anytime baby ! We need are pilots to be able to run the mission with out fear of making it back in clear skies.

It’s getting pretty tiring hearing the GE/PW fanboys whine about how their engines are superior to the other. It’s like listening to the Chevy/Ford/Dodge/Honda/Nissan car/truck fanboys.

You either forget or didn’t know that the PW TF30 was originally designed for the older generation F-111. The TF30 was used on the F-14A because the GE F110 engine wasn’t ready yet by the time the F-14 entered production. So of course the PW TF30 engine hurt the F-14.… it’s a generation difference in technology.

Anyways, the Pratt engines have served the F-15’s well (once they moved on from the –100 to the –220 and –229) and F-22’s well. The F-16’s having only one single engine benefited greatly from the additional output of the GE F110 engine.

ConcernedCitizen:

A well researched diatribe on the F135. Just a few things we should clarify in your comments.

“The F135 Engine has already accumulated almost 14,000 hours of testing vs. only 200 hrs for the F136. The DoD itself says “A direct comparison shows that the F-136 Initial Service Release (ISR) dates are at least 2–3 years behind the F-135 ISR dates.”

A: I would certainly hope that the F135 has more hours on the test bench considering that the development costs are almost twice that of the F136. The initial cost of the F135 skyrocketed from 4.3 billion in the 2001 contract, to the present staggering sum of 7.3 billion dollars today. This price increase is a $2.5 billion higher than the $1.9 billion overrun reported last year. In fact, the F135 overrun is about the same as than the SDD bill for the F136 (thank you Bill Sweetman). Yes, P&W have done such a wonderful job of saving the taxpayers money up to this point! And we are going to reward this piss poor project management, with a signed and sealed contract so that they can be in fat city for the next 30 years? Sound like a winning formula (for P&W) to me.

“And by the way, how are you going to do a comparison of the F135 ISR production engine (which by week’s end will have flown on ALL three service variants”.

A; Its always amusing to hear talk about a projected flight test schedule for the JSF. Which of the 15+ test flight schedules that have been floating around since 2001 are you talking about? And by the way, running an engine on a test bench is quite a bit different then flying it in an airframe, right? And since we are only something like 4000+ test flights short of knowing how the F135 will operate in this airframe, I’d say that there’s plenty of time for us to test the F136.

Overall, your comments while technically correct on the surface, have quite a shrill sound, kind of like someone who is trying to sell me a bad used car.

Trophy,
Just to clarify, the TF30 was used on the F-14A because the P&W derivative of the F100 meant for the F-14 was so far behind schedule, so over budget, and so unreliable, that the Navy ran away. The early F100s were so bad they were pulling working engines out of in service aircraft to deliver new aircraft and it only got better when the F101FDE (which became the F110) was introduced. Suddenly P&W got motivated to listen to the costumer and came up with much better engines. Given the past experience with the F135 and the dramatic price increase, I would say there is a good chance of history repeating itself. Competition is good and it works!

The F100 was also a radically new design (RAND hailed it as being 4 years ahead of it’s time) being introduced in 1972 on the F-15. Naturally with anything technologically cutting edge, there’s always teething problems.

The GE F110 had the benefit of being introduced later than the F100 in 1987 on the F-14B and had the added benefit of being based on the F101-GE-100. The F101 was originally introduced on the B-1 in 1970 as the YF101 and eventually became the F101-GE-102 in 1984. The delays in the B-1 program meant there was more time to refine the YF101. The F-16 variant, the F110-GE-100 was tested in 1984 for the Alternative Fighter Engine program, competing with the F100-PW-220/220E. So the F100-GE-400 was a more mature design.

A more fair comparison would be between the F100-PW-100 and the YF101, and then the F100-PW-220 (introduced in 1986) to the F110-GE-400.

Correction: “The GE F110 had the benefit of being introduced later than the F100 in 1987 on the F-14B and had the added benefit of being based on the F101-GE-100.”

The sentence should open as: “The GE F110-GE-400…” and close as: “…being based on the F110-GE-100.”

Lets get something straight PW and GE must follow the same laws of physics. So for a given aircraft mission engine design its basically a wash. The advantage of having competing engines is all engines have issues in service and when it comes to the JSF being our and our allies only fighter in the future this could be a problem with only one company having the market for the engine. Competition forces better service and turnaround when problems arise. Even if it cost is more for 2 engine designs we need GE and PW both in the game for our national and world security. Unfortunately PW had a bad past history in handling service and problem solving when they have no competition.

Well said Curt and RSF. Groundpounder.…right on. Another fear of mine in terms of national security and what is right for our men and woman flying these acft is.…the F22 and F35 would have VERY similar engines if P&W is sole sourced for the F35. I can’t believe for the life of me that this country would literally place all of its eggs into one basket for its two premier fighter programs. God forbid we have a technical issue that impacts the same critical rotating hardware in the F119 and F135 engines.

I would hope these facts would be considered:
Fact:
The most senior civilian acquisition official in the Air Force stated in a memo to Pentagon acquisition officials on April 19, 2009: “F135 engine [primary engine in the F-35] cost growth is an ongoing concern.”

The most senior civilian acquisition official in the Department of Defense, July 2009: “These costs [on the primary F-35 engine] are outside the bounds of Selected Acquisition Report projections, and I am concerned about continued cost growth in the F135.”

The Director of the F-35 Program Office, June 2009: “The Pentagon needs to carefully consider the operational risk of having just one engine for the F-35 fighter jet…competition could bring faster technology development and lower costs…a single engine could be worrisome if an engine problem ever grounded the fighters…In the past, having a variety of fighters meant the Pentagon could use other planes to offset any groundings, like an 11– month engine-related halt in Harriers in 2000…I simply think that we’ve focused too much on the discussion about cost benefit and not the operational risk benefit.”

ABC: GE lost out in original competition.

Fact:
The most senior acquisition official in the Department of Defense, Ashton Carter:

• Secretary Carter, March 24, 2010: “Pratt & Whitney [Current provider of F-35 engine] was awarded a non-competitive SDD [final research and development phase for the F-35, which is scheduled to end in 2016] contract [meaning there was no competition] for the [F-35] F135 propulsion system [in 2001].”

ABC: Secretary Gates video clip from May 20, 2010: “Only in Washington does a proposal where everybody wins [is] considered a competition, where everybody is guaranteed a piece of the action at the end.”

Fact:
About as simplistic as one can get. This is a comment for talk radio, not a serious discussion about defense acquisition. Defense acquisition is not about four quarters or nine innings.

The Defense Department wants to earmark over $100 billion for one contractor for the next 30–40 years. Members of Congress aren’t elected for life and have to justify their positions to their constituents every two years – but it is just fine to have the Defense Department earmark over $100 billion for 30–40 years to one contractor?

Secretary Gates’ statement is totally contrary to statute and the Pentagon’s own acquisition policies and directives — The Competition in Contracting Act (section 2304 of title 10, United States Code) requires competition in contracting and section 202 of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 requires acquisition strategies to ensure competition throughout the life cycle of a weapon system

DoD cannot obligate the taxpayer to pay $100B for the next 30–40 years. That’s not the way bona fides needs budgeting and annual appropriations works out. In each year they can only request the amount they have a bona fide need for (ie, they could theoretically spend) and they cannot obligate the taxpayer to pay bills in the future with funds that haven’t even been appropriated — and voted and signed into law — for.

A look at the F-35 JSF website shows that there is an update (Dec 2009) to the memorandum of understanding (MOU) for the Joint Strike Fighter partner nations.

The document is good reading for a number of reasons. Just as interesting is what it has to say about the alternate engine controversy for the F-35.

“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.”

For the half-wits that refuse to educate themselves on this topic, the first thing to do is to have this document changed. Once that is done then you can cancel it. OR– look like the U.S. is going back on a promise to all of the international partners.

Yeah… PWs served so well that the Saudis had all of the PWs removed from their F-15s and replaced with GE’s because of bad customer service on fixing a major issue. That can be your homework for today kiddies.

I don’t care much which engine vendor does what but the absense of facts on these topics by no-nothings really gets annoying.

The best way to save money is to cancel the Just So Farcical. Then again, the whole engine issue may be moot because of the death spiral (cost-development problems on the whole F-35 program) Who wants two engine sources if all that is going to happen is a few hundred gold-plated mistake-jets are made before it gets canceled?

Groundpounder… Your arguements do not pass the litmus test when you consider the propulsion history of the F-4’s, the F-15, the F/A-18, C-5, C-17, C130, A-10, and a host more of engines that have entered the service’s use as a single source provider…

additionally, those “in the business” know that the manufacturing processes in use today and the methodology of risk management in use by the US military’s aviation (to which I am very familiar with the USAF’s Director of Propulsion’s risk management process under Air Force Instruction 21–104) manages their fleet (with the active participation of the OEMs and incorportating Military/contractor risk management processes such as visual, borescopes, and NDI processes) to such a low risk that the probability of an issue developing into the arguements being used is purely “praying to the ignorance” of those that are not aware of how the military manages risk and as such is pure smoke and mirrors. And that is why Congress should not toss aside Bill Gates, the USN, USAF, and the USMC’s comments as if they have no basis for their position.

(cont’d) Groundpounder… Your arguement about competition drives a quicker turn around time when an issue arises I believe is simply false too.. the turnaround time is defined by the risk mitigation process and the available funding… the mitigation process is defined by the engineering required to develop a fix and the logistics process to incorporate the fix… both of them are directly dependant on funding…

having competing propulsion systems for the same dollars has histroically extended the turn around time because those of us “in the business” know that there is not enough funds available.… that is what dragged out the upgrading of the F-15’s orignal engine to the point that it will retire hundreds of engines that lived without the safety benefits of digital controls and other risk mitigation fixes that could have been incorprated over 20 years ago if the F110 was not there.. conversely, the F110 is in the process of an upgrade to the SLEP version which has fixes for a host of that engine’s safety/reliability/obsolesence issues and that is being dragged out due to competing funing issues… again more smoke and mirrors for the benefits of those who are ignorant of the real story because they are not “informed”… dual propulsion systems delay fixes and turn around times… and have yyou checked out the deficit lately.. .it will only get worse and the DOD knows it…

Cont’d, Groundpounder,

lastly, the arguement for competition is again smoke and mirrors… anyone in the business knows the term “breakout vendor”… the military in its development process requires the OEM to develop muliple sources for a lot of the hardware specifically so they can go direct to the sources and compete in the small business marketplace thereby bypassing the OEM for spares.. that is where the competition reduced the cost of these weapons systems.. so anyone saying that giving P&W this engine contract will be giving it a monopoly is simply smoke and mirrors to the “un-informed masses”.

So I say.. we taxpayers should be pushing our congressional members to put our money in 1 really really good engine design and let the DOD manage the competition in the small business market place just liek they do on all their current propulsion programs.. our military desrves the best…

Turbo tech
With all due respect we had back ups for each of these platforms you mention with the JSF we are not going to have any other option to go to.
Ok let Pratt have it all it will only be a matter of time before GE will be asked to provide a engine for the JSF. Pratt’s history speaks for itself not only in the military business but in commercial aviation also . The laws of physics are the same for PW and GE but attitude and how you treat your customer is everything.
Read the book the “Great Engine War and the Air Force”

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

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