Pony Up, Schwartz Tells F136 Builders

Pony Up, Schwartz Tells F136 Builders

The chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen. Norton Schwartz, called out General Electric and Rolls Royce today, saying that they should consider paying more out of their own pockets if they wanted to keep alive the second engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Schwartz, speaking at the National Press Club, said there may be savings to be had through competition between the GE/Rolls partnership and Pratt & Whitney over the life of the program but he doubted the country could afford the money today o save money down the road. “The question is, can we afford it in the short term,” he said.

This sounds an awful lot like the Air Force would be happy to keep the program running but wants GE/RR to show their commitment by lessening the service’s pain when it faces a grim set of budget choices.


GE’s take: “GE and Rolls-Royce have already invested a considerable amount of their own money into the program. It’s very difficult to internally fund the engine if the F136 is not a JSF program of record. The SAC-D report called the F136 a “near model program,” and we have offered a unique fixed-price offer for early production engines which shifts the risk for early production to the contractors,” said spokesman Rick Kennedy.

On the KC-X airborne tanker, Schwartz offered a definite waffle when asked when the contract would be awarded. “In my view it is more important to get it right than to do it fast,” he said. Asked if that meant the contract would be awarded by the end of the year, he smiled and repeated himself. Perhaps the competition is extremely close and the service wants to make sure their decision is as protest-proof as possible

Finally, in what prove to be the most enduring news of today’s luncheon, Schwartz made it very clear the military must increase the amount service members and retirees pay for health care. As Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other top Pentagon officials have said repeatedly, the amount paid by military personnel has not increased since 1985. “I think it is inescapable that a change will have to be made,” said Schwartz, coming closer than any other senior official to actually saying let’s increase it.

Join the Conversation

Yeah Mr Schwartz…you get a cookie for the dumbest idea of the day. GE as mentioned has taken some of the burden off already. If GE has to pay why not pratt too?

Funny how there is still this red herring going on with the F-35 alternate engine; yet no one is asking why we should spend around $50 billion on hundreds of low-rate initial production (LRIP) mistake-jets.

I don’t understand why DoD is paying front-end development costs for any technologies beyond actual technology leaps. The F-35 engines are advanced, but they’re still evolutionary, not revolutionary.

This is getting interesting. I wonder if Schwartz will still have a job after making this announcement? Did he clear this remark with Mr Gates first? Like I said before…StayTuned.

@Earlydawn: The DoD is paying the front end because its such a long term project. If you knew the effort required to design and analyze these engines you would understand.

The mistake is to think that defense is run as a market economy. We pay up front because that is what you do in a planned economy. The Soviets at least had the brains to keep the profits — but we give them away too.

1.“The Soviets at least had the brains to keep the profits” — yeh that worked out well for them.

2. ELP is right, we are going to pay $58B for 300 LRIP jets (about 12% of the 2443 total) before completing OPEVAL. These jets will have to be fixed after they find out what changes are needed due to issues found in SDD and OPEVAL. With the drastic delays in SDD testing, the risk increases that costly fixes will be needed to make those jets usable. It is also possible that the design changes needed are so great that it will be cheaper to make more aircraft than to bring those jets to a usable standard. This is a big multi billion dollar gamble that appears to get a free pass.

The $2b needed to maintain 2 engine suppliers is essentially is the noise compared to this or compared to the $30B increase in SDD costs or the >$150B increase in acquisition costs. So sure, this $2B is critical to to DoD budget but pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

.…the last guy that crossed Mr. Gates, a Marine two star, got fired.… But General Schwartz has four stars.… should be an interesting conversation coming the general’s way.

Keep in mind that there are other markets for good products. The United States are NOT the only buyers. Start the offers there and see what happens.

Because you can not go from zero to 200+ airframes per year overnight.

And contrary to your BS, LRIP are NOT mistake-jets.

You are right. You do not understand.

No ELP in NOT right.

Right-On Weaponhead!!!! Don’t forget the current engines will also need to be upgraded before they could be used at an operational unit.….even more $$$$$$$$$$$

Sorry but your reply seems fairly suspect considering the huge and growing record of costly technical flaws that have been crippling this program now for years.

Even with the new aggressive flight testing schedule, the plane still can’t be flown to schedule no matter how had Lockmart tries.

Really they should change the motto of the JSF program too; “To big to fail, but too flawed to succeed”.
http://​www​.aviationweek​.com/​a​w​/​b​l​o​g​s​/​d​e​f​e​n​s​e​/​i​nde

What “huge and growing record of costly technical flaws that have been crippling this program”?

Your link proves otherwise. A software issue (which testing is MEANT to find) found in lab tests which in previous programs would take weeks or months to resolve was resolved in a matter of days.

With the exception of F-35B flights being held up with minor parts reliability problems with ONE airframe (the only one instumented for STOVL fight testing) the F-35 flight test program is ahead of schedule. The F-35A in particule is performing exceptionally well, compleeting flights & test points MUCH faster than scheduled.

What alternate universe are you living in?

I’ll say this again. The second engine i.e. GE lost in the original fly offs and thats that. There should not be looking at this nor should Congress accept this.

And I’ll say it again.…
The pentagon has already acknowledged that there has not been a government-sponsored competition to power Lockheeds F-35.

Several engines were studied in the initial phases of what became the JSF program. When it came to building concept demonstrators, the teams were *directed* to use the F119. This led to Boeing and Lockheed prop’ing JSF designs powered with F119 derivatives and the pentagon planned for competitive engine procur from the outset and funded work on the F136 in parallel. Pentagon decided in 2006 that it couldn’t afford a second engine and congress added money each year but only 80%.

The dual competing engine was a strategy by the pentagon for over 10 years and congress concurred and provided funding. The previous rational of using competition has not changed and therefore should be continued. Interesting to note would be that if your claims were true, why didn’t we cancel the 136 3 billion and 8 years ago instead of now when there is only 1.6b or less to finish?

I’ll say it for a third time…THE F136 WAS FUNDED FOR 10 YEARS WITH NO COMPLAINTS. Only when pratt started feeling pressure from ge then (like little cowards) “LIKE OMG…STOP IT GE”. Sorry maddawg, when the pentagon has stated that there was no competition, then your argument falls apart. Try again…

P&W wasn’t ‘feeling pressure from GE”. As you posted, the PENTAGON decided it could not afford a second engine and the more developed, less risky, lower cost F135 was determined to be the single engine to proceed with (THAT was a competition, just not a formal one).

pfcm.…you are so confused. P&W must pay you big bucks to make your little plugs in DoD Buzz each day. You are so out of touch of what is really happening you still think the F135 is LOWER cost. I told you before, I work very closely to the JPO and I know what each program is costing the tax payer.…the F135 is over budget by 2B and the cost is still climbing because they have another “F135 variation” going to test in Jan 2011 which has had several major rotating component changes (I won’t go into details). By the way, the F136 is within budget (even though they have received only 80% funding for the past four years) and on time (even with the little setbacks with instrumentation and hardware) and has been called a “model’ program within JPO. We need a “formal” competition and having the alternate engine in the game will do just that.

If the F136 was leading engine development for the F-35 including doing all of the STOVL related work and testing, the F135 would be “cheaper” to develop as well. I seriously hope your not suggesting we drop the F135 and go for the F136.

William…I’m saying we need to keep both. The STOVL related work if broken out represents a certainn percentage, but not as much as you may be referring. Yes, the F135 would be cheaper if the F136 was leading the STOVL effort, but it would still not be catagorized as a “model” program and it still would be grossly over budget. The JPO has each engine, to include the Lift Fan broken out in terms of what the tax payer has paid for each.

Simple, Pratt won the initial competition, GE & Rolls are trying to back-door an engine without winning on the backs of existing USAF programs. The budgets for FY 12, 13 are very thin. New engine money comes out of buying needed replacement airplanes.

*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

AdChoices | Become a fan on and follow us on
© 2013 Military Advantage
A Monster Company.