HASC tries again to revive alternate engine

HASC tries again to revive alternate engine

What, you thought you’d heard the last of GE and Rolls-Royce’s alternate engine for the F-35? Just because the Pentagon killed it off? Well, the companies and their surrogates in the House Armed Services Committee are making another full-on push to bring back the F136, and it won several small tactical victories Wednesday that supporters hope will eventually add up to a new stream of funding from DoD. Members of both parties voted for a provision that would oblige DoD to pay for the F136 if it wants funding next year for the F-35’s propulsion systems, and to require DoD to give GE and Rolls access to whatever government-owned equipment and data they need to keep developing the F136 on their own, as they’ve offered to do.

Not everyone on the committee is a friend to the engine — Republican Rep. Mike Coffman of Colorado offered an amendment that would bar spending any public money on the F136, but he withdrew it before a vote, acknowledging that he knew it would fail in the full committee. He vowed that he’d try to re-introduce the measure again for the full House. Engine opponents on Wednesday faulted the Armed Services Committee’s new efforts to try to help along the F136 — House members already voted to kill the engine earlier this year, they pointed out, and Secretary Gates and the services remain dead-set against it.

That was before GE and Rolls offered to pay to continue testing and developing it, backers said — now, the government can theoretically realize the benefits of a competition between the F136 and DoD’s preferred F135 engine without paying for both. (For awhile.) “To me, this is a no-brainer,” said HASC chairman Buck McKeon, a California Republican. The Armed Services Committee voted 55–5 in favor of the measure requiring DoD to permit GE and Rolls to continue using government-owned data, equipment, test facilities, etc.


Nobody knows what will come next, except the sense of deja vu: House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican whose district is near the plant in Evendale where the F136 would be built, supports the alternate engine. Just as before, he and other Republican leaders are beating the drum for spending cuts across the federal budget. Just as before, he and other top Republicans also would like to see GE and Rolls build a product its own prospective customer, DoD, calls “wasteful.” The question is, will the companies’ offer to self-fund be enough to persuade the rest of Congress? And if so, will the Pentagon get on board, or will lawmakers have to try to force the engine on an unwilling DoD, as they did for so many years with C-17s?

Join the Conversation

I’ve said it before, the fat lady has not sung yet. As a tax payer, a fellow service member, and a felllow mechanic who worked on P&W and GE engines for 20 years.……this proposal by GE to self fund is truelly goodness for everyone…except P&W. I’ve worked on both GE and P&W engines and it pays to have competition because as a customer you are treated with more respect and urgency. P&W has NOTHING to complain about now since GE is funding this on their own dime. If they do, then are truelly showing their nervousness of letting GE compete and they are hiding something from the American tax payer. I say let this go thru and get approved by the House and Senate, it should have never been terminated to begin with. Gates and Rooney were in cahoots, I’m glad to see Gates leave and Rooney will not get re-elected in Florida.

You forgot “and current GE employee” in your description.

You have to have no brain (or just be gullible enough to believe the media lies) to think that GE & RR will pay anything more than a drop in the bucket of the F136 development cost. The ~$100 million for a year or two that GE & RR have stated they are willing to “invest” is not going to do much other than keep GE & RR employees working on the F136 on the program.

I’m just a construction worker so explain to me how a company that is self funding a development project is bad for the tax payer. Are you just that dead set against GE or did you forget to put in “current Pratt Whitney employee”

GE already has the 3 billion for completing the JSF, trying to claim it’s self funded is ludicrous, FORMULA quit lying!!!

http://​www​.nytimes​.com/​2​0​1​1​/​0​3​/​2​5​/​b​u​s​i​n​e​s​s​/​e​c​o​n​o​m​y​/​2​5​t​a​x​.​h​tml

Those Bastards in Congress should be removed from OFFICE. We DO NOT NEED JSF nor do we need another GE Engine… More Tax Money for Wall Street and of Course NON-Tax Paying GE. Bastards

For those who slam any company for not paying taxes, I’ll quietly remind you that nearly half of all households pay no fedral taxes. A lot of people actually get more money back than they paid. People scramble to find every deduction made possible by the .gov and the companies do the same. Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones…

Unless you are willing to cut a check to the .gov for the amount of taxes not including any deductions, then you have no reason to complain…

This whole debate is beyond belief. How is it that GE now says they can pay for a year of work with $100 million, but wanted $450 million from US taxpayers for the same year of work. And, does anyone really believe that taxpayers won’t be on the hook for millions of dollars in cost that the Pentagon will incur in the event that this backdoor funding scheme moves forward? DoD will have to spend money overseeing and managing the work and maintaining the engine and the testing sites. Finally, DoD has said that another $2.9 billion would be required to finish development of the GE engine. I don’t see or hear GE ponying up to the bar and stating unequivocally that they will pay for this. No, they are just trying to get yet another earmark at taxpayer expense. Enough already.

THETRUTH is I never made a claim that what they did in regards to taxes was right or wrong, that argument is for another day. What I did say is that they have the money from the rebate they got. If you don’t pay taxes that’s one thing, getting money back beyond that is an entirely different thing. People on this sight are claiming they are paying for it out of their own pockets which is completely false.

Flyright: I’m sure the $100 million was for a reduced effort, with less manpower and no engine testing since a stop-work order would prohibit GE from using Govt assets like test engines. The amount of money the Govt would pay for managing the program is very small in comparison to the actual yearly cost. Also, GE and DoD have disagreed on the amount of funding required to “finish” SDD and then to go into LRIP, so it remains to be seen if GE would pony up the SDD completion amount.

This a total ruse by GE and their lapdogs in Congress to continue taxpayer funding for their engine DoD does not want or need. You have to completely naive or on drugs to believe GE intends to “self-fund” this engine thru R&D, for $2.9 billion. This is just the foot coming back in the door, while they attempt to get back on the public feed trough. GE, which pays no taxes themselves but is evidently addicted to taxpayer money, feels such outrage that their entitlement is being denied that they simply will not let this go. It baffles me why they continue to poke a sharp stick in the eye of DoD when they have other big engine contract opportunities like the next generation bomber on the line. Very Dumb.

Let them pay what they will, use the government assets and see what happens next. To date, 3B has been spent…are you all saying lets just throw that away?? Right now, it will not hurt the taxpayer and it surely is a payback to us taxpayers that they self fund. Don’t forget, P&W is 3.5B overbudget and requires an additional 1B to get their F135 up to spec. At least GE is paying its own way while P&W keeps sticking its hand out for additional billions for an engine that still does not meet spec. I’ve been in this game too long and know how P&W works. If P&W is the sole contractor for the engine, the problems we will experience will be profound and costly to all U.S tax payers.

“To me, this is a no-brainer,” said HASC chairman Buck McKeon, a California Republican. ”

Why am I not suprised to hear this kind of statement from a representative of the soon-to-be first state to file for bankruptcy? If you spend it, more will come should not be the SOP in terms of budget dollars.

Cut-N-Shoot, could you state where you got the info that the F135 fully meets DoDs specs? Having worked for many years in Govt acquisition of weapon systems, most hardware truely never meets all of the original specs and compromises are made along the way.

That’s not very comforting to know!

MM99.. true, compromises and modifications are the norm as you go through development of a new product — that’s how you work the kinks out and get to the final certification to transition to production. But that would hold true for the F136 engine as well, wouldn’t it. And the F136 is not out of development yet, and those unexpected failures and redesigns are not even calculated in the $2.9 B . The F135 is out of development. You can look at the statement in DoD’s Initial Service Release (ISR) for that info, where JPO on 2/24/10 certified that the F135 was qualified for production by completing the required ISR “defined by the F135 Contract Prime Performance Specification”.

A good response to this HASC (i.e. GE) proposal to “self-fund” is found here:
http://​www​.lexingtoninstitute​.org/​g​e​-​e​n​g​i​n​e​-​p​l​oy-…

Cut-N-Shoot.. Most development programs have “management reserve” built into the program, to address unexpected failures and redesigns that are not major impacts, so some level of MR is included in the remaining development program. I believe the ISR you quote is for the CTOL/CV version of the engine and not the STOLV.

That’s true but real life experience and testing can impact the best of specs written

What a bunch of BS. Sure it would be great to be back in the 1980’s when there was enough money in the defense budget for something like an alternate engine (the F100/F110 has to be shown both good & bad) but we should not have wasted $3 billion on the F136. The F-35 Propulsion Program is $3.5 billion over budget, ~1/3 of that is COMMON over budget costs for BOTH engines, not just the F135 but it gets ‘charge’ to the F135 because the F135 IS the F-35 Propulsion Program. Sorry but GE/RR claiming to be willing to pay $100 million for a year or to is hardly paying its own way. What spec is the F135 not meeting? What problems will we experience with just the F135?

So why only two engines for the F-35 & not any/every other aircraft, tank, ship, et cetera? And why just two engines & not two of EVERY component?

MM99, please feel free to look at the STOLV ISR. It says the same thing. The engine met the required specs.

MM99, if you were in defense acquisition you should know that engines are built in blocks. There will be a number of blocks in every engine production, whether GE or P&W produced. When there is a problem detected in an engine they just ground that block of engines while they examine or repair a problem, not the entire fleet. There is no instance of an entire fleet ever being grounded because of an engine problem.

Cut-N-Shoot, I have worked in defense acquisition for over 30+ years and know of several instances where we grounded the entire fleet of aircraft due to an engine problem. Engines are not necessarily built in blocks like aircraft and many of the most critical components do not change over time so if you have a design deficiency in say, a turbine disk, that could affect all the engines with that standard, you must either ground the fleet or determine how much flying time you have remaining before you ground them.

pfcem..Aircraft propulsion systems are the largest and most expensive subsystem (to procure and repair) of the aircraft and if it fails, the aircraft cannot do its mission. I suppose you could make the case that for a very expensive component e.g. the radar, having an alternate could make sense but for many other components, the cost for dual qual would be too high. Remember, my rationale was based on safety, in the future if the F-35 has a single engine to choose from, if there is a safety issue for grounding, no other service or partner would be able to cover our commitments since they would be using the same engine and potentially have the same problem.

Cut-N-Shoot Thanks — do you have a link to it — I’d like to read it. Usually, even when passing a ISR milestone, there are issues like durability life testing which aren’t complete until OCR or items that are OK for usage in service but require additional development/improvement to completely meet spec

PFCEM..Not sure where you got the info that 1/3 of $3.5 B over budget is common to both engines. PW has the design responsibility for the common hardware with GE/RR input. My understanding is that GE/RR have not experience major over budget issues.

Oh so you MM99 would argue our military should have back up engines for all our aircraft — why just for the F-35?

We have alternative engines for F15s and F-16s, the F-18s have different engines for early and late models (F404 and F414). My concern is that if everyone is using one engine (F135) for all services and many allies if something goes wrong with that engine we have no weapon systems to fall back on.

All USAF F-15s are powered by P&W F100 series turbofans however. Meanwhile both the F404 and F414 are built by GE and of the same common design.

TF41 powered A-7s and F402 powered AV-8A/B.

to continue..wrt F-18s why would GE push for competition (same boat that PW is in on the F-35) it is up to the Govt to determine if competition is required. At the time, the twin engine design of the F-18 and most helos worked against the need for an alternate engine because it was felt the twin engine design would address safety concerns. The Navy did try a “leader-follower” effort on the F404 by providing PW with dwgs to build it but it was found not to be economically feasible.

William C. There is not much commonality between the F404 and the F414 except for the normal GE standard work. F414 is larger, more thrust, etc.

So you admit the reality that the cost for dual qual would be too high for other components. But strange you do not for the largest and most expensive subsystem(s)… Having the F136 does NOTHING to make the F-35 safer. By the time the F-35 represents a significant enough proportion of any air forces fleets, it & the F135 will have proven more than reliable enough (& BOTH will have been produced in more than one block) MUCH reducing the perceived need to ground an entire fleet.

Also keep in mind that having two engines DOUBLES the possibility of a significant engine issue — although true such an issue would then only require grounding say half the F-35 fleet.

Sorry but 99+% of all combat aircraft in history have served quite well without an alternate engine, sad that given the much improved reliability of modern jet engines (enough for airlines to accept twin engined transoceanic airlines for example) that so mane feel the F-35 does.

Dude, they blew up at least one engine with 3 hours of testing on it, and had problems that required redesign on their first four or five engines. Put down the koolaid.

*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