batmannow
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2008
- Messages
- 18,830
- Reaction score
- -19
- Country
- Location
Obama, Gates Seek to End F-35 Battle
Benefiting the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - Military.com
October 03, 2009
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
Call it the "Second Great Engine War," an all-out brawl over who will produce thousands of engines for the F-35 joint strike fighter.
It pits three of the world's great jet engine makers and their allies against each other: Pratt and Whitney versus General Electric and Rolls-Royce.
The stakes are high; perhaps $100 billion worth of business over 20 to 30 years.
Pratt and Whitney holds the high ground. The company has been working on its JSF engine, the F135, since the mid-1990s. The Pentagon awarded the GE/Rolls-Royce team a $2.1 billion contract in 2005 to develop its alternate F136 engine.
Now President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, squeezed by burgeoning budget deficits and ever-rising costs for defense programs, want to pull the plug on the GE/Rolls engine. The Pentagon says a second engine is unnecessary and will consume $2 billion to $3 billion needed for other purposes.
Gates, when he toured Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant Aug. 30, told reporters, "We feel strongly about the fact that there is not a need for a second engine."
This is a battle that's been fought before, and a Fort Worth warplane was involved in that one, too.
In the late 1970s and early '80s, the Air Force, Pentagon and Congress all became frustrated over reliability and cost issues with Pratt and Whitney engines used in the new F-16 fighter jet. Pratt and Whitney, by historical accounts, was less than cooperative, and Congress finally contracted with GE to build a second engine.
The results, say veterans of that first "Great Engine War," were better, safer engines from both companies and lower costs to taxpayers.
"We've been down this path before, and the lessons have been forgotten," said Brian Erickson, a longtime F-16 propulsion system engineer for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. He began his aviation career with Pratt and Whitney.
"The F-16 wouldn't be the airplane it is today without the GE engine coming on board," said Erickson, of Benbrook. He's now an independent aviation consultant who says he is not working for any of the companies involved.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Drewes, whose book The Air Force and the Great Engine War chronicled the F-16 engine battle, has a similar view.
"I would come down on the side of saying you would really want to keep two [engines] going," Drewes said in a phone interview.
"You just have to have some leverage over a contractor. Competition keeps people sharp," added Drewes, who was president of L-3 Communications Integrated Systems in Greenville until last year.
Savings estimate
There's no definitive study that says the F-16 engine competition saved the government vast amounts of money. But in 2007, the Government Accountability Office estimated savings of up to 21 percent in the early years compared with what the government would have spent with Pratt and Whitney alone.
For Pratt and Whitney, victory in the latest dogfight could mean tens of billions of dollars in sole-source contracts for engines, spare parts and service. With the F-35 expected to be the primary combat aircraft of the U.S. and its allies for decades, it's an almost limitless future revenue stream.
William Begert, a Pratt and Whitney vice president and retired Air Force general, acknowledged in an interview that the government had every reason to be dissatisfied with the company's arrogance that led to the F-16 engine war, "and that won't happen again."
Pratt and Whitney, he said, is "going to deliver a dependable engine that is very cost-conscious, and of value to the customer. When that fighter pilot straps into that jet and goes into combat, he is not going to have to worry about that engine.aEURe .aEURe.aEURe.aEURe He may worry about surface-to-air missiles or air-to-air combat or getting his bombs on target, but he will not worry about whether his engine will get him home, and that's the most important customer we've got."
GE, meanwhile, is playing up the benefits of competition, saying it will mean lower costs for taxpayers. It has capitalized on Pentagon concerns over rising costs with the Pratt and Whitney engine.
In July, Ashton Carter, defense undersecretary for weapons procurement, wrote in a memo, "I am very concerned about continued cost growth in the F135." He appointed a team to investigate and report to him by mid-November.
GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said that F-136 engine development "is on schedule and on budget," and that the company has submitted a firm, fixed-price proposal to the Pentagon for the first 100 production engines
"With the fixed-price approach," Kennedy said, "GE/Rolls-Royce intends to change the JSF engine business model to accelerate the competition and bring the administration's desire for acquisition reform,at the very moment PandW's F135 faces significant overruns."
Pratt and Whitney has countered with what Begert called "an aggressive cost-plus" contract bid in which it promises to absorb cost increases above a certain level.
With Obama and Gates firm in their position, the engine battle has focused on Congress, with legions of lobbyists, paid ads and dueling news releases seeking to influence votes. As early as 1995, Congress told the Pentagon to plan on buying two interchangeable engines for the JSF.
The Senate, in its 2010 defense appropriations bill, provided no money for the GE engine, with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, from Pratt and Whitney's home state of Connecticut, leading the way.
The House, however, included funds for a second engine in its own appropriations bill. The differences will be ironed out in a conference committee in a few weeks, with "informal discussions" already taking place.
'Unnecessary' spending
A conservative-leaning watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, issued a position paper last week that said the attempt to keep the GE engine funded "is a classic case of unnecessary and expensive Congressional involvement" in defense procurement.
The group's paper largely cites sources that favor Gates' position. David Williams, one of the authors, said the group met with Pratt and Whitney and GE and "listened very intently" to their arguments.
The GAO, which advises Congress, has repeatedly said that it favors development of a second engine and that its cost analysis indicates a potential for long-term savings far exceeding the added development costs.
Drewes, who was in Air Force procurement positions and was a White House adviser during the first engine war, said that even though times are different and the nation's budget problems are great, "from the lessons of that great engine war, I would keep two engines alive" for the F-35.
Benefiting the US Army, US Navy, US Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard - Military.com
October 03, 2009
McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
Call it the "Second Great Engine War," an all-out brawl over who will produce thousands of engines for the F-35 joint strike fighter.
It pits three of the world's great jet engine makers and their allies against each other: Pratt and Whitney versus General Electric and Rolls-Royce.
The stakes are high; perhaps $100 billion worth of business over 20 to 30 years.
Pratt and Whitney holds the high ground. The company has been working on its JSF engine, the F135, since the mid-1990s. The Pentagon awarded the GE/Rolls-Royce team a $2.1 billion contract in 2005 to develop its alternate F136 engine.
Now President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, squeezed by burgeoning budget deficits and ever-rising costs for defense programs, want to pull the plug on the GE/Rolls engine. The Pentagon says a second engine is unnecessary and will consume $2 billion to $3 billion needed for other purposes.
Gates, when he toured Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant Aug. 30, told reporters, "We feel strongly about the fact that there is not a need for a second engine."
This is a battle that's been fought before, and a Fort Worth warplane was involved in that one, too.
In the late 1970s and early '80s, the Air Force, Pentagon and Congress all became frustrated over reliability and cost issues with Pratt and Whitney engines used in the new F-16 fighter jet. Pratt and Whitney, by historical accounts, was less than cooperative, and Congress finally contracted with GE to build a second engine.
The results, say veterans of that first "Great Engine War," were better, safer engines from both companies and lower costs to taxpayers.
"We've been down this path before, and the lessons have been forgotten," said Brian Erickson, a longtime F-16 propulsion system engineer for General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin. He began his aviation career with Pratt and Whitney.
"The F-16 wouldn't be the airplane it is today without the GE engine coming on board," said Erickson, of Benbrook. He's now an independent aviation consultant who says he is not working for any of the companies involved.
Retired Air Force Gen. Robert Drewes, whose book The Air Force and the Great Engine War chronicled the F-16 engine battle, has a similar view.
"I would come down on the side of saying you would really want to keep two [engines] going," Drewes said in a phone interview.
"You just have to have some leverage over a contractor. Competition keeps people sharp," added Drewes, who was president of L-3 Communications Integrated Systems in Greenville until last year.
Savings estimate
There's no definitive study that says the F-16 engine competition saved the government vast amounts of money. But in 2007, the Government Accountability Office estimated savings of up to 21 percent in the early years compared with what the government would have spent with Pratt and Whitney alone.
For Pratt and Whitney, victory in the latest dogfight could mean tens of billions of dollars in sole-source contracts for engines, spare parts and service. With the F-35 expected to be the primary combat aircraft of the U.S. and its allies for decades, it's an almost limitless future revenue stream.
William Begert, a Pratt and Whitney vice president and retired Air Force general, acknowledged in an interview that the government had every reason to be dissatisfied with the company's arrogance that led to the F-16 engine war, "and that won't happen again."
Pratt and Whitney, he said, is "going to deliver a dependable engine that is very cost-conscious, and of value to the customer. When that fighter pilot straps into that jet and goes into combat, he is not going to have to worry about that engine.aEURe .aEURe.aEURe.aEURe He may worry about surface-to-air missiles or air-to-air combat or getting his bombs on target, but he will not worry about whether his engine will get him home, and that's the most important customer we've got."
GE, meanwhile, is playing up the benefits of competition, saying it will mean lower costs for taxpayers. It has capitalized on Pentagon concerns over rising costs with the Pratt and Whitney engine.
In July, Ashton Carter, defense undersecretary for weapons procurement, wrote in a memo, "I am very concerned about continued cost growth in the F135." He appointed a team to investigate and report to him by mid-November.
GE spokesman Rick Kennedy said that F-136 engine development "is on schedule and on budget," and that the company has submitted a firm, fixed-price proposal to the Pentagon for the first 100 production engines
"With the fixed-price approach," Kennedy said, "GE/Rolls-Royce intends to change the JSF engine business model to accelerate the competition and bring the administration's desire for acquisition reform,at the very moment PandW's F135 faces significant overruns."
Pratt and Whitney has countered with what Begert called "an aggressive cost-plus" contract bid in which it promises to absorb cost increases above a certain level.
With Obama and Gates firm in their position, the engine battle has focused on Congress, with legions of lobbyists, paid ads and dueling news releases seeking to influence votes. As early as 1995, Congress told the Pentagon to plan on buying two interchangeable engines for the JSF.
The Senate, in its 2010 defense appropriations bill, provided no money for the GE engine, with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman, from Pratt and Whitney's home state of Connecticut, leading the way.
The House, however, included funds for a second engine in its own appropriations bill. The differences will be ironed out in a conference committee in a few weeks, with "informal discussions" already taking place.
'Unnecessary' spending
A conservative-leaning watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, issued a position paper last week that said the attempt to keep the GE engine funded "is a classic case of unnecessary and expensive Congressional involvement" in defense procurement.
The group's paper largely cites sources that favor Gates' position. David Williams, one of the authors, said the group met with Pratt and Whitney and GE and "listened very intently" to their arguments.
The GAO, which advises Congress, has repeatedly said that it favors development of a second engine and that its cost analysis indicates a potential for long-term savings far exceeding the added development costs.
Drewes, who was in Air Force procurement positions and was a White House adviser during the first engine war, said that even though times are different and the nation's budget problems are great, "from the lessons of that great engine war, I would keep two engines alive" for the F-35.
