GE and the Joint Strike Fighter: Facts vs. myths

For the last 15 years, GE and Rolls-Royce have been building the F136 engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Taxpayers have invested more than $3 billion in the development of the engine, and now — with 75 percent of the work on the F136 complete — GE and Rolls-Royce could be forced to halt development on the engine if the FY 2011 funding is eliminated. As debate has again intensified over how to power the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, there have been many new, unfounded claims about the F136. Handing a sole-source, $100 billion engine monopoly to one contractor would endanger national security, provide less protection for our troops, impede competition in defense procurement when it is most needed, and impose higher costs on taxpayers. We’d like to again set the record straight.

History lesson: One of the most compelling arguments in favor of engine competition is the lesson learned from the 1980s and ’90s — known in military circles as “The Great Engine War.” At the time, problems developed from a sole-sourced Pratt & Whitney engine being used to power the F-15 fleet. The military eventually called for a second engine to be developed and established a head-to-head competition for its new F-16s. It resulted in GE developing what later became the dominant engine of the entire fleet, with GE’s alternative engine today powering every combat F-16 in the active U.S. Air Force.

MYTH: The F136 is not meeting performance standards.
FACT: The F136 program has met all major contract milestones and has consistently been awarded exceptional and very good ratings by the Department of Defense.

MYTH: The fixed-price offer from GE/Rolls-Royce is not unique.
FACT: This proposal can help change the defense contracting landscape. GE/Rolls-Royce assumes all cost risk for all production execution under its control. The offer eliminates the historical Government risk associated with industry learning how to produce engines.

MYTH: The F136 engine is still very immature.
FACT: The F136 test program is on schedule to power JSF flight next year. Development is 75 percent complete, and the engine is meeting efficiency and temperature margin expectations to date.

MYTH: There was already an engine competition — and Pratt & Whitney won.
FACT: Lt. General Mike Hough who ran the JSF program when Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney began their development programs has repeatedly stated there was no competition. On May 19, DoD’s Comptroller for Program/Budget John Roth testified that there was no competition. P&W’s engine contracts clearly state “not competitively procured.”

MYTH: The Navy says it won’t have room for two engines on their carriers.
FACT: The two engines are fully interchangeable and the footprint of each engine is identical. (Half the engine is common, the other half is interchangeable.) Shipping containers, ground handling equipment, hand tools and maintenance training on board the carrier are common.

MYTH: We don’t need the F136 because the DoD no longer wants it.
FACT: Congress has often sensibly asserted its own judgment. Today, unmanned aerial vehicles are almost indispensable, and the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft is a combat force multiplier. The Pentagon tried to kill both. The F136 is just as worthy and will pay for itself.

MYTH: The F136 will cost money, not save it.
FACT: GAO computed a 21 percent savings benefit from annual competition in the similar F-16 engine. That’s $20 billion in savings in the context of JSF.

MYTH: Funding the F136 will lead to a loss of 50-80 JSF aircraft.
FACT: Just the opposite. $20 billion in savings can fund 200 aircraft, almost 10 percent of the U.S. military program of record.

Learn more in these GE Reports stories:
* “GE and the Joint Strike Fighter: Facts vs. myths”
* “Fixed price offer will slash Joint Strike Fighter costs”
* “GE & the Joint Strike Fighter: Let the best engine win”
* “Gen. Hough: JSF engine competition ‘never happened’”
* “House backs Joint Strike Fighter engine competition”

* Learn more about the arguments in favor of engine competition on the JSF
* Learn details about how the JSF engine is made
* Read the GAO’s May 2009 report on the JSF
* Read Lt. Gen. Hough’s full post on aviationweek.com
* Read Desert Storm air commander Gen. Chuck Horner’s opinion piece
* Read the JSF recommendations made by the Heritage Foundation