The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
Behind The Battle Of The Generals

Somewhere in the first comment thread on the "was there a competition?" spat over the F135 and F136 engines, Graham Warwick bemoans the fact that history from more than a decade ago is running decisions today.

That's correct. In a technical sense, it doesn't matter - what should be important is whether the long-term benefits of a second engine are worth its current and future cost.

Politically, it's another kettle of fish.

P&W has conveniently assembled a mass of quotes from the engine debate (scroll down to "A Clear Winner").  Senators Lieberman, McCain, Chambliss and Snowe have all stated on the Congressional record that there was a competition and P&W won.

This is a powerful argument, because it implies that Congressional F136 supporters are trying to use politics to reverse a proper and responsible decision. To quote McCain: "We are not talking about competition, we are actually talking about another bite at the apple."

But of course it is not true, as we have seen and the public record shows. The government never conducted an engine competition for the JSF. The three primes going into the JSF prototype stage made their own engine choices for the prototypes only, but time and cost constraints heavily favored the P&W F119. And since all three prototype proposals used the F119, engine competition was not a factor in the government's choice.

The government had a competitive strategy in place before the prototype downselect, and before 1998 had formally set in place the two-engine strategy that was the program of record until 2006. When the JSF program office did try to end the F136 program it was done with no formal competition. 

So why did members of the Senate get this important fact wrong? It seems that they believed what P&W told them, via the F135 engine website and other means. A banner line on the site as (update) it existed on Saturday

 

blog post photo

 

This linked on Saturday (update), however, to text that makes a more qualified claim: 

Two of the three original bidders for the F-35 project chose Pratt & Whitney engines to power their proposed airframes.  The bidder who did not was the first eliminated from the original competition. 

More qualified, but still false, since all three contenders for the prototype stage of the project (although anyone reading it would think that P&W's talking about the whole program) went into source selection with the F119.

Nobody likes being misled, and politicians really don't like it at all. 

By the way, a postscript on Gen Loh's comments. As he says in his introduction:  "As the former commander of the Air Force’s aircraft and engine acquisition center, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, and Commander of its largest operational command, I participated in the early days of what is now the JSF program and I recall the facts as though they occurred yesterday."

General Loh retired on July 1, 1995. As we've seen, McDonnell Douglas was still working with GE at that time and the dual-engine strategy had not yet been formulated. 

Update:  In the light of General Loh's comment, I thought I'd take a look at the historical evidence. First, from then-program director Adm Craig Steidle, at the announcement of the CDA downselect in October 1996:

"We do have a competitive engine program. You've seen it reflected in the language that came back from the congressional committees this year... It's very, very important that when we get to the introduction of the airplane in the fleet that we have two competitive engines ... Each one of these contractors, the three teams, know ... that we have required them to look at a competitive engine. That competitive engine program is underway. We have a contract with General Electric out of my office. The first phase of the program has been completed. We've identified an F120 engine as the competitive engine program. We have funded a program between now and when we need to start an EMD program on that engine, that is 2004, to get it into an airplane in 2008 to compete with the F119 versions.


Next, from the SDD award announcement in October 2001:

The Joint Strike Fighter acquisition strategy also calls for the development of two propulsion systems. The Pratt & Whitney system will compete, in production, with one developed by the team of General Electric and Rolls Royce. GE/RR are expected to receive a contract for the next phase of development of that system in the next few weeks. The P&W and GE/RR engines will be physically and functionally interchangeable in both the aircraft and support systems. All JSF aircraft variants will be able to use either engine. The competition starts in fiscal 2011 and continues through the life of the program to reduce risks. 

Update 2:  I will never make a fighter pilot. By the time it occurred to me that I should make a full screenshot of the relevant PW pages, it was too late. Winston Smith got there first. The banner head now reads:
 

blog post photo

And the text has been replaced by a much longer statement which, while it is technically accurate, glosses over the fact that the two-track "co-opetition" engine program goes back to the very beginnings of JSF. For the record, here's what it said on Saturday:


blog post photo
 

Anyone who can find anything on the site that acknowledges that the wording has changed can take a cookie from my desk. 

 

 

Tags: ar99f135f136
Email this post
User Image
Gen. Mike Loh wrote:
Bill,
You are correct. I retired from active duty on July 1, 1995. I consulted for both Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney right after that and throughout the competition and source selections for the JSF and therefore was fully aware of all aspects of the program at the time. I stand by my statement that everyone involved at the time of the selection of Lockheed Martin recognized it as a winner-take-all competition to include the engine. The engine for JSF was always a CFE item, contractor, not government, furnished. Lockheed was not about to change its engine. The government agreed, or at least acquiesced in Lockheed's choice of engine.
8/29/2009 8:57 AM CDT
User Image
RSF wrote:
With all due respect to both of these gentleman who have served our country, it is obvious that both represent opposing interests in the F-35 engine issue. While General Hough should have openly mentioned his affiliation with GE/RR, this does not undermine the point of his argument, that this was not a competition as has been portrayed by some.

Bill has done a great job of giving some historical perspective on this issue and cutting through some of the talking points that are being treated as facts. I see a few problems with General Loh's rebuttal that should be furthered discussed:
1. Comparing the F-35 program with prior fighters and their sole source engines is not appropriate. The JSF from the onset was to be manufactured with many partners nations and their respective aerospace firms (like the UK and RR). Going back many years, the GE/RR engine was openly discussed as part of the multinational effort that the F-35 was supposed to be. Framing the GE/RR engine as "pork barrel politics" is a convenient way of shifting the conversation from other real issues.
2.The statement that the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corp have rejected the second engine can not be taken seriously with Mr. Gates at the helm. Can we expect the leadership in those services to say anything else other then the party line at this point?
3. It is rather absurd for General Loh to talk about our military knowing what they need vs. special interests, when he represents P&W.

It is all very convenient to have the attention shifted to this very public discussion, while P&W pushes a price increase per engine from 6.7 - 8.3 million for the F135. Also omitted from this discussion are the technical problems that have plagued the F135 (turbine shaft failure, 3rd stage rotor blade failure, the under sizing of the Hamilton/Sundstrand electrical generator and the subsequent costly redesign of the F135 gearbox, etc). The GE/RR F136 on the other hand has had no such problems. If we apply General Loh's winner take all strategy to the performance of the two engines, the clear winner would be the F136.
8/29/2009 1:56 PM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
RSF - So far I have not seen any sign that Gen. Hough works for either GE or RR, and have been told by GE that he does not.
8/29/2009 2:12 PM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
RSF: I believe what you meant to say was "The GE/RR F136 on the other hand has had no such problems- YET." How many production F136s are being used in the F-35 flight test program? It's easy to say "there are no problems" when none are being used. And yes, it is "pork barrel" politics as it was NEVER the intent to fund TWO engines regardless of whether or not there was or wasn't a competition or suppose to be.
8/29/2009 2:49 PM CDT
User Image
RSF wrote:
sferrin: I am not inclined to regurgitate for your convenience all the various places that the F136 has been mentioned over the years as being part of the multinational effort that the JSF was meant to be. I will not be party to the group think that has dominated the conversation about the F-35, nor do I agree with your opinions on this matter. I stand by what I said, and we can agree to disagree on this issue.
8/29/2009 3:00 PM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
sferrin - Say what? The two quotes above, from 1996 and 2001, make it gin-clear that the leader-follower, two-engine strategy was in effect from the CDA downselect, through SSD selection and award, until early 2006, when the Pentagon first proposed to cancel the F136. And that was done purely to save money in the aftermath of the SWAT redesign - and also in the hope that Congress would provide extra money to keep the F136 going.
8/29/2009 3:10 PM CDT
User Image
RSF wrote:
Bill: Thank you for the clarification Gen Hough.
8/29/2009 3:11 PM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
Sorry to ruin the lovefest but Sweetman still hasn't convinced me....Graham says their was a competition, the historian for the program says their was a competition and now Sweetman has a convoluted explanation on why the camp (he's surely in) is right in saying their wasn't one. Sorry can't buy it and will await further details. How about some real critical thinking and getting off the love train?
8/29/2009 4:18 PM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
Regardless of what the intent was and what actually happened if the government is paying for the thing it's completely within their right to cancel it (the F136). Programs get cancelled all the time. If money grew on trees and cost was no object then yeah, have two options. In the real world money doesn't grow on trees so the F136 got the chop. The F135 is further along in it's developement, that's the breaks. What it looks like now is a case of politicians wanting more pork so they cling desperately to the F100/F110 example (despite the fact it's an aberration), writers wanting to generate controvery to sell more magazines, and GE wanting to save jobs. None of this is inherently evil but it is what it is. What it's NOT is the end of the world nor is the entire F-35 fleet going to fall out of the sky because it's only got one engine option. Most other military aircraft only have one engine option and they do just fine. If it's so important ask the Europeans to pay for it. We'll find out (surprise!) that they don't think it's important either.
8/29/2009 5:36 PM CDT
User Image
ELP wrote:
And we won't know until a significant amount of flight testing through the whole envelope is done. Whenever that is...
8/29/2009 6:37 PM CDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >> Last
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos