Published: Thursday, April 15, 2010
GUEST COMMENTARY / JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER
Pentagon’s decision on jet fighter engine is short-sighted
Whenever America falls into an economic recession, we are forced to further reassess our technological capabilities for competing in a global economy. It makes sense. Our leadership in advanced technology is the best vehicle for driving economic growth and creating high-paying jobs in our communities.
In the state of Washington, we greatly benefit from U.S. global leadership in aerospace technology with such leading firms as the Boeing Co., and in Mukilteo, with GE Aviation Systems. America’s aerospace industry requires continual investment from the private and public sector to maintain its preeminence.
I provide this backdrop to explain why I am troubled by the Pentagon’s cost-cutting move to kill the advanced fighter jet engine being developed by GE and Rolls-Royce to compete on the Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF). To cancel this engine program so near its completion would waste the $3 billion already spent in taxpayer dollars. It also raises a serious industrial-base question about whether more than one U.S. engine supplier will be capable of producing this type of high-performance jet engine in the future. Also, the Pentagon would hand the entire JSF engine business over to Pratt & Whitney, the other JSF engine supplier, which already faces $2 billion in overruns.
I appreciate the government’s desire to attack the ballooning federal deficit. But killing the F136 engine program will eliminate a decades-long competition planned between JSF engine suppliers. This action will cost taxpayers far more money in the long-term, compromise our national security, and impact U.S. leadership in the critical arena of jet propulsion.
The JSF program will be the largest weapons procurement in U.S. history, replacing the majority of current tactical fighter aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, Marines, and Navy inventories, as well as tactical aircraft of nine or more international partners — in all, a projected production run of almost 4,000 aircraft. Competing engines have been an integral component of the JSF program from its inception. The total engine buy for the JSF is expected to reach $100 billion over the next 30 years.
We know from our recent past that competing fighter engines significantly reduce program costs, while improving safety, reliability, and contractor responsiveness. The “Great Engine War,” the 20-year battle to power the single-engine F-16, demonstrated cost savings of 21 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
For the single-engine JSF, that equates to more than $20 billion in savings over the life of the program by funding the GE/Rolls-Royce engine. Simply put, the cost savings through competition will quickly pay for the $1 billion needed to complete the development of the GE/Rolls-Royce engine. The JSF program is far too large to entrust all of these aircraft with a single engine supplier.
Congress has long understood this. The Pentagon is ignoring 15 years of bi-partisan Congressional support and directives for two competing and fully interchangeable JSF engines. Even The Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, signed by President Obama, mandates competition through the life cycle of major weapon systems programs. The JSF engine program creates the perfect opportunity to put this law into action.
Congress is now challenging the Pentagon’s short sightedness on this issue. The long-term impact on our U.S. industrial base, our national security, and our ability to manage defense overruns will be greatly affected by eliminating competing engines for the all-important JSF program.
Joe Marine is mayor of Mukilteo.
In the state of Washington, we greatly benefit from U.S. global leadership in aerospace technology with such leading firms as the Boeing Co., and in Mukilteo, with GE Aviation Systems. America’s aerospace industry requires continual investment from the private and public sector to maintain its preeminence.
I provide this backdrop to explain why I am troubled by the Pentagon’s cost-cutting move to kill the advanced fighter jet engine being developed by GE and Rolls-Royce to compete on the Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF). To cancel this engine program so near its completion would waste the $3 billion already spent in taxpayer dollars. It also raises a serious industrial-base question about whether more than one U.S. engine supplier will be capable of producing this type of high-performance jet engine in the future. Also, the Pentagon would hand the entire JSF engine business over to Pratt & Whitney, the other JSF engine supplier, which already faces $2 billion in overruns.
I appreciate the government’s desire to attack the ballooning federal deficit. But killing the F136 engine program will eliminate a decades-long competition planned between JSF engine suppliers. This action will cost taxpayers far more money in the long-term, compromise our national security, and impact U.S. leadership in the critical arena of jet propulsion.
The JSF program will be the largest weapons procurement in U.S. history, replacing the majority of current tactical fighter aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, Marines, and Navy inventories, as well as tactical aircraft of nine or more international partners — in all, a projected production run of almost 4,000 aircraft. Competing engines have been an integral component of the JSF program from its inception. The total engine buy for the JSF is expected to reach $100 billion over the next 30 years.
We know from our recent past that competing fighter engines significantly reduce program costs, while improving safety, reliability, and contractor responsiveness. The “Great Engine War,” the 20-year battle to power the single-engine F-16, demonstrated cost savings of 21 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
For the single-engine JSF, that equates to more than $20 billion in savings over the life of the program by funding the GE/Rolls-Royce engine. Simply put, the cost savings through competition will quickly pay for the $1 billion needed to complete the development of the GE/Rolls-Royce engine. The JSF program is far too large to entrust all of these aircraft with a single engine supplier.
Congress has long understood this. The Pentagon is ignoring 15 years of bi-partisan Congressional support and directives for two competing and fully interchangeable JSF engines. Even The Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, signed by President Obama, mandates competition through the life cycle of major weapon systems programs. The JSF engine program creates the perfect opportunity to put this law into action.
Congress is now challenging the Pentagon’s short sightedness on this issue. The long-term impact on our U.S. industrial base, our national security, and our ability to manage defense overruns will be greatly affected by eliminating competing engines for the all-important JSF program.
Joe Marine is mayor of Mukilteo.
Comments
(