Let’s
Compete.
GE and Rolls-Royce are building the F136 engine for
America’s next fighter jet. But some want to hand a
$100 billion monopoly to a sole contractor. At a time of
record budget deficits, competition is more important
than ever for taxpayers and the military.
As JSF Second Engine Debate Rages, QDR
Panel Recommends Competition
Inside Defense
July 28, 2010
“A blue-ribbon advisory panel — dominated by Defense Secretary Robert Gates' appointees — will recommend the Pentagon adopt dual-source competition for the duration of a weapon system's production run, a finding that could undermine the Obama administration's case for terminating funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
‘History has shown that the only reliable source of price reduction through the life of a program is competition between dual sources,’ states an advance copy of the Independent Quadrennial Defense Review Panel's report obtained by InsideDefense.com and due for public release tomorrow…
…‘In all cases, the annual split buy brought the prices of every missile down dramatically,’ states the report.”
Read more
Read the full QDR report
Appropriations Subcommittee Approves
Fiscal Year 2011 Defense Funding Bill
By House Appropriations Ranking Republican Jerry Lewis
July 27, 2010
“…’There has been much debate on the issue of the second engine, but it all comes down to this: competition saves money. I truly believe that spending a little money today will save a great deal in the future. And, to the question of a possible veto by the President, I say that we cannot let fear and threats keep us from doing what we believe is right for the taxpayers and our troops,’ Lewis said in support of his amendment…” Read the full release
Reps. Robert. E. Andrews (D-NJ) and Mike Conaway (R-TX),
Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Acquisition
Reform Panel, respectively, urge House Appropriations
Committee members to support competition and continue
funding the F136 engine.
July 26, 2010
Viewpoint: Competition on Engine Program Must Not Be Cut
By Gen. Charles A. Horner, Pensacola News Journal
July 25, 2010
“…How did we end up here again, when a sole-sourced engine of this scale failed so miserably before? Because the Pentagon is claiming we can't afford to fund competition. In fact, our troops and taxpayers can't afford to not have competition on the JSF engine.
The primary Pratt & Whitney JSF engine is already $2 billion over budget, and there are reports of emerging technical problems. By contrast, the GE/Rolls-Royce engine is already designed, built and will be ready for flight next year. Not insignificantly, the independent Government Accountability Office says taxpayers would save $20 billion over the life of the JSF program because of competition…
History has shown us that our best comes from competition, and, at a time when our country is actively at war, we need it more than ever…”
Leahy Backs Funding for GE Fighter Engine
By Bruce Edwards, Times Argus (VT)
July 24, 2010
“‘I’ve run the numbers, I’ve talked to the experts...For one thing, usually when you have competition, prices come down, they don’t go up…We don’t have the ability to have something go wrong with one engine,’ [U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy] said. ‘This gives us two’…”
F-35 Engine War Pits P&W vs GE’s Fighter Future
Aviation Week, Farnborough 2010 ShowNews
July 20, 2010
Aviation Week points out the benefits of engine competition in a daily issue at the 2010 Farnborough International Airshow.
Read the full article
The Poll, the Paymaster and the Taxpayer
By Naomi Seligman, Huffington Post
July 14, 2010
“…Even by the dismal standards of Washington pay-to-play politics, though, the shenanigans of defense giant Pratt & Whitney — fighting tooth and nail to keep a multi-billion dollar jet engine contract to itself — are something else. P&W's latest ploy? To commission a public opinion poll asking ludicrously transparent leading questions in an attempt to "prove" that Joe Sixpack would be shocked, shocked to see a competing Joint Fighter engine contract go to its archrival GE…”
Pratt & Whitney recently financed the Clarus Research Group to poll 19 "targeted" Congressional districts to create a public perception of support for killing the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) engine competition. GE would like to set the facts straight.
July 13, 2010
The Clarus polling questions were grossly distorted, biased and leading.
The competing GE/Rolls-Royce engine was presented as "government waste," an "earmark," and part of "special projects that benefit well-connected companies." And the polling results were predictable and self-serving to Pratt & Whitney.
The poll respondents were not asked if Pratt & Whitney deserves a $100 billion JSF engine monopoly.
The P&W program is already $2.5 billion over cost in development, while its production engine is 40 percent over its original cost estimate, and has caused F-35 program delays. Meanwhile, the GE/Rolls-Royce engine is receiving excellent marks from the government for program execution.
Respondents were not informed of the potential savings generated from competition.
The independent Government Accountability Office has twice concluded that competing JSF engines could result in $20 billion in savings over the life of the program. The Clarus Research Group conveniently opted to ignore this.
Rolls-Royce: F136 Engine Will Not Need Large Logistics Footprint
InsideDefense News
July 7, 2010
“…Unlike rival engines used on legacy aircraft -- including the F-16 fighter -- the F-35's requirements mandated the engines be interchangeable, meaning they can be easily swapped…Both [the] G.E.-Rolls-Royce F136 and the primary Pratt & Whitney F135 engine share common ground support equipment, tooling and training…”
(Subscription required)
Obama’s Veto Threat on Defense Authorization
Questioned by Levin
CQ Politics News
June 28, 2010
"I can’t believe the president would veto the bill because of the second engine,” Levin said, citing a Pentagon analysis that showed it was a “wash” budget-wise to make additional investments in a second engine because of potential later savings."
Levin Doubts F136 Veto Threat
DoD Buzz
June 28, 2010
"…The chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee said he “can’t imagine” President Obama would veto the defense policy bill over the F136 engine. He strongly rebutted Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ recent claim that the F136 had been competed and the winner — Pratt & Whitney — won. “By the way, there’s never been a competition on that engine,” Levin said. “Did he [Gates] say there has been competition? Then he’s wrong."
F-35 Engine Saga Continues
By Bob Barr, Politico
June 25, 2010
"…The high-stakes controversy [about whether to fund development of two different, but interchangeable, engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — made by two different companies] has created some strange bedfellows arguing against a competing engine…"
The Fighter Engine Team responds to Secretary Gates’ statements to the Senate Appropriations Committee
In a meeting with the Senate Appropriations Committee on June 16, 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made statements about the performance standards of the F136 engine. GE and Rolls-Royce would like to address these statements.
The statement made today by Secretary Gates to the Senate Appropriations Committee about the performance of the GE/Rolls-Royce F136 engine is not supported by the record or the facts. The secretary's comments contradict the detailed assessment from the Department of Defense, which has consistently awarded very good and excellent ratings to the F136. The engine has met or exceeded all performance expectations set by the Pentagon in terms of aeromechanical characteristics, temperature margins, turbine design, the control system and operability.
The F136 development program is on time and on schedule. At the onset of the F136's full-scale development program in 2005, the engine design was specifically modified to meet new requirements for the aircraft. As a result, GE and Rolls-Royce are highly confident that the engine will continue to meet and exceed all performance expectations during 2010, when a total of six test engines are scheduled to run, and next year, when the engine is flight tested on JSF aircraft.
This Week in Defense News with Vago Muradian:
Interview with Rick Kennedy
June 6, 2010
"Without a program like [the F136], it will be very difficult for GE to keep its team together for future generation fighter jets. This is generation five. When you get into generation six...this country will be compromised with one engine producer...which, by the way, has lost significantly in the commercial world in head-to-head competition with GE and Rolls Royce."
Bloomberg News
May 27, 2010
"…For a program as large as the F-35, the Pentagon did not conduct a separate competition to pick the engine suppliers, GE's Immelt wrote in his letter yesterday. When the Pentagon chose Lockheed to build the F-35, the planemaker picked Pratt's engine after evaluating competing designs, Boley said.
Asked if Lockheed had evaluated engine designs and picked the Pratt model, Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president for the F-35 program said, "It's a stretch to say there was a competition for the F-35 engine."
Wall Street Journal: Jet Engine Project Divides Lawmakers
May 27, 2010
"Lawmakers from both parties, including the top two House Republicans, are pressing in a vote Thursday to add $485 million to the defense budget for a fighter-jet engine that the Pentagon says it doesn't want.
The White House and Defense Secretary Robert Gates say the backup engine for the next-generation Joint Strike Fighter is a waste of money that will deplete funds for military priorities.
The fight highlights a vexing issue for those who want to rein in Washington spending. Members of both parties express concern about
rising budget deficits, and Republicans have made a campaign issue of what they…" (Subscription required)
DOD Buzz: Hill Rips ABC’s F136 Story
May 24, 2010
“It’s not often those people who still watch network news are treated to a story about the weapons America buys, so when ABC’s flagship news program broadcast a story about the second engine program for the Joint Strike fighter most of us who watch these things every day took note. You’ll get a general idea of the story’s bent from its title: “Pentagon Chokes on Pork.” At least one person on Capitol Hill in particular took note, and was not happy.”
ABC World News Interview with Rick Kennedy
May 20, 2010
ABC recently sought our views on the Joint Strike Fighter engine debate, views that were largely ignored in the broadcast of May 20, 2010. We'd like you to see the full story, given only 3 seconds of that interview were used in the broadcast.
Excerpt from the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011: House Armed Services Committee Markup
May 19, 2010
Other commendable initiatives in this mark include provisions that make significant contributions to the National Guard and Reserve Equipment account and fund the F136 alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. 
— U.S. Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-Calif.)
Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee
House Oversight and Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Hearing
Defense Acquisitions: One Year After Reform
May 19, 2010
Pentagon confirms that there has never been a competition on the JSF engines
Mr. Sullivan: I do. I think that you may be correct. I don’t think that there was a competition on the Joint Strike Fighter for the engine. I think the competition was at the prime contractor level and GE happened to be a part of that team but they never competed the engine.
Mr. Roth: That’s true. I won’t dispute that. I meant the program in general. Yeah, absolutely. Yeah I agree with it.
— Mr. Mike Sullivan, Director, Acquisition and Sourcing Management, United States Government Accountability Office and Mr. John Roth, Deputy Comptroller for Program/Budget, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) answer a question as to whether or not a competition for the F-35 propulsion system ever occurred.
Excerpts from the House Armed Services Committee Hearing
May 19, 2010
...The Subcommittee remains concerned that the Pentagon believes a sole-source contract for the engine for this aircraft is appropriate even though the Pentagon’s own study on F-35 engine options indicated it would cost no more to reduce operational risk and achieve the benefits of a competitive engine program, than to fund a sole-source engine program...
— Chairman Adam Smith, Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
Excerpts from the House Armed Services Committee Meeting
May 13, 2010
...The committee has believed that competition in the F-35 engine program helps ensure against the operational risk of up to 95 percent of the entire U.S. tactical fighter fleet being grounded due to an engine problem.
— Chairman Adam Smith, Air and Land Forces Subcommittee
... The mark reaffirms the subcommittee’s commitment to the alternate engine program as the best insurance against spiraling development costs and contractor responsiveness for the primary engine.
— Chairman Gene Taylor, Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee
... In regards to the Joint Strike Fighter, I am very pleased that the mark includes funding necessary to continue development for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Competition is good and this is the right thing to do.
— U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (Maryland)
Top Republican on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces
Recent law and US Government directives demand reform of defense acquisition programs, including fixed-price contracts and mandated competition throughout the life cycle of major weapon systems programs.
Delivering Acquisition Reform
The GE/Rolls-Royce (GE R-R) Fighter Engine Team has submitted a fixed-price contracting approach on the competitive F136 engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), answering the call of the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act.
This submittal follows several months of discussion with the Department of Defense, and covers initial production of the F136 engine.
The approach shifts a significant cost risk from taxpayers to GE R-R until head-to-head competition begins in 2013.
Fixed-price contracting brings the cost discipline of competitive markets to military procurement.
Driving Reform Behavior
Cost overruns have become an increasing concern in defense programs.
Under cost-plus contracting, schedule and cost risks are borne by taxpayers.
In contrast, fixed-price contracting accelerates the learning curve to achieve lower cost on/ahead of schedule, and shifts the execution risks to the manufacturer.
Competition and fixed-price contracting change manufacturers’ behavior, and the benefits are realized throughout the program lifecycle, from development through production.
A Perfect Candidate
The JSF is a multi-role aircraft replacing numerous fighter aircraft, with potential production to reach 5,000 to 6,000 aircraft over 30 years.
The sheer size and scope of the JSF program makes engine selection a perfect candidate for acquisition reform, especially since the F136 competitive engine is already 70% complete.
The JSF program deserves the combined benefits of fixed-price contracting and ongoing competition, as called for by acquisition reform advocates and mandated by law.
Competition and fixed-price contracting change manufacturers’ behavior, and the benefits are realized throughout the program lifecycle, from development through production.
Tell Congress you support
the F136 engine program.
Online Media Kit 
loading tweets
View our Latest Print Ads
...this is not a question of pork; it is a sincere concern for the success of the F-35 program and for the benefits of competition.
— Chairman Ike Skelton