The F136 Engine Program - More competition. Lower spending. Better quality.

The Real Facts

A number of misleading and/or inaccurate statements have been

made in media campaigns and during Congressional debates.

Strong Performance

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“there was a competition to build the engine for the JSF”

FACT: Absolutely not. The Federal Government has confirmed there was never an engine competition. Only the airframe was competed.

Click here to see Pratt & Whitney's $804M non-competitive Engine Ground and Flight Demonstration contract award for the JSF program.

Click here to see Pratt & Whitney's $4.8B non-competitive F135 Systems Design and Demonstration contract award for the JSF program.

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“the leaders of the potential alternate engine teams would suggest that without an alternate engine they might be shut out of the military aircraft engine business. However, these teams already provide engines for multiple military aircraft platforms. In contrast, P&W will only make aircraft engines for the JSF with the closing of the C-17 and F-22 lines. In a sense, the reverse would be more accurate’.”

FACT: Since the JSF will be the only fighter jet produced by the United States and major allies for the next 30 years, a sole source contract for the engines means that the alternate engine manufacturers will be shut out of this market and a major part of the US defense industrial base will disappear.

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“do we need competition for an engine that is successful?”

FACT: The aviation media have reported on technical problems with the P&W engine that have been responsible for program delays. Changing course to give a 30-year, $100 Billion, uncontested sole-source contract to Pratt & Whitney (P&W) directly contradicts the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, which states: “The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the acquisition strategy for each major defense acquisition program includes measures to ensure competition . . . throughout the life–cycle of such program as a means to improve contractor performance.”

Additionally, the alternate engine program diversifies capability and capacity across the U.S. (and International) industrial base – providing more than 2,500 U.S. direct engineering and manufacturing jobs today growing to more than 4,000 at full production – and ensures that sustained production, maintenance, and availability of critical components are not concentrated in a single provider.

Low Cost

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“continuing to fund it [the alternate engine], would result, over the next five years, in a reduced capacity to build 53 JSF planes”

FACT: On the contrary. The GE/Rolls-Royce (GE/RR) engine is on budget. In contrast, P&W is already over plan and is projected to reach $12.7 billion in total contract overruns. This could take more than 100 aircraft out of the program.

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“continuing acquisition of this second engine will cost over $6 billion of taxpayer money”

FACT: Quite the opposite. The GE/RR engine provides taxpayer savings – the program is 70% complete and only requires $850 million for qualification. In fact, GE/RR have offered fixedprice contracting for the program.This means we assume the risk for cost overruns and not the taxpayer. In contrast, P&W is $1.9 billion over plan and already passing along its 40% cost overruns in unit production costs to taxpayers.

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“there has never been actual data that proves there was ever any cost savings brought about by the ‘great engine war’ on the F-16s”

FACT: That’s incorrect. A May 2009 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report specifically states that the Great Engine War resulted in a 21% overall cost savings through competition. On the JSF, that would equate to more than $20 billion over the life of the program. Further, according to the GAO, the GE/RR engine will pay for itself with just a 9-11% savings. GE/RR will hold costs by offering fixed-price contracting, consistent with the objectives of a recent White House directive and the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009.

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“we are taking money from six C-130Js to fund the competitive second engine for the F-35”

FACT: That’s a misconception. Congress identified that the C-130 had been “double-counted” and took action to correct that duplicative funding.

Better Service

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“the possibility of a fleet-wide grounding due to a single engine is overstated”

FACT: We’ve seen this before. At one point when the F-15 and F-16 aircraft relied on a singlesource P&W engine, significant portions of the fleet were not available for flight duty. More recently, technical issues with the P&W JSF engine have been covered by the industry press. Without an alternate engine, in the event of a JSF fleet-wide grounding, U.S. fighter power could plummet to near zero operational capability.

FLOOR STATEMENT: ...“the [F-135] engine flies on the F-22”

FACT: They are not the same engine. The P&W F135 is advertised as a derivative of the F-22 engine, the P&W F119. However, the P&W F135, as a derivative engine, is costing the taxpayer a projected $6.6B whereas the alternate engine (designed specifically for the JSF) is costing $3.35B.