The latest word on the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) came today from Dr. Loren Thompson, the chief operating officer for The Lexington Institute.
His comments follow the news that the GE-Rolls Royce team has had to redesign part of the engine after its fourth test failure during only 52 hours of testing, which will delay the date for “competition” with Pratt and Whitney’s primary engine until at least 2016. That compares to 1100 hours of testing for the Pratt and Whitney engine, which had a single setback that occurred after 700 hours but did not cause a lengthy delay or redesign.
Loren wrote that “GE and Rolls are trying to compress a quarter century of innovation into a fraction of that time, and the results speak for themselves.” He added, “It is clear that the alternate-engine team simply doesn’t know enough about stealthy, fifth-generation fighter operations to avoid mistakes that Pratt & Whitney made many years ago.”
Cutting off funds for the alternate engine is still possible. It would save taxpayers $7.2 billion, and avoid saddling the JSF with what Loren calls ”two redundant but dissimilar engines, requiring separate sets of spare parts, separate maintenance procedures, and separate facilities that cumulatively will cost tens of billions beyond what was necessary.” As Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead told CQ Politics on June 30, “Space is at a premium” on aircraft carriers, and there is no room for two sets of engines.
Loren pointed out that the purported “savings” that have been touted by proponents of the alternate engine “are proving wrong, and what we are getting is higher up-front costs than expected with no benefits from competition anytime soon. So the alternate-engine program turns out to be just another big, fat subsidy for companies that couldn’t compete successfully in the marketplace.”
I wish he would say what he really thinks.
As House and Senate Appropriations Committee members write the conference report for the fiscal year 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, they can still zero out the alternate engine. The opposition to the alternate engine has included both Presidents Bush and Obama, all of the top military brass, and numerous taxpayer groups such as Citizens Against Government Waste, which has an entire section of its website devoted to information about the program.
One of the arguments being used by proponents is that the GE engine should be used to replace the Pratt and Whitney engine if it breaks down and that the Pentagon should not rely on just one design. Using this logic, if someone is driving a Ford and the engine breaks down, it should be replaced by a GM, Chrysler, Toyota, or other engine. What happens in real life is the engine is either repaired or replaced with a new engine; no one takes that replacement or part from another automobile manufacturer. Pratt and Whitney will have the “alternate” engine should one of theirs break down in any JSF.
It is not clear how much more evidence members of Congress need to be convinced the alternate engine is a waste of money. But we will keep telling them until enough of them listen and the program is finally grounded.
Filed under: Pork
