This from Aero-News:
Department of Defense representatives told Bloomberg News Friday the Pentagon plans to end a development program for a backup powerplant for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF.)
The move — which would have to be approved by Congress — aims to save approximately $1.7 billion through 2011, according to a DoD memo released last week. That’s not a small amount of money by any means — but it is a relative drop in the bucket compared to the $256 billion total cost of the fighter jet development program.
The backup program was initiated by Congress in 1995, according to Bloomberg, with the intent of maintaining competition and, thus, lowering costs of the Pratt & Whitney-designed powerplant intended to be the primary engines for the JSF. In a $2.2 billion deal, GE and Rolls-Royce teamed up to develop a backup powerplant — which also would have been utilized had technical problems cropped up with the P&W F135 units (below).
This would seem to me to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Single-sourcing on any major component is just never a good idea. Even if there are no technical problems with the Pratt & Whitney design, any of myriad problems can develop to disrupt supply over the decades which this aircraft is expected to be in service. And I don’t believe, on a program of this size, any economies-of-scale will be realized by giving the entire production to one supplier.
My feeling, however, is that this cutback will not last. General Electric simply has to much clout in Congress (and Rolls-Royce in Parliament) to be nudged-out without a major fight.
But, as Military.com reports here, engine development is not the only part of the program facing cutbacks:
The plan would scale back the Pentagon’s requested JSF research, development, testing and engineering funding level by $108 million. The Senate-passed appropriations bill called for a larger $270 million reduction. The House’s defense spending bill fully funded the Pentagon’s $2.4 billion JSF RDT&E request.
The report accompanying the conferees’ FY-06 defense appropriations bill contains no language explaining the JSF reduction. But in a separate September report on the version of the defense spending Legislation that was later approved by the full chamber, the Senate Appropriations Committee said “continuing uncertainties” surround the joint Air Force-Navy program, making it “difficult to estimate the resources needed for the program.”
I find it a bit unsettling that these “continuing uncertainties” exist this far into the program. But it would seem to me that cutting development money would only hinder their resolution.
How congress appropriates the defense spending is what really irks me. $256 billion dollars for the JSF strike fighter program. About the same for the F22 program. And god knows how much for the Navy’s DDXX destroyer program. Sitting here in Astan you can blatantly see the need for more Cargo aircraft (C130, C17, and a replacement for the C5), advances in Armored ground vehicles, Fast sealift, fielding new firearms to the grunts on the ground, and CAS (A10/ AC130) aircraft, and lighter body armor (please god send lighter body armor). Shit we can actually use to get in there and kill the enemy we have. Finding the future of weapons systems is great, but I think we’re putting the cart before the horse on this one.
Comment by CPT LOGGIE — 20051231 @ 0632
You are very right there, in that, just as defense wins football games, the un-glamorous things (principally logistics) win wars.
But, for a Congressman, winning funding for that un-glamorous stuff doesn’t get you any media exposure - outside of your own district (assuming much of the funding for that un-glamorous appropriation goes largely to your district).
But I tell ya’, regardless of how bad we do that detail stuff, I think we do it better than any other major military power in the world, except perhaps Israel and Japan.
Comment by Kevin Connors — 20051231 @ 2217