An issue of fiscal responsibility and national security

George McLaren, Indianapolis

Thursday, Feb. 24, 2011 | 2:01 a.m.

The Las Vegas Sun’s Saturday editorial — “So be it? Not so fast” — disregards the considerable value of the Joint Strike Fighter engine competition. Without engine competition, what you’re really advocating for is handing a noncompeted, $100 billion Joint Strike Fighter engine monopoly to Pratt & Whitney for the next three decades. Most would define this as fiscally irresponsible.

The truth is the engine debate has diverted attention from a much bigger issue: the runaway costs and $3.5 billion overrun faced by the Pratt & Whitney engine. But the GE/Rolls-Royce engine is exceeding expectations in testing, and last fall it was called a “near model program” by the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. On top of that, the Government Accountability Office estimates the competition provided by GE/Rolls-Royce’s engine could save taxpayers 21 percent ­— $20 billion — over the life of the Joint Strike Fighter program. In a time when every taxpayer dollar counts, Congress simply can’t ignore that savings.

Another benefit of competition? It forces both contractors to outperform each other, ultimately leading to better engines. The airmen and women flying Joint Strike Fighter aircraft — which are expected to make up 90 percent of our fighter fleet — deserve the best engines our workforce can produce. Competition will ensure that’s the case.

When the Senate considers the Pentagon’s budget in the coming weeks, let’s hope its definition of fiscal responsibility differs a bit from the interpretation your editorial offered. The GE/Rolls-Royce engine is one of those rare defense programs that simultaneously saves money and enhances national security, and it must be preserved.

The writer is communications director for the GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team.