Extra engine for fighter jet won’t save money

Stephanie Duvall, Hartford, Conn.

Saturday, Feb. 26, 2011 | 2:02 a.m.

The Thursday letter to the editor about the Joint Strike Fighter from George McLaren, communications director for the GE/Rolls-Royce Fighter Engine Team, contains a number of inaccuracies.

The total program value of the Joint Strike Fighter engine for Pratt & Whitney is closer to $40 billion, not the $100 billion he asserts. It’s also worth noting that the manufacturers of the extra engine control 75 percent of the military engine market, including monopolies on engines for the F-18 and the Black Hawk and Apache helicopters.

We have heard no similar concerns about this situation from supporters of the extra engine, nor should there be. No military aircraft procured in the past 30 years, with the exception of the F-16, has had an extra engine because it adds complexity and doesn’t save money.

In addition, the Government Accountability Office has never estimated the actual monetary savings from maintaining two engine suppliers for the F-35. In fact, only about $20 billion of the total program can be competed, which is why studies commissioned by both the Defense Department and Congress concluded that an extra engine will not save taxpayer dollars.

That’s also why Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said, “Study on top of study has shown that an extra fighter engine achieves marginal potential savings but heavy upfront costs — nearly $3 billion worth.”

Accusations about cost overruns are similarly suspect. The overwhelming majority of the additional cost for the Pratt & Whitney engine can be attributed to changed requirements by the government and beyond Pratt & Whitney’s control.

The writer is communications manager for Pratt & Whitney Military Engines.