Lexington Institute Issue Brief Says Case for F-35 Alternate Engine is Weak
August 24, 2007
According to a new Lexington Institute Issue Brief, funding a competing engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is not economical and will do little to create competition or bolster the American industrial base.
The brief, written by Lexington Institute Chief Operating Officer Loren B. Thompson, advises that there is no evidence that an alternate engine will save money or promote safety over the course of the Joint Strike Fighter program.
“Proponents of the alternate engine argue that awarding a monopoly for the F-35 engine to the Pratt & Whitney unit of United Technologies invites abuses. That conveniently ignores the fact that the engine has already been competed several times, and each time, the Pratt & Whitney engine won,” Thompson wrote. “Four out of five independent assessments found that savings from competition across the lifetime of the program are unlikely to match or surpass the added cost of maintaining a second source.”
Thompson also notes that the Pratt & Whitney F135, a derivative of the F119 engine already used on the twin-engine F-22 Raptor, has extensive operational experience, while the General Electric F136 does not.
To read the full text of the Lexington Institute Issue Brief, “Joint Fighter: The Case for Buying Competing Engines is Weak,” go to: http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1156.shtml.
Pratt & Whitney is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines, space propulsion systems and industrial gas turbines. United Technologies (NYSE: UTX), based in Hartford, Conn., is a diversified company providing high technology products and services to the global aerospace and building industries.
(860) 565-9600
jennifer.whitlow@pw.utc.com
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
