EDITOR’S NOTE: As fiscal hawks sound alarm about an annual federal budget deficit of about a trillion dollars and a national debt edging toward $14 trillion, even the once-sacred U.S. defense budget is being eyed far more closely. And few programs have attracted as much controversy and scrutiny as the new Joint Strike Fighter and whether it should benefit from having two separate engines built by competing contractors at a time when austerity is the rallying cry.

The fight finds Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Pentagon trying to kill one of the two programs under contract to build the F136 jet engine. Their target: the alternate engine under development by GE Aviation and its partner Rolls Royce. Many in Congress, however, have continually defied the administration and supported the parallel engine programs.

Vocal critics like Gates allege the GE/Rolls Royce program is a huge waste of taxpayer money that only duplicates what Pratt & Whitney is already contracted to produce. Others insist having an alternate engine produced through competition will further bolster national security and ensure pilot safety for an aircraft viewed as essential in coming decades.

At hand are the views of a respected Air Force veteran who serves as a consultant in the GE Aviation program. Invited by the Tribune-Herald to comment on the controversy, he touts the cost savings that competition is projected to bring and the long-range view that competition will effectively preclude problems with a sole-sourced Pratt & Whitney engine.

In nearly every aspect of American life, competition is alive and benefitting consumers. Consider that in 1981 the first personal computer was 20 times more expensive and had far less memory than a BlackBerry. Innovations in cancer treatments have added three years to patients’ lives. Consistently, from technology to health care, we have experienced the benefits of competition.

In 2009, Congress mandated competition on Pentagon purchases. But now, where it matters most — our national security — the Pentagon is trying to say no to competition for good.

Without congressional action, a single manufacturer will be handed a monopoly to power our country’s largest military outlay and 90 percent of our next generation fighter fleet.

A GE engineer works on an alternate engine for the much-anticipated F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
Photo courtesy of GE Aviation

This means one model of engine — and one model alone — will be available to power every Joint Strike Fighter in the United States military and the fighter planes of our allies for the next 30 years.

This is imprudent at best, disastrous at worst. I know because I’ve lived through it.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, our country relied on a single manufacturer to supply engines for our F-15 and F-16 fighters. I was an F-15 instructor and examiner at the Bitburg Air Base, West Germany.

Regrettably, serious problems arose with that particular model of engine. Because we had no alternative engine — and the lead time required to build one was lengthy — we were forced to ground significant portions of our fleet for extended periods of time while the engines were out of the airplane for maintenance.

The Department of Defense recognized that we should never again find ourselves in such a situation, particularly during wartime. As a solution, the department introduced a competing engine program that had a major positive impact on the reliability of the F-15 and the larger F-16 program.

Instead of one manufacturer working to provide the military with the best engine possible, two would work simultaneously, each trying to outperform the other. Thus the Great Engine War was born, and the principle behind it has been instrumental in ensuring our pilots’ safety since and ensuring airmen would be overhead, supporting our incredible ground forces when needed.

Beyond the security that comes with a dual-sourced engine, this approach has also succeeded in driving down costs. A May 2009 Government Accountability Office report found that the Great Engine War resulted in more than 20 percent overall cost savings — simply because of competition. With the Joint Strike Fighter, similar cost savings are expected.

In fact, during the life of the program, the GAO estimates that a dual-source engine approach would save taxpayers $20 billion — savings that could be used to build additional aircraft and purchase other equipment that our military needs.

Here in Texas, killing competition on this engine could have a major impact on future growth. Suppliers in Texas spend about $2.3 million a year manufacturing components of the engine. However, if competition continues, the total program amount will increase to $1.1 billion and provide 224 jobs through 2030.

Partially out of concern for the number of jobs involved, Congress has repeatedly resisted efforts by two presidential administrations to kill an alternate F-136 engine program for the Joint Strike Fighter jet.
Photo courtesy of GE Aviation

Competition is about forward progress and a competitive engine program is no exception. This approach has unleashed accelerated innovation, ultimately providing our airmen with better technology. In the wake of the Great Engine War, I witnessed a steady improvement in reliability, performance and fuel economy as well as a drop in engine-related accidents.

With our nation entangled in two complex wars and with more than 90 of the Pentagon’s largest acquisition programs running on average two years behind schedule, the value of — and need for — competition is clear. Congress wrote “competition” into law last year. Now they should ensure it happens.

Gen. Paul V. Hester is a retired commander of the Pacific Air Forces where he had responsibility for Air Force activities spread over half the globe. He lives in Boerne and consults for the aerospace industry, including GE Aviation, which is involved in producing alternative engines for the Joint Strike Fighter.