The Great Engine War II: Choice or Monopoly for Global F-35 Fleets?

Gentlemen, start your…

In January 2006 the Pentagon attempted to remove FY 2007 funding from the F-35 Lightning II’s second engine option, the GE/ Rolls Royce F136. As predicted, protests from fellow Tier 1 partner Britain followed at the highest levels of government. Many in the US Congress, meanwhile, were openly skeptical of handing Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine the keys to the entire F-35 fleet. In the end, the Pentagon’s argument that low program risk made R&D spending on F136 development a waste, failed. Congress re-inserted funding, and F136 development has continued on schedule.

Fast forward to the FY 2008 budget. For the second year in a row, the USAF removed funding for the GE/RR F136, arguing that killing the F136 would free up $1.8 billion. Politicians disagreed, and the USA’s GAO auditors backed them up. Funding was reinstated. Again. That process was repeated every year until December 2011, when Pratt & Whitney was finally handed its engine monopoly over the US military’s core fighter jet of the future.

The USA’s C-130 AMP Program: Looking for a Cheaper Upgrade Path

C-130 AMP cockpit
(click to view larger)

The USA’s C-130E/H medium air transport fleet suffers from 2 key problems: (1) many aircraft, especially Air National Guard planes, aren’t flyable, or won’t remain so much longer; and (2) their avionics are too old to meet modern standards for flight in civil airspace, just as standards are set to tighten in 2015.

The 1st problem is being addressed by major structural rework, inspections, and groundings. The 2nd problem was supposed to be addressed by the C-130 AMP program, begun in 2001 in order to improve aircraft fight-readiness, flight times, flexibility, and fuel use. Higher than expected costs left the program yo-yoing between possible cancellation and slowed progress over the last few years, and the near-death experiences eventually caught up to it. C-130 AMP was cancelled in the FY 2013 budget, while the USAF searches for alternatives that it might be able to afford. A study by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) came up with such options that could deliver most of AMP’s capabilities for a significantly lower price tag.

Was the Missile Launched Against Flight MH17 Stolen or Given?

• The missile that took down flight MH17 may have been stolen by pro-Russian insurgents at the end of last month, since they proclaimed to have taken control of BUK systems as then relayed by state-owned Russian media.

• An unnamed American intelligence officer told the Washington Post that Russia had also moved similar missile systems into Eastern Ukraine in the week(s) before the attack.

• FT: evidence mounts on how jet was downed:

“The apparent SBU wire tap evidence indicates that three Buk-M1 systems were brought into eastern Ukraine from Russian territory and handed to the rebels. One allegedly crossed the border into Ukraine at 1am on July 17, near Sukhodolsk. Another was apparently brought in from Russia-controlled Crimea. The third appeared to have been in rebel hands for longer [DID: no mention of systems stolen from Ukraine].”

• Madeleine Moon, a Labour MP in the UK’s House of Commons and a member of its defence committee, on how Europe should react in the wake of the MH17 crash:

“I think we have to act as if we’re entering a new Cold War. […] We have to have more regular live exercises and snap exercises so that we are clear that we are sending a message to Russia that we are not sitting back – we are ready and we are capable – because that’s the only message the Russians understand.”

• Is this the Russian missile launcher that blasted flight MH17 out of the sky?

• Here’s the last time Russia shot down a passenger plane.