March 16, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By Steve Trimble
Pratt & Whitney's F100 (pictured) is designed to be interchangeable with GE Aviation's F110 as the engine for the Boeing F-15 fleet.
A jet engine maker is pressuring the U.S. Defense Department to scrap a plan to award a sole-source contract to a rival for a fleet of new fighters and investigate the opportunity for performance and cost improvements yielded by a competitive selection process.
If that narrative sounds familiar, it is because it echoes a role GE Aviation played for more than 40 years, which included a successful bid in the 1980s to launch the “Great Engine War” over the F-15 and F-16 fleets and a failed campaign that ended almost a decade ago to establish the F136 as the alternate engine for the F-35.
This time, however, the roles are reversed. Pratt & Whitney, which waged fierce lobbying campaigns against competitive engine policies for the F-15, F-16 and F-35, has switched sides in the debate.
In response to the U.S. Air Force's decision to field the F-15EX into production powered solely by GE F110 engines, Pratt has filed two protests with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which is scheduled to render judgments on both cases by early July.
The Air Force sided with GE during the Great Engine War in 1984. Seeking to lower costs and motivate Pratt to resolve stall-stagnation problems with the original F100, the Air Force decided that year to split the engine contract for the F-15 and F-16 between GE's F110 and Pratt's F100.
Thirty-six years later, the Air Force now worries about the schedule impact if the GAO sustains either or both of Pratt's protests of the F-15EX engine. Service officials decided to acquire the F-15EX after concluding the F-15C/Ds were too costly to sustain and because it would take too long for the Pratt F135-powered F-35A to replace all of them.
Pratt's protests threaten to disrupt that schedule and erode the Air Force's original business case for the F-15EX.
“If we have to do an engine competition, it will add time—2-3 years,” said Will Roper, assistant secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on March 10.
Only a decade ago, Pratt welcomed a vote by Congress in 2010 to cancel funding for the F-35 program's alternate engine, along with a decision by GE and Rolls-Royce a year later to abandon a plan to self-fund the certification of the F136. But Pratt now embraces the potential benefits of an engine competition for the F-15EX.
“Our government supports competition at all levels, and we're interested in providing the F100 as a competitive alternative,” Pratt Military Engines President Matthew Bromberg told Aviation Week. “If we're not competitive in terms of capability, schedule [and] price, I get it. But after the U.S. government spent all this money creating two engines for the F-15 and F-16 platforms, why would it then not compete a 450-engine program?”
Asked if the existing F100 would require additional development to meet the Air Force's requirements for the F-15EX, Bromberg replied that he cannot answer that question in the absence of a competitive process that allows Pratt access to the specifications. He also noted that the F100 exclusively powers the Air Force's existing fleet of F-15Es.
The F100 and F110 were designed to fit interchangeably in the F-15, although the heavily modified Saudi Arabian F-15SA and the Qatari F-15QA from which the F-15EX was derived are exclusively powered by GE's engine.
The GAO does not release complaints filed by protesters up front, but it does release the full text of decisions. It is not clear why Pratt filed two separate protests on the sole-source decision for the GE engine on the F-15EX, but Bromberg advised not reading too much into it.
“I'd like to obviously be able to discuss them, but I can't because it's a legal process,” Bromberg said. “I would really view them as a single protest on a single procurement action, and that is a lack of competition.”
September 15, 2021 | International, C4ISR
Although the concept of operations still needs to be fleshed out, the MoD has identified several capability themes to be developed 'over this autumn period to Christmas,' to be culminated in a new management strategy and implementation plan.
January 14, 2020 | International, Aerospace
By: Valerie Insinna WASHINGTON — Last year, the Air Force tapped seven defense companies for a $6.4 billion opportunity for “Red Air” training where contracted pilots pose as aggressors in air-to-air combat. With the fiscal 2020 budget finally approved, those firms are hungry to hear for more information about when and where they start flying. The companies — Air USA Inc., Airborne Tactical Advantage Company (ATAC), Blue Air Training, Coastal Defense, Draken International, Tactical Air Support and Top Aces Corp. — currently find themselves waiting for the next phase of the competition, when the Air Force will issue individual work orders for a total of 22 bases that will allow contractors to begin flying this year. “I think we've all watched the Air Force program develop over the last two years kind of in awe at the size of it and the ambition, the commitment they're making to have enough adversaries out there to challenge their pilots,” said Russ Bartlett, CEO of Textron Airborne Solutions, which is the parent company of ATAC. “That's great for industry, because the Air Force knows they need to do that.” Unlike major programs for weapon systems, which have a dedicated line item in the budget, the work orders for adversary air services will be paid out of the operations and maintenance account, which is more flexible. While the Air Force's FY20 budget request flags a $151 million increase for “contract air training,” it's unclear how much of that amount will ultimately be set aside for that adversary air services. It will be up to Air Combat Command “to decide how much money they're going to put against the adversary air budget. So we're really just waiting to figure out how that all works,” said Russ Quinn, president of Top Aces. “We and the program office are looking very forward to hearing how Air Combat Command is planning on funding the contract.” Draken International is already conducting aggressor flights at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., as part of a five-year contract awarded in 2018. That work is helping the company keep its Red Air planes ready ahead of work at other bases, said Sean Gustafson, Draken's vice president of business development. "We're flying 6,000 to 7,000 hours a year out there right now,” he said. “We're excited for the task orders to come out shortly, looking to expand and set up operations on the East Coast and then supporting those bases.” The Draken pilots, who currently fly the Aero Vodochody L-159E Honey Badger and Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, regularly deploy from Nellis AFB and visit other installations, including Hill AFB in Utah, Eglin AFB in Fla., and Holloman AFB in N.M. The company will begin adding Mirage F1s to the mix next month, Gustafson said. “We're very excited about that, because that will be the first radar-equipped, supersonic aircraft in the industry. We have the first three [of 24 total] going out there in February,” he said. The company has also purchased 12 radar- equipped, supersonic Atlas Cheetah fighters that will help cover Air Force requirements outside of Nellis. Meanwhile, the other companies are doing training and modifications necessary to get their aggressor fleets ready to fly whenever the U.S. Air Force decides it needs those planes. Top Aces has purchased 29 used F-16s from an undisclosed user specifically for the Air Force's adversary air contract. Those aircraft are not yet in the United States, but Quinn is confident that the company will have the aircraft in hand in early spring, he said. After that, Top Aces will begin modifying each jet with an open architecture system that will allow the company to more easily outfit the aircraft with a range of radar, sensors, electronic warfare pods or other technologies that increase the capability of Red Air forces, he said. Depending on whether the company wins a contract with Germany for adversary air services, it may also have excess capacity with its Douglas A-4N Skyhawk fleet, which it could also offer to help supplement the U.S. Air Force's needs, Quinn said. ATAC plans to use its new fleet of Mirage F1 jets to meet the Air Force's requirements. So far, the company has fully trained one F1 pilot, who flew the first ATAC Mirage in August. Another two pilots were set to begin training in December, Bartlett said late last year. “On the airplane side, we're in really good shape. Sixty-three airplanes is a huge win for us. There are a lot of economies of scale that we intend to capitalize on,” he said. “The challenge is going to be — of course — hiring and retaining pilots. The services are trying keep their pilots and grow their pilot cadres; the airlines are hiring aggressively and paying lucrative salaries, and this industry is growing by leaps and bounds with just this Air Force program.” So far, recruiting pilots has not been a problem for Draken, Gustafson said. The company has employed 52 aggressor pilots to meet the demands of its contract with Nellis, and has a “stack of resumes” from pilots that jobs as the company expands to other bases. “We're doing well on [hiring],” he said. “Some folks, they don't want to go to the airlines. They recently retired from the military and they want to keep flying fighters.” The company is looking to grow its fleet with new aircraft, as well, he added. “We should have some pretty exciting news about five to six months from now,” he said. https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/01/13/red-air-providers-prep-for-a-big-year
September 28, 2021 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
Today