The most sensible option to achieving Block 4 readiness in F-35s
The Washington Post | Raytheon Technologies
April 17, 2023
There’s a complex debate surrounding the future of the F-35’s engine, Pratt & Whitney’s F135. To maintain air dominance, the entire F-35 platform undergoes periodic rounds of modernization. The pending modernization effort requires engine upgrades to fully enable the new aircraft and weapons capabilities. The question is how to modernize these engines—replace them with novel adaptive engine technology developed through the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) or implement strategic upgrades to the current technology.
Jen Latka, vice president of the F135 Program at Pratt & Whitney, a division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation, is resolute in the position that upgrading the current engine—referred to as the F135 Engine Core Upgrade (ECU)—is the better modernization option. Here, Latka answers questions on the topic.
Why is it crucial for the F135 to be upgraded?
This upgrade is all about supporting the Block 4 weapon systems that are coming onto the jet. Block 4 is the name of the current modernization program for the F-35 platform. The new Block 4 systems need more electrical power and more cooling. The engine enables both those functions. And that’s really what is the driving need for F135 modernization. The F135 ECU fully enables all planned Block 4 capabilities.
What would an ECU for the F135 entail?
Based on theater-level analysis and the needs of Block 4, we will only be changing about one third of the F135 engine parts for the ECU, and the F135 ECU can be incorporated at production or retrofit at depot. There will be significant improvement in both power and cooling, and incremental improvements in range and thrust to maintain the F-35’s air dominance.
Pratt & Whitney is part of the AETP and developing its own adaptive engine. Why are you opposed to the use of an adaptive engine in the F-35 platform?
First, let me say the AETP is critically important. Pratt & Whitney is privileged to be a part of that program and incredibly supportive of the technology it has matured. However, it is sixth-generation propulsion technology, and we believe that sixth-generation technology is appropriate for the sixth-generation fighter jet. The F-35 is a fifth-generation platform, requiring fifth-generation technology that the F135 ECU can provide.
Our reasoning here boils down to a few key items—safety, capability requirements and timeline.
For me and the entire team at Pratt & Whitney, safety is the number one priority. Full stop. Traditionally, novel engine technology is learned out on a twin-engine aircraft. You don’t learn it out on a single-engine fighter because no matter how much testing you do, when the engine actually starts flying, you have new field learnings. And when you learn it on a single-engine fighter, you have no backup engine and risk loss of aircraft. From a flight safety perspective, that gives me chills.
When looking at the added range that a new adaptive engine could potentially bring to the F-35, you must consider the operational advantage it will provide and weigh that with the cost and timeline to field. Capability and capacity of weapon systems must also be considered when balancing decisions on where to spend limited dollars and provide meaningful operational capability to American and allied warfighters. Based on the theater-level analysis we have seen, the warfighter needs the advanced Block 4 weapon systems as soon as possible, and that matters more than range. As a more cost-effective option, ECU enables investment in the F-35 capabilities that move the needle.
Timeline is another massive factor. Our upgrade will be ready to enter service in 2028. The first new adaptive engines will likely roll off the production line in the same timeframe. The difference is the production ramp. When you have two thirds or more of an engine not changing, like we do in the F135 ECU, you can ramp very quickly. We will get there in a year and a half. That is not how a ramp would look for a brand new sixth-generation engine. It took the F135 a long time to get to where we are today, producing 160 engines every year. A similar timeline simply isn’t feasible with brand new technology like AETP. The F135 ECU is the only option that doesn’t put our timeline for military readiness at risk.
What are the financial benefits of the F135 ECU over a novel adaptive engine?
Billions of taxpayer dollars will be saved. Development funding for a new adaptive engine could be up to $6 billion over the next five years. That’s on top of upgrading our core for $2.4 billion. I’d like to underscore this point. Regardless of adaptive engine implementation, we have to upgrade the F135 to ECU because adaptive engines don’t fit all F-35 platform jets. Even if adaptive engines are adopted in F-35s, they’d only be implemented in a boutique few jets. That’s a lot to spend on a niche offering, especially when there is a global solution that is already in process and paid for.
The taxpayer savings go beyond development, into sustainment. If you have two engines in service, you need the sustainment infrastructure to support both—two engineering organizations, two sets of tooling and two depots. It’s duplicative and costly.
Over the past several years, we’ve climbed the learning curve of F135 production and taken out 50 percent of the cost of the motor. We expect the F135 ECU to be production-cost-neutral, meaning an upgraded engine will cost the taxpayers just as much as an engine today. On the other hand, brand new technology will take years to cut production costs to that level. The adaptive engines will likely cost double at outset. Even once pricing is optimized, an adaptive engine would never cost the same as an F135 because it’s significantly heavier. There’s just a lot more metal in it.
Aggregating all these elements, we estimate that the F135 ECU will save $40 billion over the life of the program, and we all know budgets are a zero-sum game. If we don’t needlessly spend resources here, we free up funding to implement sixth-generation technology in sixth-generation aircrafts so we can maintain air dominance, which is critical to our national defense. The F135 ECU is the most responsible solution fiscally and militarily.
What about the idea that competition breeds excellence and fair pricing?
I agree. That is why the Department of Defense held competitions for the F-35’s propulsion system—in 2000 and 2011—and Pratt & Whitney won the bid in both instances. That’s how these programs are awarded. Competition doesn’t get randomly inserted into the middle of a program. Frankly, it’s disruptive.
Also, I want to add that there’s an argument of parity in the industrial base, which doesn’t hold water. The industrial base is already balanced and tweaking it with this adaptive engine idea would tip the scales.
What’s the key message you’d want readers to take away from this?
Simply put, the FI35 ECU is the only option that gets us to Block 4 on schedule. It’s the only option that makes us ready for the fight by the end of the decade. The F135 ECU is the only option that makes sense.