Engine maker Pratt & Whitney says it is incrementally lowering the price of its F-35 power plant and could possibly drop the cost even more as the Pentagon begins negotiating for the latest batch of fighter jets.
"We have activities planned and in place to bring the cost down in [low-rate initial production] 5," Bennett Croswell, president of Pratt & Whitney military engines, said during a June 6 briefing in Washington.
Negotiations for the fifth batch of Joint Strike Fighters between the Pentagon and F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin just commenced.
The company has a goal to reduce the F135 cost to the price of the F-22A power plant, the F119, by the 250th engine. Pratt has developed a metric of shrinking the cost of the F135 incrementally to reach that goal. Company officials declined to cite those prices, which they consider proprietary.
Pratt officials said they were able to beat their projected pricing targets during negotiations for the fourth batch of F-35 production aircraft last year.
"We're constantly looking at ways to do even better than what that plan is," Croswell said.
At the same time, the company has validated an improvement to increase the thrust of the Marine Corps version of the F-35, which can land vertically.
Through a software change "that reduces the variability of the lift system components," the company is able to add about 100 pounds of thrust, according to Edward O'Donnell, director of F135 and F119 business development. The company is also working to lighten the engine about 100 pounds.
Validating these improvements before the end of the fiscal year in September could become critical for Pratt if language in the House version of the 2012 defense authorization bill become law. The language would require the Pentagon to restart the canceled F-35 alternate engine program - run jointly by General Electric and Rolls-Royce - should a future requirement for more thrust crop up.
"Right now, the F135 meets all of our thrust specification requirements," O'Donnell said. "As we look at the program going forward, there does not appear to be any need to increase the thrust of the engine."
Addressing the House language, O'Donnell said: "It's unfortunate that language in Congress would tie our hands or prevent us from being able to work on the engine should that requirement come forward."
Engine maker Pratt & Whitney says it will lower the price of the F-35 power plant. (CHERIE CULLEN / U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE)
Negotiations for the fifth batch of Joint Strike Fighters between the Pentagon and F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin just commenced.
The company has a goal to reduce the F135 cost to the price of the F-22A power plant, the F119, by the 250th engine. Pratt has developed a metric of shrinking the cost of the F135 incrementally to reach that goal. Company officials declined to cite those prices, which they consider proprietary.
Pratt officials said they were able to beat their projected pricing targets during negotiations for the fourth batch of F-35 production aircraft last year.
"We're constantly looking at ways to do even better than what that plan is," Croswell said.
At the same time, the company has validated an improvement to increase the thrust of the Marine Corps version of the F-35, which can land vertically.
Through a software change "that reduces the variability of the lift system components," the company is able to add about 100 pounds of thrust, according to Edward O'Donnell, director of F135 and F119 business development. The company is also working to lighten the engine about 100 pounds.
Validating these improvements before the end of the fiscal year in September could become critical for Pratt if language in the House version of the 2012 defense authorization bill become law. The language would require the Pentagon to restart the canceled F-35 alternate engine program - run jointly by General Electric and Rolls-Royce - should a future requirement for more thrust crop up.
"Right now, the F135 meets all of our thrust specification requirements," O'Donnell said. "As we look at the program going forward, there does not appear to be any need to increase the thrust of the engine."
Addressing the House language, O'Donnell said: "It's unfortunate that language in Congress would tie our hands or prevent us from being able to work on the engine should that requirement come forward."
No comments:
Post a Comment