The F135 is the world’s most advanced fighter engine with proven readiness and reliability. The ECU builds upon that same architecture with a fleet-wide upgrade.
General Electric’s proposed XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine makes lofty claims about its capabilities. The reality? It’s unproven and will cost taxpayers billions.
- Roughly $2 billion in development costs to fully upgrade the engine
- Remains production cost neutral by leveraging the existing F135 sustainment network
- Saves taxpayers 10s of billions over the F-35 program’s lifetime
- Nearly $7 billion in development costs for a new engine
- Estimated $20 billion added cost to establish a second, duplicative sustainment network to support a new engine (supply chain, parts, staff)
- Unproven engine = unproven cost; field learnings will inevitably increase cost to taxpayers
- Supports all three versions of the F-35
- Enables joint maintenance and operations
- Does not work for all of the services and countries who fly the F-35
- Not a single XA100 engine has ever been integrated into any of the F-35 variants
- 810,000+ recorded flight hours
- 1,200+ engines delivered
- Nearly 20 years of reliable performance
- Zero flight hours: XA100 has never left the ground
- XA100 is significantly heavier, and air vehicle modifications are unknown.
Combat Proven
With over 810,000 flight hours logged, the F135 is proven to be the safest and most capable, reliable and powerful fighter jet engine in the history of military aviation.
The F135 ECU carries a high degree of commonality with the current field-tested engine. The F135 ECU will deliver the needed capability for Block 4 aircraft—and beyond—faster, cheaper and with less risk than a new, unproven engine.
Improved Sustainment
F135 sustainment has turned the corner and output is expected to continue on its growth trajectory.
Splitting the global fleet with a new engine will require a second sustainment network, stressing an already underfunded sustainment program. Standing up this duplicative network will pass on substantially increased costs to American taxpayers.
Lower Costs
Since the first F135 engine was delivered in 2009, Pratt & Whitney has reduced the engine cost by more than 50 percent. Now, work to reduce the cost of sustainment is projected to cut costs by 10s of billions over the life of the F-35 program. While the F135 program aims to cut costs, a new engine program will substantially increase costs due to the need for a second sustainment network.
A block upgrade to the existing F135 is approximately one third of the development cost of a new engine and will have the same production cost as the current F135. It will save the taxpayer 10s of billions over the course of the F-35 program. A new engine will dramatically raise costs for an unproven product.
Balanced Industrial Base
F135 is Pratt & Whitney’s only fighter engine in production and supports nearly 57,000 jobs across 41 states and 255 suppliers. ECU supports competition and parity in the industrial base.
Shifting the investment and focus to sixth-gen enables full and fair competition, benefiting the warfighter, taxpayer and retaining balance in the industrial base.
Adaptable and Ready
Today’s F135 has already supported three major air frame and payload upgrades without engine modernization, outperforming original specifications. While the engine can support the scheduled upgrades, pushing it further past its original specification will raise sustainment costs and harm durability. Upgrading the existing engine is the most cost effective, lowest risk path to achieve fielded capability.
Any new engine will require significant air vehicle modifications. The Department of Defense has never re-engined a single-engine fighter with a new engine because there are inherent programmatic, cost and safety risks. Instead, it has relied on block upgrades based on proven technology.
Global Footprint
Program Participants
United States, United Kingdom, Italy, Netherlands, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Japan, Republic of Korea, Belgium, Poland, Singapore, Finland, Switzerland, Germany, Czech Republic
Nations Operating on Home Soil
United States, Italy, Norway, United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Netherlands, Japan, Republic of Korea, Denmark