Management of the F-35's engine program is deficient in dozens of ways, and the blame lies with both the manufacturer and the Pentagon office overseeing the aircraft program, the Defense Department Inspector General said in a report released Monday.
The report comes two weeks after another report, from the Government Accountability Office, questioned the engine's reliability based on a lack of flight testing and engine availability in fiscal 2014. The House Armed Services Committee, in its tactical air and land forces subcommittee markup of the fiscal 2016 defense bill, is calling for additional oversight of the program
Engine maker Pratt & Whitney, however, says that the reports do not show a full picture of the engine's reliability, and that the company has fixes in place that, in its own projections, show the engine will meet reliability requirements in the near future.
The Defense Department Inspector General reviewed Pratt & Whitney's quality management system to ensure it meets department statutory and regulatory requirements. The review found 61 "nonconformities," meaning violations of the department's standard industry requirements. These violations varied from a worker not wearing the proper protective equipment to not sharing quality metrics in an "open forum."
Also, "the F-35 [office] did not establish F135 program quality goals and objectives that were mutually agreed upon by Pratt & Whitney for current contracts," the IG report states. "Additionally, Pratt & Whitney metrics did not show improvement in quality assurance."
The company did not identify, elevate, track or manage F135 program risks. The F-35 office also did not ensure the company's supplier selection criteria and management of underperforming suppliers were sufficient, the IG said.
Pratt & Whitney plans to fix all but one of the deficiencies by July, said Bennett Croswell, president of military engines for Pratt & Whitney. Further, the review is of the company's processes and systems, not of the engines themselves, he said.
"It is an audit of our management system, it does not speak to the quality of our products," Crosswell told reporters Monday in the company's Washington, D.C., office.
The Inspector General calls on the F-35 Joint Program Office and the Defense Contract Management Agency to increase oversight of the engine program and find root causes of all the issues raised.
The report, coupled with the GAO study released April 14, is more bad news for an engine that has been controversial since the early stages of the program. Despite the move in Congress to increase oversight of the engine, congressional sources say it does not hint at a move to restart a second engine program for the jet.
Croswell said additional data shows the engine is performing well. While the data GAO used to produce its review is accurate, it only covers through the third quarter of 2014. There have been improvements to the engine since. The whole fleet will see engine updates, with the main focus on helping the Marine Corps hit initial operating capability next year and the Air Force the following year.
Many of the aircraft flying today and included in the GAO review are early models and have not been updated to the company's "production configuration capability," which addresses some maintenance issues that have affected the jet, Croswell said.
"If the whole fleet had that configuration, we would be right on [the schedule]," Croswell said.
The F135's current reliability is about half of what is expected, largely because of an engine fire that grounded the fleet last year. Croswell said the company plans to have a mission capable rate of about 90 percent, and its internal projections show the fleet will be at that mark with upgraded engines.
The Defense Department expects to purchase 2,443 of the aircraft, with most of the fleet belonging to the Air Force.
