F135 ON THE RECORD - CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Most Cost Effective Solution | Clear Winner | Safest Option | Saves U.S. Jobs | International Partnerships
The Most Cost Effective Solution
Presentation to the Senate Armed Services Committee Airland Subcommittee
Combined Statement of Lt. Gen. Mark D. Shackelford, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) and Maj. Gen. Johnny A. Weida, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Plans and Requirements
“Your Air Force’s position regarding the JSF alternate engine program is that a second engine is unnecessary, too costly, and risks diverting resources from production. The FY11 Presidential Budget does not request funding for the development and procurement of the F136 alternate engine. The Air Force and Navy continue to execute the funding appropriated by Congress in the previous budgets to continue the F136 program.
The Office of the Secretary of Defense for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation estimated that the Department of Defense will have to fund approximately $2.9 billion to take the F136 engine to competition in FY17, including development, directed buys, and the necessary logistics support. Continued funding for the F136 engine carries cost penalties to both the F135 and F136 engines in the form of reduced production line learning curves and inefficient economic order quantities. The department concludes that maintaining a single engine supplier provides the best balance of cost and risk. We believe the risks associated with a single source engine supplier are manageable due to improvements in engine technology and do not outweigh the investment required to fund a competitive alternate engine.
-- Lt. Gen. Mark D. Shackelford, Military Deputy, Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ) and Maj. Gen. Johnny A. Weida
, 4/13/10
Regarding putting that money to use on that second engine, a general
from the Air Force overseeing this Joint Strike Fighter program
told our committee it would delay the Joint Strike Fighter, which
our services are desperately waiting for. They need this tactical
fighter. So it would delay the program and, in fact, this Air Force
general testified to our committee that putting money into the bill
for the second engine, and continuing to fund it, would result,
over the next 5 years, in a reduced capacity to build Joint Strike
Fighters by 53 planes.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record,
7/23/09
Developing a second engine, quite logically and following common
sense, would require the Department of Defense to maintain two
logistics operations to support it--tails, as it is called in
the military, two tails, two sets of training manuals, two sets
of tooling component improvement parts. These additional and unnecessary
expenses would raise operations and sustainment costs for the
Joint Strike Fighter throughout the life cycle of the program.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
I cannot emphasize that enough--53 fewer aircraft that we otherwise
would have purchased for the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps that
are desperately in need of them over the next 5 years; 53 fewer
planes because we are going to spend that money buying a second
engine we do not need. That really would be a major disruption to
the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional
Record, 7/23/09
I hope the great engine war is over. I know of no data or analysis
that supports that taxpayers will see any net savings from subjecting
the engine for the JSF to any further competition.
– Senator John
McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
But I suggest the challenge there is to ensure that development
costs leading to production remain stable, not to introduce a new
engine to the program that will most assuredly add more uncertain
testing requirements, complexity, and ultimately cost to the program.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
So I believe the provision currently in the bill would be seriously
disruptive because one of the offsets it uses to fund developing
and buying a second engine derives from research, development, and
testing and evaluation efforts supporting the program itself.
–
Senator John McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
Remember, Secretary Gates restructured the Joint Strike Fighter
Program this year precisely to provide for more robust developmental
testing over the next 5 years to ensure that the program stays on
its planned budget. Taking money out of the program's research,
development, and testing and evaluation effort will, in my view,
most assuredly disrupt the program.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional
Record, 7/23/09
One of the lessons of history on this program is its stability in
funding is absolutely vital to executing that program soundly, the
instability in funding--the disruption that the provision introduces
into the bill--brings the bill within the scope of a veto threat.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
There has been some citing of a GAO report issued in May of this
year that suggested that, in the long term, a second engine might
result in savings. I think it is important to say that the opinion
of the GAO is not documented in their report on that matter, and
it is not shared by other authorities who have done independent
analyses.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
The Institute for Defense Analyses says flat out that GAO underestimated
the required government investment to develop an alternative engine
by nearly $4 billion. One of the supporters of the second engine
earlier said that we have already spent over $2 billion on it, and
there is only a need to spend another $1.5 billion or $1.8 billion.
Of course, any dollar we spend on an engine that I believe we don't
need should go to other programs in the Department of Defense. It
is a waste of dollars.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record,
7/23/09
In addition, the Secretaries and Chiefs of the Air Force and Navy
have all said that they do not need or want a second engine for
the JSF. When Air Force Chief of Staff General Schwartz testified
before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 21, 2009, he said
that if he were asked where he would put his next available dollar
for the F-22 program, ``it would not be in a second engine.'' Chief
of Naval Operations Admiral Gary Roughead is also opposed to the
second engine, stating, ``..... keeping parts for two engines on
the decks of aircraft carriers is not advisable. Therefore you can
put me solidly in the one-engine camp.
– Senator Olympia Snowe,
Congressional Record, 7/23/09
Congress has directed three studies on the alternative engine, and
we have gone over studies in our Armed Services Committee. Two out
of the three studies of the alternate engine stated there would
never be any cost savings associated with the competition.
– Senator
Jim Inhofe, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
It seems to me it is a savings without the alternate engine, which
will allow us to have more capability, more aircraft.
– Senator
Jim Inhofe, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
Not only do we not need it, the Air Force testified before our committee
that if we spend this money on a second engine, we are going to
get, by General Shackelford's testimony to us, 53 fewer Joint Strike
Fighters in the next 5 years. We will not be able to afford them.
That is a serious consequence.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional
Record, 7/23/09
So I submit to my colleagues, I believe we have shown today that
the second engine funding will seriously disrupt the Joint Strike
Fighter Program.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record,
7/23/09
First, the Navy supports the Department of Defense position that
-- in general while we do support competition, in this case of the
alternative engine we view that the cost of continuing with two
development programs on that is not offset by the savings that we
would see in the future of having those two engines and also having
to support both engine types. So the Navy remains supportive of
that position of just the 135.
--
Admiral David Architzel, USN, Senate
Air Land Subcommittee, June 9, 2009.
So when we look at that balancing the risk of having one engine
versus the costs associated with paying for the second engine, be
it one in terms of costs within the program, which would be taken
out of production aircraft, a negative effect in terms of unit costs
and whatnot, or even having to source those dollars someplace else
within the Air Force in this time, we don't consider that to be
an affordable solution.
--General Mark Shackelford, USAF, Senate Air
Land Subcommittee, June 9, 2009
You know, so this has real consequences. This is not -- in a normal
case, of course you'd like to have two engines, two engine programs.
But you can't have it all. So if you go over the two engines, we're
going to be 53 planes short of what we'd otherwise be within that
five-year period.
--Senator Joe Lieberman, Senate Air Land Subcommittee,
June 9, 2009
Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I really can't add much from what was
said from General Shackelford. The facts that he presented, I agree
with, as well as General Trautman. For the Navy, we just have come
through the point where this year we get our first aircraft, which
our first four gets delivered on the sea variance. While initially
it may not affect those four, it certainly would affect us as we
go forward into the FYDB in terms of the developmental aircraft
and into production. And it would have an impact on us, both on
our cost. At the same time we're talking about ramp rates and managing
our strike fighter inventory, this would push things out to the
right further, push the IOC out, and then obviously push -- initial
operating capability, excuse me, out -- as well as reduce our --
have an impact on our strike fighter count. So that's the same
argument I think you just heard.
--Admiral David Architzel, USN, Senate
Air Land Subcommittee, June 9, 2009.
My own personal conclusion from all this -- and I thank you for
the case you've made -- is that we can't afford the second engine,
and it will compromise the joint strike fighter program. So I hope
we stick with the president's recommendation on that one.
--Senator
Joe Lieberman, Senate Air Land Subcommittee, June 9, 2009
But I have to tell you that if you asked me where I would put
my next marginal dollar, at this point it would not be in a second
engine.
--General Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, Senate
Armed Services Committee, 5/21/09
The Department did not include funding in the Fiscal Year 2010
President's Budget for the F136 competitive engine.
The decision to not include funding for the F136 is consistent
with the Department's position on this issue for the prior three
budget submissions. The decision this year was reviewed by the
Department's leadership as well as the Administration. The determination
of whether to fund the competitive engine,
as it has in the past, was weighed against the budget priorities
of the Department as a whole, the optimum use of taxpayer's dollars
in executing and preparing for the National defense, and the
benefits to the F-35 program.
--
David Ahern, Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition House Air Land Subcommittee, 5/20/09
The CAIG did a study of the benefits of the alternative engine, and the CAIG came to the conclusion that it didn't pencil out, that it takes a pretty substantial initial development cost to develop that second engine, and then you have to split the production so you don't get quite the learning efficiencies between two lines. You balance those costs against the benefits that you get, and we do think you will get some benefits in terms of pricing down the line.And you do a calculation and determine the net present value, and the CAIG came to the conclusion that the initial cost outweighed any benefits that you would get down the line.
Similarly, we asked one of the independent federal research centers,
the Institute for Defense Analyses, to do a similar analysis,
and they came to a similar conclusion.
--
Deputy Secretary of Defense
William Lynn, House Armed Services Committee, 5/6/09
Those dollars were they sourced out of the existing program,
would be at the expense of dollars going towards production of
aircraft, which has a side effect of increasing the unit costs
on an annual basis for those aircraft making them less affordable
at that time. Likewise, the learning curve which has a direct
impact on the unit cost of the engines
be it the primary engine or an alternate engine gets shallowed
(ph) out sooner, therefore, we don't save as much from a learning
perspective in the increased production of the original engine.
When you factor those items together, the cost benefit does not
equal a favorable number.
--
Lt. General Mark Shackelford, Deputy
to the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense, 3/25/09
The Department supported the omission of continued funding for
the alternate engine (F136) in the Fiscal Year 2009 President's
Budget request. The DON maintains there are higher priority needs
in the budget and that the risks associated with a single engine
supplier continue to be manageable. The three Fiscal Year 2007
Congressionallydirected engine studies have been completed. The
conclusions, while supportive of competition in general, reinforced
the Department's initial findings that the projected savings
from not doing competition outweigh the investment and sustainment
costs.
--
Statement of David Architzel, Principal Deputy Research,
Development & Acquisition, U.S. Navy, House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Defense, 3/25/09
Continued funding for the F136 engine carries cost penalties
to both F135 and F136 engines for reduced production line learning
curves and inefficient economic order quantities. The department
has concluded that maintaining a single engine supplier provides
the best balance of cost and risk. Our belief is the risks associated
with a single source engine supplier are manageable due to improvements
in engine technology and do not outweigh the investment required
to fund a competitive alternate engine.
--
Statement of Daniel J.
Darnell Deputy Chief of Staff,U.S. Air Force, House Air Land
Subcommittee, 5/20/09
Sir, we do support the President's budget and the Department's
position on this. In a fiscally con-strained environment the
balance of risk versus the benefit of competition is balanced
and we think we have a track re-cord in other aircraft that have
a single- engine provider to give us confidence that we will
have a successful program.
--
Donald Hoffman, Assistant Secretary
for Acquisition, USAF, Senate Armed Services Airland Subcommittee
4/9/08
Yes, sir, just that the Navy and the Department continue to
believe that the risk associated with a single-engine supplier
are manageable and do not outweigh the investment required to
fund a competitive alternate engine.
--
Rear Admiral Allen Myers,
Office of Chief Naval Operations. Senate Armed Services Airland
Subcommittee 4/9/08
The $1.6 billion to develop an alternate engine represents funds
that can be used now to buy other needed capability for our war
fighters and our nation. Furthermore, the F-136 engine is not
derived from the F-119 and presents a risk of technical issues
and cost growth during development, another risk to the war fighter's
capability.
--
John J. Young, Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, Joint Hearing of Air Land & Seapower
subcommittee, 3/11/08
…But the concern is where the money is coming to fund the joint,
the dual engine program. And, in fact, in the mark it's clear
that the funding is coming out of the hide of the Joint Strike
Fighter program, out of R&D and procurement.
--
Rep. Phil Gingrey
(R-GA) House Appropriations Committee Markup, 5/2/07
I think the analysis within the de-partment that the CAIG did
and then the other two assessments that GAO and IDA did, indicate
that it is not at all likely that we would recoup this investment.
--
William Balderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Senate
Air Land Subcommittee, 4/26/07
It is costly to carry a second source. And what you do when
you -- when you split a competition like this, of course, if
you were to carry the two sources, you end up with lower procurement
quantities for each vendor, which increases the per unit cost.
--
William Balderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Senate
Air Land Subcommittee, 4/26/07
So our assessment within the Navy, and I think within the department,
is that even some of the reports that have assumed a viable competition
and a competitive environment for both sources may be overstated,
and it may be more difficult than those reports stated to recoup
that investment in a two-source environment.
--
William Balderson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Senate Air Land Subcommittee,
4/26/07
The CAIG finds an alternative engine for the F-35 will not result
in a net cost savings. Instead, their analysis shows a net additional
cost in both base year 2002 dollars and net present value terms,
recognizing a small return on investment in then-year dollars.
--
David G. Ahern, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
Competition and procurement alone cannot be expected to recover
this investment.
--
James P. Woolsey, Institute for Defense Analyses,
House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
But the fact of the matter is, all of our analysis shows that
we never recover the costs of this program.
--Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England, Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
If you project that forward, we conclude that in the most optimistic
case, we would not save any money until 2025. And in a realistic
case, we never recover that cost, much less the cost of a separate
supply chain and all the issues associated with having the second
engine.
--
Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Senate Armed
Services Committee, 3/15/06
And the end result, if we are required to fund another engine
program, that will impact the basic program. And it will end
up delaying and putting the basic program at risk.
--
Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England, Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
Our conclusion in this analysis is it is not money well spent
to have a second engine on Joint Strike Fighter.
--
Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England, Senate Senate Armed Services Committee,
3/15/06
The Clear Winner
Some have cited the benefits of competition as a reason to pursue a second engine for the Joint
Strike Fighter, but a competition for this engine was already conducted. It was already conducted
as a part of the original flyoff competition for the Joint Strike Fighter itself. The current
airframe manufacturer and engine team won.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional Record,
7/23/09
So with regard to a second engine, we are not talking about competition, we are actually talking
about another bite at the apple.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
We need to make sure we spend tax money wisely. We have had the competition
on the F-35. It is time we move down the road of building and procuring
as many of those as we can. With the ramp-up this bill calls for,
under the direction of the chairman, we are going to be buying a lot
of F-35s in a short period of time. They have a great engine on them
today. It works. It is successful. That is where we need to concentrate.
That is where we need to spend our money.
-- Senator Saxby
Chambliss, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
When you look at items that need to be included in the mix from a
competition standpoint, there is nobody who supports competition more
than I do. That is the reason I supported the second engine--up to
a point in time. But when it came up again last year, it was pretty
obvious we were at a point where the engine, manufactured by Pratt & Whitney--two
of which fly on the F-22; only one of which is needed for the F-35--is
a good engine. It is doing the job. It has passed the test.
-- Senator
Saxby Chambliss, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
It is not like we are going to see a reduction in price on the engine
of the F-35 because we complete the testing and the procurement of
an alternative engine. That is not going to happen, and that is not
the issue. The issue comes down to the point of are we going to take,
in this case, a weapon system away from our men and women to fund
a second engine to compete with an engine that is already successful.
--Senator
Saxby Chambliss, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
It has been suggested that competition for these engines would be
good for the military. Quite simply, there has already been a competition
and it was won by Pratt & Whitney.
– Senator Olympia Snowe, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
There clearly was competition for the Joint Strike Fighter plane
engine in the 1990s. In 1996, Pratt & Whitney and General Electric each submitted engine proposals to the three airframe
manufacturers that were competing for the Joint Strike Fighter contract: Lockheed, Boeing,
McDonnell Douglas. Two of the three selected the Pratt & Whitney engine, and it happened
that those two airframe manufacturers were down-selected for the final competition. Ultimately,
in 2001, Lockheed was selected to start the design and development with the Pratt & Whitney
engine.
– Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record,
7/23/09
I believe there was a competition. General Electric lost. It has gone the other way on other occasions. And this is a legislative attempt to achieve by legislation what could not be achieved through competition. – Senator Joe Lieberman, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
Sir, while the Air Force and certainly the Defense Department
support the notion of competition as being good, particularly
in the manner of saving dollars for the taxpayer, the business
case analysis that we have at this point, that the Defense Department
has supported shows that we would not be saving money by bringing
on that second engine. So in spite of the potential for competition,
the business case doesn't support it at this point. And therefore,
the department doesn't support the second engine.
--
Lt. General
Mark Shackelford, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, 3/25/09
We're not opposed to competition. What we believe is that we
have effectively had a competition between the F135 and F136
since the inception of the program.
--
William Balderson, Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense, Senate Air Land Subcommittee,
4/26/07
We believe that we've achieved the benefits of competition and
it has put us in a very good position now to negotiate a solid
unit price for T1 of that first LRIP buy.
--
William Balderson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,Senate Air Land Subcommittee,
4/26/07
I would have no expectation that they would try to put us in
a position where they would take advantage of the sole source
buy, because we will have had that cost history as a backup.
--
William Balderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Senate
Air Land Subcommittee, 4/26/07
And my point was, as we now are at the point of negotiating
that first -- the price of those first production aircraft of
the F135, I believe we've gained most of the competitive advantage
that we would get, and at this point out continuing to split
the buy I think would offer us little opportunity to reduce those
costs.
--William Balderson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Senate Air Land Subcommittee, 4/26/07
The conclusions of the CAIG study as presented in written testimony
and what you will see in the final report show that competition
in the case of the F-35 engine does not save the taxpayer money,
even given generous assumptions that weigh the study favorably
toward competition.
--
David G. Ahern, Office of the Undersecretary
of Defense for Acquisition, House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
To have the potential for recovering this investment over the
JSF's life cycle, both procurement and O&S services would
have to be competed effectively and this competition would have
to save about 18 percent of the total procurement and O&S
cost. This is at the upper range of procurement savings we found
in our analysis of past programs, but the Department of Defense
has little experience integrating both procurement and O&S
into competitions.
--
James P. Woolsey, Institute for Defense Analyses,
House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
What we saw in doing our analysis, the CAIG analysis, which
is we looked at, as I said in my written statement, a need to
achieve a 21 or so percent savings across the acquisition in
order to get to the break-even point, which, as was characterized
by my colleague to the left, Mr. Woolsey from IDA, he characterized
18 percent as high and 21 percent as unlikely.
--
David G. Ahern,
Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, House
Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
So my takeaway from that entire thing is that I think the CAIG
and, as I understand, IDA looking at it from the same perspective
that the opportunity to get back the savings is going to require
a savings that's not all that likely.
--
David G. Ahern, Office
of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, House Air Land
Subcommittee, 3/22/07
First, early on when there were three competitors for the Joint
Strike Fighter, there were three different companies -- McDonnell
Aircraft, Lockheed Martin and Boeing. At that time in that competition,
all three companies had selected the Pratt & Whitney engine.
So there was an opportunity early on in the competition.
--
Deputy
Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Senate Armed Services Committee,
3/15/06
Typically there is a competition or, depending on the circumstance,
early on in this case that decision was made in 1995 when all
three of the competitors went forward with the Pratt & Whitney
engine.
--Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Senate Armed
Services Committee, 3/15/06
So these engines have been competing over years to this point
and we're picking now the one that has the maturity and level
of confidence that we believe will pay off in the Joint Strike
Fighter.
--
Admiral Robert Willard, Vice Chief of Naval Operations,
Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
The Safest Option
In my view, the possibility of a fleetwide grounding due to a single
engine--that is another argument that is made by proponents of a
second engine--is overstated. In fact, the only other U.S. military
aircraft with an alternative engine is the F-16. All other aircraft
have single-engine sources and have worked well.
– Senator John
McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
Senator Lieberman's and my argument is that the time for competition
is over, and it is time to move forward with a tested engine that
will, one, accelerate the development and operational entrance by
the F-22, and also save some $5 billion of the taxpayers' money.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
Of course, as he has argued so compellingly, there are a lot of
times when the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars for military
acquisitions is not only harmful in itself because it is wasteful,
but it takes money away from things we need more. That is the case
here. The money that will be spent, $5, $6, $8 billion over the
next 6 years by various estimates, will result in 50 to 80 fewer
Joint Strike Fighters produced in that time. The Navy, Air Force,
and Marines are waiting with anxiety for these tactical fighters.
– Senator John McCain, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
And here we are now talking about the issue of whether we should
continue with a competitive second engine for an airplane that now
has an engine that is being flown, has been flown, has been tested
by the Air Force on the F-22. It has successfully flown on the F-22
for years now, and also has flown successfully in what limited testing
has been done on the F-35.
--- Senator Saxby Chambliss, Congressional
Record, 7/23/09
Moreover, the only other aircraft in the U.S. military inventory
that has a dual source for engines is the F-16. All other military
aircraft have a single source engine, and it is a strategy that
works. Single source jet engines are the rule, not the exception.
– Senator Olympia Snowe, Congressional Record, 7/23/09
I look at this and I see that the only current U.S. military aircraft
with a two engine source is the F-16. All the rest have single engine
sources. It has worked well, and there is no military requirement
for the alternate engine.
– Senator Jim Inhofe, Congressional Record,
7/23/09
What about this engine that has been selected? The F-135 engine
has flown over 11,000 test hours and delivered 12 flight test engines.
The F-135 uses a core that has been delivered and is being used
in the F-22. It will have close to 1 million flight hours by the
time this selected engine, the Pratt & Whitney F-135, enters
operational service in 2012. That is quite a remarkable record and
one that justifies what Secretary Gates said to us in a letter he
sent to us this morning: ``The current engine is performing well
with more than 11,000 test hours.'' I think the record is a clear
one.
– Senator Joe Lieberman,
Congressional Record, 7/23/09
We have talked today about aging of the fleet. The bottom line
is we have got to get the F-35 production rate sufficiently high
to help us deal with that looming issue, and diverting resources
from aircraft production to dual-source the engine
to me makes that more difficult, not less. I know that in the
'80s we were pushing technology on engines
and we had the resources, and there was good logic, perhaps,
in pursuing a parallel path at that time. I think we have more
confidence in the technology all these years later, and given
the resources available, I think that we need to invest that
in fielding aircraft and not a dual-source on the engine,
--General Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff, Senate
Armed Services Committee, 5/21/09
Our belief is the risks associated with a single source engine
supplier are manageable due to improvements in engine technology
and do not outweigh the investment required to fund a competitive
alternate engine.
--
Statement of Daniel J. Darnell Deputy Chief
of Staff,U.S. Air Force, House Air Land Subcommittee, 5/20/09
The Department continues to believe the risks associated with
a single source engine supplier are manageable and do not outweigh
the investment required to fund a competitive alternate engine.
--Lt. General Mark Shackelford, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary
of the Air Force, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee,
3/25/09
The cost to continue F136 engine development and production
is estimated at $4.3 billion through Fiscal Year 2015. Continued
funding for the F136 engine carries cost penalties to both F135
and F136 engines for reduced production line learning curves.
--
Mark Shackelford, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of the Air
Force, House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 3/25/09
We feel very comfortable with the F119 core engine, that is
the F135. I think it has in excess of 50,000 flight hours, high
reliability and performing -- performing very well.
--William Balderson,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Senate Air Land Subcommittee,
4/26/07
I think that the 135 -- and this is a generation or more since
I flew -- the engine technology has advanced significantly.
The 135 is derivative of the 119 that's flying on the F-22s now.
And though there remains development to be done, I think that
the risk in going forward with that -- with the 135 only is low.
--David G. Ahern, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
But the 135 as prepared has done well. It is, as I said, derivative
of the 119 that's flying in the F-22 now. And I do think that
considering the maturity of the engine, the affordability issue
as well as factoring in the risk, that it's a well-founded decision.
--David G. Ahern, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
Acquisition, House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
Historically, it's not uncommon to have a single engine provider
for a tactical airplane. Two recent examples are the F-18 ENF
which has been alluded to, but the F-22 as well. The F-22 engine
is the F-119. It's got about 18,000 hours on it and it's running
very reliably. In -- with respect to modern technology, we see
great leaps and bounds from what we did 10 or 15 years ago.
--Admiral
Bruce W. Clingan, Director, Air Warfare Division, House Air Land
Subcommittee, 3/22/07
My judgment is it is much better to apply that money to make
sure that we have the most reliable and best engine we can, rather
than spending the money on two different engines.
--Deputy Secretary
of Defense Gordon England, Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
We have a proven record with existing single engine aircraft
and single engine manufacturers as providers.
--
General Robert
Magnus, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, , Senate Armed
Services Committee, 3/15/06
Senator Inhofe: So the reliability has increased ten-fold,
is that correct? Is that what -- am I interpreting that right?
--Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England: That's correct,
Senator. Senate Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
…It is the technical and program judgment and the military officers
who fly these airplanes that this second engine is not required,
that there is no longer a risk issue that justifies this level
of expenditure.
--Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, Senate
Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
Saves U.S. Jobs
I think, Mr. Chairman, this issue of industrial base is a very
good question and I don't think anybody's ever said that GE's
going to shut up shop and go home if they're not part of this
contract.
--Scott Donnelly, President and CEO, GE Aviation, Senate
Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
On the record, GE has the largest share of the engine market.
Now, I know that can change over time but my own conclusion about
the industrial base in this case is that these are three strong
companies.
--Senator Joe Lieberman, Senate Armed Services Committee,
3/15/06
International Partnerships
So I think that the other governments that are involved as partners
with the United States in developing the 135 have evinced interest
in an alternative engine but have not evinced so much interest
that they want to participate in the funding of it.
--David G.
Ahern, Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition,
House Air Land Subcommittee, 3/22/07
Our friends from Italy and Australia had a much more ambivalent,
in my opinion, attitude, and they said, about as clearly as they
could have, if the choice is between two engine sources, and
affordability and timeliness -- that is, keeping the Joint Strike
Fighter program on schedule -- they go for the single engine,
and affordability and timeliness.
--Senator Joe Lieberman, Senate
Armed Services Committee, 3/15/06
© 2010 
