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