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, sir."
- 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