Opinions and Editorials
Some of America's most influential voices are taking notice of the
importance of the alternate engine program for the F-35 Lightning II.
Read their takes on why keeping F136 engine funding is vital
to the defense of the American future.
VoteDemocraticParty.com, July 21, 2010
F-35 Fighter Engines, C-17 transport flying on Tallow
By Alan Caruba
“…The issue centers on fleet reliability and comes down to an easy and obvious question: Is it prudent for 80-90% of the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marine Corp’s fighter jet fleet to be dependent on a single engine from a sole-source provider? The answer is no.
If mechanical flaws or difficulties occur, or if that sole-source provider suffers an industrial accident, a labor dispute or terrorist attack, the entire fighter fleet could be grounded…”
read more >
Waco Tribune, July 18, 2010
The F136 jet engine and the power of competition
By Paul V. Hester, retired commander of the Pacific Air Forces
“…In 2009, Congress mandated competition on Pentagon purchases. But now, where it matters most — our national security — the Pentagon is trying to say no to competition for good. Without congressional action, a single manufacturer will be handed a monopoly to power our country’s largest military outlay and 90 percent of our next generation fighter fleet. This means one model of engine — and one model alone — will be available to power every Joint Strike Fighter in the United States military and the fighter planes of our allies for the next 30 years. This is imprudent at best, disastrous at worst. I know because I’ve lived through it…”
read more >
The Hill, June 30, 2010
F-35 competition vital to reliability of aircraft fleet
By Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.)
“…Tossing the competitive engine is the equivalent of throwing away an oar when you’re in a life raft. Pentagon officials far and wide will say competition is a guiding principle for defense procurement and when the JSF program began the plan was to have two engines. Why? The Pentagon’s own documents say it best, “this competitive environment will ensure long-term industrial base support with two production lines and will keep JSF engine costs down and reliability up.” Instead of taking the long view and identifying the root cause of problems with the program, JSF managers panicked and eliminated the one thing they had going for them — competition…”
read more >
Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments
Analysis of the FY 2011 Defense Budget
By Todd Harrison
“…DoD has likewise proposed terminating the JSF Alternate Engine program, also known as the F136, each year since FY 2007. Proponents of the program point to potential long-term cost savings from having competing engines, citing the Great Engine War of the 1980s and the resulting cost savings for the F-16 program. The Department has countered that, according to its own estimates, the long-term cost savings do not justify the up-front investment required and that continued funding of the F136 could delay the overall JSF program. The total cost to develop the Alternate Engine is estimated to be $4.5 billion, of which $2.9 billion has already been spent. However, as more of the development cost becomes sunk cost with each year of continued funding, the cost-benefit analysis shifts in favor of continuing the Alternate Engine program…”
read more >
Washington Post, June 9, 2010
GE’s little engine that should
By Kathleen Parker, syndicated columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group
“…Though the funding is being characterized by opponents as an earmark, it is nothing of the kind. Under House rules, an earmark is a request to authorize or appropriate money to a specific entity or locality in a way that thwarts the competitive award process. Congress has been funding the second engine for years to ensure competition, and the Armed Services Committee has long supported this competition as a national security imperative.…”
read more >
The Heritage Foundation, June 7, 2010
U.S. Defense Spending: The Mismatch Between Plans and Resources
By Mackenzie Eaglen, Research Fellow for National Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies
“Closing the gap between the Defense Department’s modernization requirements and the funding allocated by Congress will require honestly assessing the underlying causes and repudiating failed solutions. Congress should specifically reject defense program cuts masked as acquisition reform.
In March, Deputy Defense Secretary William Lynn touted the cancellation of seven major programs, including the C-17 cargo aircraft and the alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, as major acquisition reform successes. Killing programs is a simple way to show immediate dollar savings, but it will not change how the military actually buys equipment or address underlying problems. Furthermore, cutting current investment in next-generation systems will simply balloon future bills. It will also expose service members to greater risks on the battlefield and further reduce the military’s capabilities.
Instead of temporary measures to reduce today’s outlays, Members should pursue true reforms that will restructure troubled programs and restore long-term efficiencies. Congress should take steps designed to alleviate each of the budget pressures identified, taking into account competing demands for the marginal defense dollar and prioritizing the maintenance and improvement of core defense capabilities.”
read more >
Huffington Post, June 7, 2010
Back to the Blue Dog Basics
By Ronnie Shows, active alumni of the Congressional Blue Dog Caucus and former member of the House Finance/Banking Committee
“…You don't have to take my word that competition brings down costs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent non-partisan accounting branch of Congress, recently testified on the Hill that "we remain confident that competitive pressures could yield enough savings to offset the costs of competition over the JSF program's life." In other words, the costs for building the second engine will be made up in savings from increased competition…Because so much money is involved on both sides of this issue, shouldn't we trust the GAO now more than ever? They are a neutral body only interested in ensuring that the American people aren't ripped off.”
read more >
The Daily Caller, June 4, 2010
Is the media right on the Joint Strike Fighter?
By Jean Card, Freelance Journalist and Former Cabinet-Level Speechwriter, with former service to the US Departments of Labor, Treasury and Justice.
“…As is far too common in public-policy journalism, the coverage in this case seems to focus less on the engine issue and more on the conflict between the warring parties. A piece on the ABC News website (“The Blotter”), for example, recently read: “ABC News chief investigative reporter Brian Ross will have more on the allegations of wasteful spending tonight in a report on World News with Diane Sawyer.” Coverage of allegations, of a fight, of name-calling, is more salacious than coverage of a boring old GAO report, right? But is it responsible journalism? Facts may not be as interesting as name-calling, but they are what the public deserves to know…” read more >
Palm Beach Post, May 31, 2010
Letters: Engine competition good for cost-control, technology
By Col. Ron Singer, U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
“Competition, not monopoly, is the basis for our system. There is no question, proven in the F-16 engine competition, that in the long term the government will benefit in both costs and operational technology by having a competitive engine…” read more >
BigJournalism.com, May 30, 2010
ABC in Junk-Science Proxy Dogfight with NBC
By Dawn Rizzoni, Freelance Journalist
Response to ABC broadcast May 20, 2010: “Pentagon Chokes on Pork”
“Aside from the gross imagery evoked by the headline, the sheer audacity of this naked editorializing really caught my attention. Since when does ABC News get to decide what is and isn’t pork…How does saving $20 billion of my tax money amount to a ‘pork barrel boondoggle?’ The whole basis for Ross’s piece is flawed…” read more >
Bloomberg News, May 27, 2010
GE Urges Lawmakers to Defy Gates, Fund Backup Engine for F-35
By Gopal Ratnam and Tony Capaccio
“…For a program as large as the F-35, the Pentagon did not conduct a separate competition to pick the engine suppliers, GE's Immelt wrote in his letter yesterday. When the Pentagon chose Lockheed to build the F-35, the planemaker picked Pratt's engine after evaluating competing designs, Boley said.
Asked if Lockheed had evaluated engine designs and picked the Pratt model, Tom Burbage, Lockheed's executive vice president for the F-35 program said, "It's a stretch to say there was a competition for the F-35 engine.” read more >
Letter to Congress by Congressman Andrews (NJ) and Congressman Conaway (TX)
Support the Competitive Engine for the Joint Strike Fighter
By Robert Andrews, Chairman, House Acquisition Reform Panel
By K. Michael Conaway, Ranking Member, House Acquisition Reform Panel
“…We are writing to encourage you to support continued development of an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Requiring companies to compete for this work with substantially reduce taxpayer costs, spur technological innovation and enhance contractor performance. The engines for the JSF represent a $100 billion taxpayer investment over the next 30 years. We should not undertake this effort on a sole source basis.
As Chairman and Ranking Member of the Defense Acquisition Reform Panel within the House Armed Services Committee, over the past year we’ve studied what needs to be done to make our defense acquisition processes better. One chief lesson stands out: forcing contractors to compete for Defense programs works much better than sole source contracting. That’s why we are dismayed that the Administration wants to give one company a sole source engine contract for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. There is no doubt that competition will benefit the JSF engine program. According to the Government Accounting Office, the engine the Pentagon does not want competition for is expected to exceed their original engine development target by 50% more, or $2.5 billion – and their production engines for the Air Force aircraft are now 42% more expensive. We simply have to do better than this, and the 2009 Weapons System Reform Act provides the roadmap. A cornerstone of this law is that procurement should favor competition, and that is exactly what is needed for the JSF engine program…” read more >
The Hill, 20 May 2010
Competition necessary for future DOD projects
By Robert Andrews, Chairman, House Acquisition Reform Panel
“As Chairman of the Defense Acquisition Reform Panel within the House Armed Services Committee, I have had the opportunity over the past year to roll up my sleeves and study what needs to be done to make our defense acquisition processes better. One chief lesson stands out: forcing contractors to compete for Defense Department projects works a whole lot better than sole source contracting. That’s why I am dismayed with those who want to give one company a $100 billion sole source engine business for the 30 years plus expected life of the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
…One fundamental and immutable point is that competition works. The evidence is clear that behavior changes when contracts have to compete. And, this change in behavior results in lower prices, enhanced contractor responsiveness to war fighter needs, and better products. There is no doubt that competition will benefit the JSF engine program. According to the Government Accounting Office, Pratt & Whitney is expected to exceed their original engine development target by 50% more, or $2.5 billion – and their production engines for the Air Force aircraft are now 42% more expensive. We simply have to do better than this, and the 2009 Weapons System Reform Act provides the roadmap. A cornerstone of this law is that procurement should favor competition, and that is exactly what is needed for the JSF engine program.…” read more >
Arizona Capitol Times, 30 April 2010
Competitiveness should rule in Joint Strike Fighter acquisitions
By Senator John Nelson, R-Litchfield Park
“…I applaud those in Congress who are championing the case for competition on the Joint Strike Fighter. It’s the poster child for acquisition reform if there ever was one. The government shouldn’t pick winners and losers when it comes to military contractors; the marketplace should. If we really want to avoid more of the same — more cost overruns — we need to be true to the principles of acquisition reform
Just as important, there are clear national security implications. When completed, the JSF will account for 95 percent of our fighter fleet. We would have to ground our entire fighter force if we have to recall one engine in a single-engine program. Having two interoperable engines gives us air cover in the event we have to recall one of the engines.…” read more >
Montgomery Advertiser, 29 April 2010
Alabama Voices: Dueling engines beneficial
By Owen Drake, Representative R-Leeds, 32-year Air Force veteran
“…While the engine from Pratt & Whitney faces more than $2 billion in cost overruns, a competing engine from GE and Rolls-Royce is finishing its development on schedule, and ready for a decades-long, annual competition with Pratt & Whitney. The GE/Rolls-Royce engine is more than 70 percent developed and preparing to fly next year. In killing this engine program, the Pentagon would waste the $3 billion that taxpayers have already invested in it.
Not even the Pentagon disputes that the long-term cost benefits of competing JSF engines will more than pay for the $1 billion required to complete the GE/Rolls-Royce engine development. Many defense experts are convinced the savings over time will be much larger…” read more >
Everett Washington Herald, 15 April 2010
Pentagon’s Decision on Jet Fighter Engine is Short-Sighted
By Joe Marine, Mayor of Mukilteo
“…I am troubled by the Pentagon’s cost-cutting move to kill the advanced fighter jet engine being developed by GE and Rolls-Royce to compete on the Joint Strike Fighter Program (JSF). To cancel this engine program so near its completion would waste the $3 billion already spent in taxpayer dollars. It also raises a serious industrial-base question about whether more than one U.S. engine supplier will be capable of producing this type of high-performance jet engine in the future. Also, the Pentagon would hand the entire JSF engine business over to Pratt & Whitney, the other JSF engine supplier, which already faces $2 billion in overruns.
We know from our recent past that competing fighter engines significantly reduce program costs, while improving safety, reliability, and contractor responsiveness. The “Great Engine War,” the 20-year battle to power the single-engine F-16, demonstrated cost savings of 21 percent, according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO).
For the single-engine JSF, that equates to more than $20 billion in savings over the life of the program by funding the GE/Rolls-Royce engine. Simply put, the cost savings through competition will quickly pay for the $1 billion needed to complete the development of the GE/Rolls-Royce engine. The JSF program is far too large to entrust all of these aircraft with a single engine supplier…” read more >
Richmond Times-Dispatch, 14 April 2010
Competition Ensures Best Product at the Lowest Price
By Rosalyn R. Dance, Delegate, Virginia House of Delegates, 63rd District
“…The Pentagon needs to make sure it's buying the best products at the lowest prices, and the best way to ensure this is through competition on cost and quality between different suppliers. Simply stated, history has shown, time and again, that robust competition between defense contractors is the key to eliminating wasteful spending and controlling costs in large procurement programs. Competition is the only way for the Pentagon to ensure that it is being a good steward of the $100 billion that it is about to spend.
GE/RR and another company, Pratt & Whitney, have been engaged in a healthy competition, which has been a win for the American taxpayers, for the JSF engine program. Even though the GE/RR engine is 70 percent through its development (for which the Pentagon has already spent $3 billion), inexplicably, the Pentagon now seems poised to cut the competition short and hand this $100 billion monopoly to Pratt & Whitney, despite the fact that its engine development program is already $2 billion over budget…” read more >
The Marietta Daily Journal, 13 April 2010
Head-to-Head Competition a Money Saver
By Chip Rogers, Georgia State Senator and Senate Majority Leader
“…The Pentagon's plan to kill the GE-Rolls Royce engine is simply foolish. It would save money this year and next, but it would waste $3 billion taxpayers have already invested. Moreover, the decision to kill the GE-Rolls Royce engine would give Pratt & Whitney a $100 billion, single-bid, monopoly for decades.
The cost benefits of head-to-head competition would more than pay for the development of the second engine. The Pentagon will also be ignoring 15 years of bi-partisan congressional support and directives for competing and fully interchangeable JSF engines. Finally, the Weapons Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, signed by President Obama, mandates competition through the life cycle of major weapon systems programs.
Of course, the benefits of competition go well beyond costs. Given the scope of the JSF program, planners recognized years ago that competing engines would be key to national security. The JSF program will be the largest weapons procurement in U.S. history, replacing the majority of current tactical fighter aircraft in the U.S. Air Force, Marines, and Navy inventories, as well as tactical aircraft of nine or more international partners - more than 4,000 aircraft in total. It will ultimately account for 95 percent of our fighter coverage. So, killing head-to-head competition would leave our fighter fleet acutely vulnerable to an engine recall. Is it really in the best interests of taxpayers - and our servicemen and women - to rely solely on one fighter engine?…” read more >
Defense News, 9 November 2009
Fixing National Defense: JSF Alternative Engine, Dual Sourcing Equals Success
By John O. King, Retired Pentagon Senior Budget Analyst, Navy Global War on Terrorism/Humanitarian Operations Funding
In a commentary published in Defense News, retired Pentagon budget analyst John King says the Pentagon should dual-source whenever possible, and this includes completing the F136:
“…(W)e will recoup the second engine development cost and make some serious money back. With the engine costing about 20 percent of the total aircraft price, a 20 percent savings would reduce total aircraft costs by about 4 percent - about $8 billion.” read more >
The Heritage Foundation, 24 August 2009
Why Congress Cares About Engine Competition for the Joint Strike Fighter
By Mackenzie Eaglen
While few expect any tough votes if the Senate's FY 2010 defense appropriations bill arrives on the floor this autumn, one outstanding question remains: Given that Members have largely acquiesced to all of President Obama's defense cuts, will Congress continue funding the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) alternate engine (F-136)?
For the past three years, all four congressional defense committees have remained staunchly committed to a competitive F-35 propulsion system, which includes developing an alternate engine. Further, Congress has repeatedly demonstrated that it supports competition in major defense contracts, given the resulting cost savings and innovation that typically leads to a better product. This time should be no different, particularly in light of the lessons learned from the Great Engine War in the 1980s.
Should Congress fail to fund the alternate engine, there will be only one type of engine available for a plane—the JSF—that will constitute 90 percent of all U.S. fighters in 2035. Because it is a single-engine plane as opposed to dual-engine, if something goes wrong with the engine, it could lead to a system-wide grounding of every aircraft until the problem is identified and fixed—unless there is an alternative available. Such a scenario constitutes an unacceptably high risk. Further, Congress just passed a new acquisition reform law that demands competition for all major subsystems—including fighter engines. Consequently, Congress must keep JSF alternate engine funds intact when the final defense bills are signed into law later this year. read more >
Congressional Quarterly, 12 August 2009
Inouye to Buck Obama Veto Threat Against F-35 Engine Funding
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
"In a rebuff to President Obama, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and its Defense Subcommittee said he will support continued funding of a second engine for the F-35, the newest U.S. fighter jet.
Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii, disclosed in a brief interview that when his committee writes the Defense bill in September he will back continued development of the competitive engine, as he has in the past, "because," he said, "it makes good sense."
House of Representatives, 24 June 2009
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2647, NATIONAL DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION ACT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010
By Rep Steve Driehaus, 1st District, Ohio
"There has been much talk about fiscal responsibility on the floor of this House, and I come to the floor to support the rule and support the bill. I support it because of the inclusion of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program because when we talk about fiscal responsibility, it is through competition that we achieve fiscal responsibility. Since fiscal year 2006, nearly $2.5 billion has been provided for the development of the Joint Strike Fighter competitive engine program, and last month President Obama signed the Weapons Systems Acquisitions Reform Act of 2009 into law. This supported an increased use of competition and defense procurement. The expected cost of the primary Joint Strike Fighter propulsion system has increased by $1.8 billion while the competitive engine program has not experienced any cost growth at all. In fact, the contractor has indicated a willingness to negotiate on fixed price terms for the remaining development and production of the competitive engine. read more >
GE press release on 30 July 2009 regarding the HAC mark of $560M
"Speaking to Congressional Quarterly, House Defense Appropriations Chairman John P. Murtha this week described the F136 engine program as "absolutely critical," adding, "An alternative engine will provide cost savings through competition as well as provide greater reliability down the road."
Congressional Quarterly TODAY PRINT EDITION, 29 July 2009
F-35 Engine Program Shows Its Resilience
By John M. Donnelly, CQ Staff
“We’re going to build thousands of Joint Strike Fighters, and when you look back at problems we’ve had in the past with large aircraft procurement programs, you realize why it’s absolutely essential to build two different engines,” Murtha said. “An alternative engine will provide cost savings through competition as well as provide greater reliability down the road in case we have problems with one engine that could potentially ground our entire tactical aircraft fleet.”
McClatchy-Tribune Business News, 29 July 2009
Ad campaign targets aircraft engine plan
By Mike Faher, Tribune-Democrat, Johnstown, Pa. McClatchy-Tribune Regional News
"An alternative engine will provide cost savings through competition as well as provide greater reliability down the road in case we have problems with one engine that could potentially ground our entire tactical aircraft fleet," Murtha said in a prepared statement.
The congressman added that there is "strong bipartisan support within Congress for an alternative engine."
Murtha spokesman Matt Mazonkey said the government-waste group's concerns shouldn't carry much weight in Congress.
"You have to take with a grain of salt the comments made by organizations [CAGW] that are getting paid to lobby on a particular subject," Mazonkey said. "As with every issue, we look at the facts, and the facts show that having two engines is good for both competition and reliability."
Tell Congress you support
the F136 engine program.
Online Media Kit 
loading tweets
View our Latest Print Ads
Five Reasons to Support the F136
The Fighter Engine Team’s response to Secretary Gates’ call to cancel the F136 competitive engine.
...this is not a question of pork; it is a sincere concern for the success of the F-35 program and for the benefits of competition. 
— Chairman Ike Skelton 