Turbine,
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
I can't argue with the points you make - happy to differ in conclusions, but that's the point of an open forum - long may it continue.
Ownership of risk, identification of risk and management of risk are always contentious issues. What I was trying (badly) to get across was that by the 1990s the DoD had realised that the previous (largely humungously bureaucratic paper based processes) had not delivered the improvements in performance that were required.
The JPO were trying to move towards a more streamlined requirement process, and putting more onus on the contractor to perform, rather than spend millions of dollars getting the contractor to produce paper trails proving it.
The clip you showed on the background to the F135/136 decision is very familiar - it was shown to a DoD panel we supported in 1998 to review the F136 programme, and represented the views of the DoD engine programme managers who desperately wanted it to continue. The panel concluded that it should, and strongly recommended that to the DoD.
Just a few years later, it was canned, and I fully agree that it was a dumb decision. I don't know enough of the technical detail to judge P&W against GE, but I really do agree that competition is the best way to ensure best performance - if you can afford it. The US decided that they couldn't.
Best regards as ever to those making the tough calls,
Engines