One of the few descriptions that says what the work is: F119 engine sustainment, $3.65 billion
An Air Force contract signed in 2008 and closed on 31 May 2022, obligating about $3.65 billion. The description names the engine and the purpose plainly — and outlays still amount to 0.9% of the obligation.
Contract key facts
- RecipientRTX (Raytheon)
- Contract value$3,648,685,783 (≈$3.65B)
- BranchAir Force
- Awarding agencyDepartment of Defense
- Awarding sub-agencyDepartment of the Air Force
- Award typeDEFINITIVE CONTRACT
- Period of performance2008-01-01 〜 2022-05-31
- Contract ID (PIID)FA861108C2896
Contract scope (original)
F119 ENGINE LONG TERM SUSTAINMENT PROGRAM FOR THE RAPTOR ENGINE (SPARE)
Key points
- Signed by the Department of the Air Force on 1 January 2008 and closed on 31 May 2022 for about $3.65 billion.
- The description names the engine, the purpose and the category in a single line.
- Despite the clear description, outlays stand at about $32.2 million, or 0.9% of the obligation.
- The work is sustainment of equipment already in service rather than new procurement.
1A description that actually describes
In the previous article the description was two words. Here it names both subject and purpose: the F119 engine long-term sustainment programme, for the Raptor engine, spares. One line and the point of the contract is clear.
2A good description does not imply a good record
Whether the description is specific and whether the money fields are filled in are decided separately. In this record the first is strong and the second is thin.
Within a single record, reliability differs field by field. Judging a record as good or bad as a whole is less accurate than judging each field you intend to use.
3Sustainment rather than procurement
This contract does not buy new equipment. It pays to keep equipment already in service running, and the explicit marking of spares reinforces that. Sustainment work sits alongside procurement at a comparable scale in defence spending.
The next article closes the series with a $7.6 billion contract that ended five days ago.
Why it matters
Public data should be assessed field by field rather than record by record. A record with a specific description may have thin money fields, and a record with complete amounts may say nothing about its subject.
FAQ
Does a specific description mean the whole record is reliable?
What is long-term sustainment?
Does the length of a description matter?
Sources (primary)
This article is an independent organization based on the U.S. official spending data below. Verify the exact, latest details with the official source.
- USAspending (award details)
- Contract ID (PIID)：FA861108C2896