By Emelie Rutherford
The House Armed Services Committee (HASC) is preparing to debate next week changes to President Barack Obama’s plans for ending the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter alternate engine and funding missile defense systems for the U.S. homeland.
The last of the HASC subcommittees are poised to finish their bill-writing sessions, or “markups,” of the policy-setting fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill today. Four of the six subpanels yesterday teed up proposed changes to the Pentagon’s budget proposal–including a possible return of the F-35 second engine.
HASC Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) is expected to unveil a plan next week for reviving the alternate engine program, which he and several key defense-minded lawmakers support but the Pentagon and White House have moved to end.
Congress voted last month to remove $450 million for the alternate engine from the delayed fiscal year 2011 federal budget, and the Defense Department officially terminated the Rolls-Royce-General Electric [GE] effort last week.
The HASC’s Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee last night approved language for the FY ’12 defense authorization bill intended to force the Pentagon to buy the F136 along with the main F-35 engine, Pratt & Whitney‘s [UTX] F135.
In addition, Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), in prepared comments yesterday, pointed out McKeon “is very engaged on this issue” and said “more initiatives (will) follow in our full committee mark next week.”
The subcommittee’s current legislation, as approved yesterday, would “limit the obligation or expenditure of funds for performance improvements to the F-35 Lightning II propulsion system unless the Secretary of Defense ensures the competitive (development and) production of such propulsion system.”
Those “performance improvements” would relate to increasing the performance and thrust of the F135 main engine.
Lawmakers and congressional aides supportive of the alternate engine believe such a legislative provision would force the Pentagon to fund the F136.
“Contrary to Pentagon talking points, we don’t believe the Pentagon is quote ‘pleased with the engine it has,’ unquote,” Bartlett said in prepared comments, which he did not read. “We believe the thrust margin and growth potential of the primary engine and auxiliary equipment is minimal. If, as we believe, it becomes necessary to improve the performance of the F-35’s primary engine, then we believe that the Pentagon should do so with a competitive engine program.”
Bartlett is among the alternate-engine supporters who believe having two engines will drive down costs over the long term.
He argued that “to continue to fully fund a $1 trillion F-35 aircraft program and not take the opportunity to maintain competition in the $110 billion engine sub-component of the program, is not in conformance with statute or the long-term best interests of the program and taxpayers.”
He noted a Pentagon business-case analysis last year found continuing development of both the alternate and primary engine would cost roughly the same as pursing just the F135.
The subcommittee’s proposal has drawn the attention of second-engine foes, who deem the propulsion effort a waste of money.
Rep. Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), who has fought against the alternate engine, argued the House already “sent a loud and clear message that we’re not going to continue to earmark funds for this wasteful project.”
He said he is “confident that when this bill comes before the full House, we will again show the American people that we take their demand for spending cuts seriously, and we will not continue to throw away their hard-earned tax dollars on a program that the Pentagon has said repeatedly it does not want or need.”
The alternate-engine’s high-profile supporters, though, include House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio).
The Tactical Air and Land Forces panel’s legislation, or “mark,” also resists Pentagon plans to shut down the production lines for the Army’s Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and authorizes $425 million above the Pentagon’s request to continue work on them.
The panel’s proposal also would limit the Army to spending no more than 70 percent of funds on the new Ground Combat Vehicle effort until the Army secretary reports to Congress on an updated analysis of alternatives with a “quantitative comparison” of vehicles including the most currently upgraded Bradley.
The HASC Strategic Forces subcommittee also approved its mark yesterday, calling for authorizing an additional $109.7 million in ballistic missile defense funding to the Pentagon’s request of $10.1 billion.
Strategic Forces Ranking Member Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) opposes the increase, touted by subcommittee Chairman Michael Turner (R-Ohio), and said she will introduce an amendment next week to reverse it.
Sanchez specifically took issue with a $100 million boost Turner wants for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, which would raise authorized funding from the requested $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion.
“We agree on the need for effective and proven missile defenses based on operational testing to defend our homeland, our deployed troops and our allies against missile threats,” she said at the panel’s markup yesterday. “But we disagree on the need for the $100 million funding increase over the budget request for Ground-based Midcourse Defense.”
Turner said he anticipates “some substantive debates on policy differences during the full committee markup next week” regarding missile defense and nuclear issues.
The added GMD monies, he said, are intended to help speed up follow-on work to an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) test failure, put back funding that was taken from other GMD program and testing activities to fix the EKV, and begin acquisition of long-lead components tied linked to the December 2010 test failure.
“I want to make clear that I place a priority on fixing GMD and ensuring the American people have confidence in the only missile defense system that protects the United States homeland from long-range ballistic missile threats,” he said.
The panel’s legislation also calls for the defense secretary to give Congress a so-called “hedging strategy” for protecting the U.S. homeland as a new European missile defense system is built.
Turner proposed a series of missile-defense funding increases, for items including Aegis Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors, THAAD launchers, Airborne Laser Test Bed research, and U.S.-Israel missile defense cooperative efforts. His suggested cuts include a $149.5 million reduction for Medium Extended Air Defense (MEADS), a three-nation air- defense program the United States may have to pay $800 million to exit in 2014. The Strategic Forces’ proposal would limit the availability of remaining FY ’12 MEADS funding until the defense secretary either negotiates a termination with partner nations Italy and Germany or restructures the program and salvages some of the technology for existing efforts such as the Patriot program.
Turner said he is concerned “about authorizing over $800 million in fiscal year 2012 and 2013 for a program that the Department does not intend to procure, and whose record of performance, according to a DoD fact sheet, ‘might ordinarily make it a candidate for cancellation.'”
The HASC Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee plans to mark up its portion of the defense authorization bill today. A version of the subcommittee’s mark released earlier this week calls for limiting the Navy’s ability to spend money on developing new Amphibious Combat Vehicles (ACVs) and upgrading existing Amphibious Assault Vehicles (AAVs). The subcommittee is concerned about these vehicle plans, made by the Pentagon in the wake of its controversial move to cancel General Dynamics‘ [GD] Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle (EFV). The subcommittee’s legislation restricts the spending of FY ’12 funds on amphibious vehicle efforts until the Navy conducts an analysis of alternatives for them and submits a detailed report to lawmakers.
“I believe canceling the EFV was a bad decision, but throwing more money at the new program without doing their homework first is a recipe for more wasted money,” Seapower and Projection Forces subcommittee Chairman Todd Akin (R-Mo.) said in a statement.
The panel also wants to force the Air Force to hold a competition for the engines in the next-generation bomber aircraft and the Navy to enter into multi-year contracts for DDG-51 destroyers, which Northrop Grumman [NOC] is building.
The full HASC is scheduled to combine the subcommittee marks and craft one bill next Wednesday.