By Carlo Munoz
Weeks after Congress opted to kill development of an alternative engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, House members yesterday overwhelmingly approved a measure to allow work to continue on the program in fiscal year 2012.
Included as an amendment to the House Armed Services Committee’s version of the FY ’12 defense authorization bill yesterday, the measure allows the Rolls-Royce and General Electric [GE] engine team to continue development of the F136, but finance that work themselves “at no cost to the federal government,” according to the amendment.
Specifically, the amendment would grant members of the F136 development team access to DoD-operated test and research facilities required to continue the program’s development, “if such activities are self-funded by the contractor.
Folded into the House defense bill on a 54 to 5 vote, the amendment keeps the contentious F136 engine program alive for this fiscal year, despite repeated attempts by the Defense Department and their congressional supporters to kill the program. The original power plant for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the F135, is built by Pratt & Whitney [UTX].
Panel members who voted against the bill included Reps Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Alan West (R-Fla.) and Joe Courtney (D- Conn.).
Opponents of the F136 have argued the extreme costs of developing two engines is simply a bill that the department cannot afford to pay, in light of the difficult budget environment the Pentagon faces. Proponents of the GE-Rolls Royce effort claim the industry competition created by both engine development programs will result in cost savings over the long term, while providing a vital backup to the F135.
While the amendment itself was introduced by Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.), last week panel Chairman Chairman Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.) unveiled the plan to salvage the F136 program during a speech at the right-leaning Heritage Foundation (Defense Daily, May 6).
During yesterday’s committee hearing to approve the HASC version of the defense bill, the McKeon reiterated his support to keep work on the F136 alive, calling the Andrews amendment a “no-brainer” that would allow DoD to keep all engine options on the table, while not having to put federal dollars toward the effort.
Last month, lawmakers included no funding for the F136 in the FY ’11 federal spending package approved by the White House on April 15. Shortly thereafter, DoD officially terminated the program, but instructed the F136 team to “preserve and deliver government property” tied to the program to the department.
Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.), chairman of the HASC Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee, noted during the markup that allowing GE and Rolls-Royce to continue F136 work would save the department money.
By continuing that work, the Pentagon would not have to pay the related maintenance, storage and other related costs to keep the engine tooling and related equipment in working condition, according to Bartlett. Conversely, DoD can keep the F136 equipment warm, continue to gain advances in the engine program’s development all while not having to expend any funding.
However, Cooper noted that DoD would still have to spend money to operate its test and development facilities, even if the F136 team were footing the bill for the work itself. Further, should the F136 team gain access to DoD test and development facilities, work on that program could delay work on other more pressing department programs, due to the limited availability of those facilities.
In response, Andrews noted the amendment was clear that the GE and Rolls-Royce team would be responsible for all costs related to the F136 development, including those tied to the operation of the department’s facilities.
While panel members did agree to continue development of the JSF second engine, it did kill an effort to curtail development on one of the fighter’s three variants.
The amendment, sponsored by Tennessee Democrat Jim Cooper, would have terminated funds for two of the six vertical lift versions of the JSF being built for the Marine Corps. The F-35B will replace the Marine Corps’ current fleet of AV-8B Harrier jets.
The amendment was defeated by a committee voice vote, with Chairman McKeon leading the charge.
The Cooper amendment would have shifted just over $380 million dedicated toward those two fighters and use that money to buy more equipment for the National Guard and Reserve. While the move would have helped those reserve forces reset from equipment losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would also “send a message to the contractor [that] we need to get this back on track,” Cooper said.
Earlier this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates put the F-35B program on a two-year probation, to allow program and industry officials to address the numerous engineering and cost challenges associated with the effort. Moreover, if those problems could not be resolved within that two-year period, Gates said he would cancel the program.
Lockheed Martin [LMT] is the prime contractor for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps version of the JSF.
However, McKeon told members of the committee that he was opposed to the Cooper amendment, since the elimination of the two jets would significantly increase per unit costs of the program, while widening the Navy’s tactical fighter gap.
In response, committee ranking member Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) noted the move would not affect per unit costs, since the jets in question are not yet fully mature. By keeping the fighter funding, House lawmakers “bought something that will cost us money” not save money, he added.