By Emelie Rutherford
Though a key Senate committee approved a bill yesterday that would not fund the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s alternate engine, the panel’s chairman and its report on the bill both indicated support for the controversial propulsion effort.
The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) marked up its $669.9 billion version of the fiscal year 2011 defense appropriations bill, which does not fund the F-35 second engine, which is developed by General Electric [GE] and Rolls-Royce and is an alternate to the main engine developed by Pratt & Whitney [UTX].
SAC Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) told reporters yesterday he still supports the second engine, which Congress in recent years has funded over Pentagon objections.
“Yep, but that’s not what I voted,” he said after the markup session.
The House could approve funding for the alternate engine; the version of the FY ’11 defense appropriations bill the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee approved in July includes $450 million to continue developing it.
Inouye said the engine program’s fate likely will be decided in a House-Senate conference committee that will craft a final bill.
“I think if it’s going to be decided it will be in conference,” he said.
Obama has threatened to veto defense legislation that supports the alternate engine.
The SAC called for cutting $1.5 billion in funding for buying 10 of the 42 low-rate initial-production F-35s the Pentagon requested money for in FY ’11. The committee’s report on the bill laments that the overall F-35 aircraft program has experienced delays, while noting successes with the second-engine effort.
“While the second engine program has continued its development on track, with the program being awarded 17 straight performance awards in the past 8 years with an average approval rating of 93.5 percent, the Joint Strike Fighter has seen cost increases and significant delays,” the SAC report says.
It adds: “The incongruence of the insistence on canceling the second engine program which has been a near model program and which most analysts expect would curtail long-term costs of the entire JSF program with equal insistence on the need to fully fund the JSF program is hard to rationalize.”
The second engine’s fate in the FY ’11 defense authorization bill, which sets policy for the Pentagon, also could be decided by a conference committee. The House-passed authorization measure includes the engine, while the version of the bill the Senate is expected to take up next week does not.
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report puts into question Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ assertion that the Pentagon would have to spend $2.9 billion to finish developing the engine. Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who requested the assessment from the GAO, and other alternate-engine supporters seized on the report that was issued Wednesday. The GAO report found the Pentagon’s estimate that it would cost $2.9 billion to finish developing the engine is not comprehensive and makes assumptions that may not prove true.
General Electric, for its part, has said it would cost the government $1.8 billion to finish the engine.
Levin argued yesterday the GAO report bolsters the economic arguements in favor of developing, and added, “but I have long believed that the economic benefits are not the only argument in favor of competition.”
He noted the Weapons System Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA) calls for competition throughout the lifecycle of major weapon system’s acquisitions.
“Since the JSF program is the single largest DoD acquisition program, the JSF engine is a great place to begin implementing WSARA,” Levin said in a statement.
SASC Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) said this week he remains opposed to the second engine, which he considers to be wasteful, and will vehemently fight attempts to add it to any defense legislation.
Pratt & Whitney, for its part, applauded Senate appropriator’s move to not fund the alternate engine this week, saying in a statement doing so “is a clear message that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Defense supports President (Barack) Obama and Secretary Gates in their position that funding an alternate engine will not save taxpayer’s money or improve military readiness in any way.”
The SAC’s bill is $8.1 billion below the administration’s request and has $16 billion in reductions from programs proposed by the White House. The committee’s cuts to the White House’s plan include $615 million for one of two requested Littoral Combat Ships (LCSs).
Inouye during the markup said the cost-cutting measures are “prudent,” and noted the Pentagon has not yet awarded FY ’10 contracts for the F-35 and LCS programs.
“While we are proposing substantial cuts, we continue to recognize the importance of both programs to our nation’s defense,” he said. “We are optimistic that the current delays are temporary and expect that in the coming years these programs will overcome schedule problems and get back on track. However, in the current fiscal climate, we simply cannot afford to provide funds that are not required at the moment.”
The SAC’s additions to the administration’s Pentagon budget proposal include funds for modernizing the Army’s AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook, and UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters; modifying Stryker vehicles to give them double-V hulls; and bolstering Standard Missile-3 Block IA interceptors for ship-based missile defense.
The SAC-D’s $669.9 bill includes $157.7 billion in war funding for FY ’11, which starts Oct. 1. Inouye said when the fiscal year starts he expects Pentagon funding will be temporarily covered by a continuing resolution extending the budget at FY ’10 levels until Congress passes the defense appropriations bill later in the year, after the November elections.