Pentagon, Obama Bomb House Bid To Revive Jet Engine

May 24, 2011 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (6)

President Bush said no. President Obama and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates said no. The House earlier this year said no. And now, after the House Armed Services Committee ignored everybody and threw a lifeline in its budget to a second costly engine program for the F-35 joint strike fighter, the Pentagon has lowered the boom.

In a letter to the committee's top Democrat, Rep. Adam Smith, Undersecretary of Defense Ashton Carter said continuing the two-engine competition, killed by Tea Party Republicans in February, would crash the jet program. "Adoption of this provision would cause substantial harm to the F-35 program," wrote Carter.

And this afternoon, the White House said President Obama would veto the defense budget unless the second engine provision was removed. "If the final bill presented to the president includes funding or a legislative direction to continue an extra engine program, the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto," said the budget office. [Check out editorial cartoons about the budget and deficit.]

Sources say that House opponents are also ready for war over the second engine and will offer an amendment on the House floor to bar, forever, any spending on the competition which the Pentagon awarded to the team of jet-maker Lockheed Martin Corp. and engine-maker Pratt & Whitney, builder of the F-135 engine for the new jet.

At issue is the successful efforts by General Electric and Rolls Royce to keep the competition between their alternative F-136 engine and Pratt & Whitney's F-135 alive over several years, in part because of support from lawmakers like Speaker John Boehner of Ohio where GE has engine shops. Boehner's office said, however, that he played no roll in the new effort to revive the GE engine. See Washington Whispers previous story on the committee's action.  [Read more about national security and the military.]

The House Armed Services Committee says that competition will both cut costs and result in a better engine, once one is finally chosen. As a result they included some language in their budget to revive the competition that the House had earlier killed. However, GE and Rolls Royce would have to self-fund the development.

In the Senate, Ohio's Rob Portman said there is another reason why the second engine project decried by Gates as too expensive and duplicative is needed. In an op-ed for Roll Call, he said that it's good to have two war jet engine makers just in case something goes wrong. "There is an unnecessary operational risk in having just one engine supply 90 percent of our fighter inventory."

Plus, he told Whispers, "Competition, not sole-sourced contracts, is what will drive down costs and serve the taxpayers' best interest in the long run." His evidence: A GAO report backing up that claim on the second engine saving money over time.

In his letter, however, Carter was dismissive of the committee's work, saying that keeping the competition alive in any form would slow the project, boost costs and destabilize an already fragile program. [See editorial cartoons on the economy.]

The provision in the budget, wrote Carter, "would impose a punitive limitation on funding for the F-35 propulsion system that would significantly impede our ability to execute development of the F-135 [engine] and overall F-35 [jet] propulsion integration; add significant cost and delay to F-135 development; and destabilize the F-35 program when it is beginning to stabilize..."

Also, Carter leveled another warning against a possible second jet engine competition for the a new bomber program. Carter said that would spoil the whole plan to share equipment with other aircraft. "A major tenet of the new bomber program is to maximize re-use of existing systems. Very realistic opportunities exist which do not require development of a new engine. Mandating such development will result in increased cost and risk," he wrote.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
Robert Gates,
Rob Portman,
deficit and national debt,
national security terrorism and the military

Reader Comments Read all comments (6)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Kill the F136 support.

If GE and RR are really ready to fund the engine themselves, they DO NOT need any congress or Defense Department permission or support to do so. As such I agree that this all Snake Oil.

As for sole source, Once P&W has the engine all figured out and fully approved by the Defense department, it could be built under contract at several manufactures, including GE and RR if need be.

Time for RR and GE to move on or COMPLETELY fund it themselves. They should quit playing politics and look forward to the market that are still out there.

robert pickell of PA 4:26AM May 29, 2011

The specifications for the manufacture of the F-35 power plants are identical. Either engine is completely interchangeable "in the airframe", which was the whole point. The two different technologies embodied in the engines themselves ‘is’ what gives the competition meaning. The GE/Rolls Royce team have made some extraordinary competitive products in the past. The F-110 engine (competing against the PW F-100 engine) for the F-16, F-15 and F-14 (powered by TF-30(s)) were cases in point. The F-110 out performed its competition, and were subsequently used in F-16, F-15, and some Foreign Military Sales aircraft. Some of the last F-14 tomcats were upgraded with the F-110 finally giving the airframe a powerplant that actually let us truly experience the potential of the weapon system (range, fuel economy, speed, and maneuverability).

When competition is discouraged one must always look at the motives of those who discourage it. In this case it is the potential of a $100 Billion sole source engine contract for the life of the F-35 program.

Every time competition has been tried in the USAF fighter engine contracts, a net savings, greater performance and reliability, has been realized in the final analysis. Not to mention the manufacturing infrastructure, and jobs that continue with the effort.

So . . . I’m going to continue to push for the GE/RR F-136 development team to continue to develop the engine, particularly since they believe in their product so much, they are going to foot the rest of the development bill. What do we have to lose? It would be short sighted to let it go at this point. We already have all of our eggs in one basket with the F-35 Combat system. Let’s not strap it with a single engine source too!

CConway of TX 12:17AM May 28, 2011

GE is running around Washington crying in any office their lobbies can get into. I say any Congressmen who votes to waste another $1 on the F136 should be recalled. If Congress is listening to the people, we want cost reductions now. This would be a great place to start $3 billion dollars saved.

Remember GE does not pay Federal Taxes.

MI of GA 8:36PM May 25, 2011

About this blog

About this blog

Washington Whispers has been featured in U.S. News & World Report since 1933, offering a fun, insider's view of Washington.

advertisement

Latest Videos

advertisement