Home » Air » Obama Loses House F136 Vote

Obama Loses House F136 Vote

By Colin Clark Thursday, May 27th, 2010 10:48 pm
Posted in Air, International, Policy, Rumors

Final tally: 193–231.

In the end the vote on the amendment stripping F136 funding from the defense policy bill was not as close as it might have been, but for the leadership of the House Armed Services Committee and General Electric and Rolls Royce it was close enough.

This vote must be seen as an important defeat for the White House and for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who repeatedly said he would urge the president to veto a bill containing funding or approval for the F136.

The initial story we’re getting is that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose power in the House can be enormous, stood off and left the fight to leaders of the House Armed Services Committee, most of whom believe firmly in funding and building a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter. Several Hill sources said that lawmakers who rarely pay close attention to defense issues were clamoring for background information about the issue of whether to build two engines several days before the vote. For such lawmakers, the leadership of the House’s most experienced defense policy experts must have been both comforting and helpful.

Rep. Ike Skelton, chairman of the HASC, has been a staunch supporter of the second engine and marshalled his information, working closely with GOP lawmakers who share his view.

While a Senate floor vote would probably be very close, one source who keeps a close eye on F136 issues said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, will keep a similar amendment out of the SASC bill and take the House bill to the conference between Senate and House lawmakers. That would make it procedurally challenging for F135 supporters to stop the final defense policy from approving F136 funding.

F135 maker Pratt & Whitney spokeswoman Erin Dick took the high and optimistic road in a statement issued soon after the vote:

Pratt & Whitney is pleased with the action in the Senate Armed Services Committee which did not authorize the continued funding of the extra engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, and appreciate the support of Senator Lieberman (I-CT) on this important issue.
We are aware that the House of Representatives voted not to support the administration and the Department of Defenses’ position of having the Pratt & Whitney F135 as the engine of choice for the Joint Strike Fighter. We recognize that the legislative process has just begun, and that the issue will continue to be debated for many months, and we appreciate the leadership of Representatives Larson (D-CT), Pingree (D-ME) Rooney (R-FL) and Westmoreland (R-GA) during this important debate.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	Curt May 28th, 2010 at 6:50 am If the F136 was going to be cancelled, last year was the year to do it. Given that this is an election year, it is unlikely that anything will change. Barring major problems in the development, next year is probably too late since with the funding to date, the engine will be too close to its in service date and the bulk of the development will be done (and hence a sunk cost). Looks like we will have another engine war.
	Alex May 28th, 2010 at 7:41 am How is the bickering between P&W and GE/RR helping the JSF programme move forward? It seems to me that P&W have quickly forgotten the problems with the STOVL engine that helped push back the flight test programme so many months, maybe if the engines had both been developed in parallel this could have been avoided? Surely the ideal solution is to fund the development of both engines, fit them into production airframes and have a fly-off for the final contract, then choose a sole source. I bet P&W might baulk at that idea as there is a good chance that the GE/RR engine would be far more preferable to many of the countries looking to buy this plane.
	Formula May 28th, 2010 at 11:59 am Alex, that is why P&W is spending so much trying to cancel the F136. Where there has been competition, mainly in the F16 and F15, the GE powered engines have come out on top. P&W is very concerned about competition and will do anything.…even distort facts, to get rid of any competitor they fear.
	FairMarketValue May 28th, 2010 at 12:36 pm As someone working on the F136 program, the F136 was sized for the plane where the P&W engine was enlarged from the F-22 plane. Competition is good — let the best win. The cost to build the F136 is only a little more than the cost over run spent on the P&W engine. Best decision long and short term is to let the buyers of the engines try before buying. That was the original pan for the F35 anyway. Good luck P&W!
	John May 28th, 2010 at 6:44 pm Competition is good — unfortunately GE and RR supporters forget that Pratt & Whitney won the JSF competition, which is why the F135 is years ahead of the F136. What we have now is a display of the power of lobbying from GE and earmarks from Congress. Note that GE has no issue with a monopoly of F404s for the F/A-18. The F135 is reliably powering both flight test and PRODUCTION JSF engines while the F136 has had repeated failures. Seems like no contest to me.
	irtusk May 28th, 2010 at 4:37 pm > unfortunately GE and RR supporters forget that Pratt & Whitney won the JSF competition there has been no engine competition for the F-35 the engine competition was ALWAYS supposed to be AFTER the F136 came online and the two could be compared in OPERATIONAL settings. > which is why the F135 is years ahead of the F136 no, you have it backwards, there has been no competition because the F135 is years ahead the F135 is years ahead because it is based off the F119 while the F136 is more of a clean-sheet design they needed the F135 to get the program off the ground because it could be ready quickly, but they felt the F136 had enough promise that they wanted to defer any final decision till it was ready > Note that GE has no issue with a monopoly of F404s for the F/A-18 The F/A-18 isn’t going to represent 90% of our combat aircraft capability for 30 years > while the F136 has had repeated failures you really don’t want to go there, the F135 has had more failures
	RSF May 28th, 2010 at 9:14 pm There have been three serious failures of the F135 during testing with enough concern generated to warrant a special investigation JAT team from the Pentagon last year being sent to P&W to investigate the rising costs associated with these incidents. Prior to that, the former Executive Officer of the JSF Program Brig. Gen. David Heinz openly discussed concerns on the P&W P135 engine saying, “the company is not achieving the projected learning curve on producing the engines because of tolerance and yield issues with manufacturing parts”. After that a well documented gag order was put in place by Mr. Gates on the aforementioned Executive Officer to not discuss the issues with the F135 engine from that point forward. And of course we all know who got the axe and was made the scapegoat for the problems with the JSF early this year (covered by DoD Buzz Feb 1st 2010). A excellent discussion and review on the long and sometimes ugly history of the two engined F-35 debate attached below: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-f136-engi...
	Formula May 29th, 2010 at 11:31 am Right on RSF!!!!!!
	Karl May 31st, 2010 at 10:03 am President Bush didn’t want the F136 backup engine; Obama doesn’t want it; Sec. Gates and the DOD don’t want it, wont use it, and say it takes funding away from other military programs which could protect our troops. The F136 backup engine is pork spending at its WORST and only demonstrates the power of GEs lobby in Washington.
	Formula May 31st, 2010 at 2:26 pm I guess you forgot why we have elected officials in the Congress and Senate Karl. Keep in mind, the Secretaries are appointed by the President with no vote by the American people. It does not matter if 10 or 15 people think we should not have it or that we will not use it. The fact is, 231 members of Congress think its the right thing to do for this country. When the actual competition begins, it will be a whole different set people and processes who pick the winner for each contract period, there will be times the alternate engine wins and there will be times the primary engine wins. Cancelling this Program would be a serious blow to Americas infrastructure, its Military capabilites and it would increase our current 13T dollar deficit by 20B dollars over the next 30 years.
	TRG May 31st, 2010 at 10:50 pm Karl, pork is when the tax payer doesn’t get any benefit from the spending. The savings from competition will save the tax payer approximately $20 Billion, that will allow the DoD to buy a lot more protection for our troops than the cost of finishing the F136. Whether DoD buys the F136 or not is immaterial, P&W will have to meet the cost to stay competitive or DoD will have no choice but to buy the F136.
	Taxpayer June 1st, 2010 at 6:07 pm A little clarity. (1) To the citizenry, “pork” is when money is added by the Congress. The Pentagon has its own pork deeply embedded in the budget in the form of marginally useful programs and overhead. (2) What is not being adequatelly considered her is that years ago, the Pentagon competed the aircraft airframe and engines separately, getting the taxpayer a better bargain. In the case of the JSF, the engine was not separately competed, only the airframe as a complete system. The Pentagon decided it needs a second engine and then changed its mind later. (3) Locking in the P&W F-135 engine as a sole option will cost the taxpayers $20 billion in higher costs than would otherwise be saved from competing the engine. (4) Proceeding with the second engine has nothing to do with the current F-35 development and testing schedule. It is a separate effort. (5) According to the Constitution, the Congress is responsible for funding the Army and Navy. The President’s (any president) budget is just a blueprint or draft request.
	JRL June 1st, 2010 at 6:26 pm Donch’a all love that sappy P&W ad in the top right corner? Just look at that sad-eyed grunt* who won’t be getting any body armor because of ‘Billions wasted’ on stuff like obscenely over budget incompetent F135 development. Oh wait… it’s not THOSE wasted billions that P&W and the grunt are upset about, is it? JL * He kind’a reminds me of the big-eyed sad Latino kids in the velvet paintings they used to see in the mall courts…
	jerry June 2nd, 2010 at 11:36 pm If anyone thinks there will be a savings as a result of an eng. competion, I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you.
	jcs June 3rd, 2010 at 9:17 am well…I guess that settles it then. Thanks Jerry.
	Marine Veteran June 3rd, 2010 at 12:13 pm “Obama looses House F136 vote” I’m not so sure…this might rather read “American Taxpayer looses House vote”. Once again folks: Congress acts for the benefit of Congressmen…this is their first priority. If they happen to behave (act) in a way beneficial to the American taxpayer, it is either by chance or due to them directing “pork” to their district. Peel this onion back a layer or two and I am sure the Congressmen supporting the measure have very strong reasons for supporting it, grounded firmly in their Congressional districts. Yes, I hope so.….this decision will be subject to further scrutiny (and hopefully defeat) as the acquisition process winds its way through DoD and Congress.
	Marine Veteran June 3rd, 2010 at 12:19 pm Making acquisition decisions based on “sunk cost” is a disaster waiting to happen. No well run business makes decisions based on “sunk cost”. Read the A12 report to get a shock.…for those who don’t know or recall or want to recall, that was a late ’80’s aircraft development program run amuck…it was bleeding funding at the “cyclic rate”…throwing more funding at it (to save it) resulted in nothing but MORE funding being lost. The right thing that should have been done early on to the A12 mess was for the Program Executive Officer to pull the plug and kill the program. Instead, it was a horrific waste of resources.
	candor June 3rd, 2010 at 3:30 pm The F136 team of GE and Rolls should be told that there is a price for admission and that is for them to self fund the development of the engine. If they feel so strongly about a dual source competitive enviornment and their ability to prevail this shouldn’t be a problem for either company. By the way how many aircraft and helicopters in the Air Force, Marine and Army inventory where GE the sole source.
	Marine Veteran June 3rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm excellent point.
	jarhead June 3rd, 2010 at 7:48 pm So it’s ok to send $21 million to fund some frog in San Fransisco but lets not try to give the military the best option available, even if that is P&W, we may never no though. In this economy lets look at it as a jobs bill then. Obama has wasted TRILLIONS already, atleast this has a purpose and then history will show it was the right choice all along. Maybe we should cut back on food stamps and welfare for people that wont even look for a job, to keep 1000’s of people employeed. Oh no, I forgot, the number one goal of democrats is to have everyone poor and dependant on the government. That is liberal 101. Never mind
	William C. June 3rd, 2010 at 8:00 pm So that is why we should only buy the F136? Thanks Mr. GE.
	Marine Veteran June 4th, 2010 at 4:44 pm At the root of it is our nation’s overseas involvement: ultimately, we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then we would be saving money. Business’ (and nations) shouldn’t fund ‘purposes’ and it is pure speculation whether or not history will vindicate such a decision.
	48Dayer July 9th, 2010 at 3:19 pm I agree that sunk cost is a bad reason to keep spending money, but no well run business signs up for $200 billion of inventory without taking competitive bids, either.