THE HILL
 

Lawmakers vote for second fighter engine against Obama wishes

By Roxana Tiron - 10/06/09 11:09 AM ET

In a setback to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressional defense authorizers are poised to green-light funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to several sources familiar with the decision.

In a setback to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, congressional defense authorizers are poised to green-light funding for an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, according to several sources familiar with the decision.

Conferees on the 2010 defense authorization bill are set for a final meeting Wednesday morning. The House may vote on the conference report as early as Thursday.

The decision to fund a second engine for the F-35, made by a team of General Electric and Rolls-Royce, comes in the aftermath of strong opposition by Gates and the Obama administration. It also comes on the heels of an intense lobbying battle between Pratt & Whitney, which builds the primary engine, and GE-Rolls.

The defense authorizers decided to pour $560 million into the GE-Rolls engine for fiscal 2010. The money is an addition to the budget and does not come out of the overall funding for the F-35 program.

The Office of Management and Budget in a recent statement of administration policy said that it would recommend a veto to President Barack Obama if funding the second engine jeopardized the overall F-35 program — a large multi-service, multi-national fighter jet program. Obama himself did not threaten to veto the defense bill over the engine funds, as he did with another program, the F-22 fighter jet.

The Senate version of the defense authorization bill did not include funds for the second engine, but the concept of having an “engine war” between two companies has strong support in the House and among senators, including Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/61797-2009-10-06-16-10-46

Comments (28)

Traditionally, a "second source" is absolutely required for anything in defense. It's good practice, all around. In a time of war it has been critical. This shouldn't be such a contest. The major thing is are we ready to use the plane for war?BY MIke on 10/06/2009 at 12:37
"The decision to fund a second engine for the F-35, made by a team of GENERAL ELECTRIC and Rolls-Royce.."Huh. Go figure.BY mrt on 10/06/2009 at 12:41
"Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it". Remember the Great Engine War 30 years ago.BY John on 10/06/2009 at 12:57
I concur with John's comment. To add, without a second engine, if the F-135 failed, it would ground the entire U.S. air fighter force along with the forces of our major allies! The F-136 2nd Engine is an important part of the JSF program.BY J on 10/06/2009 at 13:37
It's a pleasure to see our Government work and common sense prevail. It's abolutely essential that we have the F136 be part of the F35 Program. This is not about one company against another…it's about maintaining the safety, reliability and lethality of the our Fifth Generation Fighter that will carry us for the next 40 plus years. Today, everyone in America wins.BY KBK on 10/06/2009 at 14:55
This alternate engine will save the American taxpayer a great deal of money in the long run. The Obama administration spent $745 BILLION on bailing out the financial industry to get NOTHING, loans are hard to get, credit card rates have skyrocketed, etc etc. For .075% (LESS THAN 1% of that) we get operational rediness for the world fleet of allied forces, Technology in the US, and the benefits of employing intelligent people to make the US and the world a better place. This is a win for the world.BY Mike on 10/06/2009 at 15:43
Why is it even possible to fund military functions that the military doesn't want? As far as I'm concerned, if the military does not want a piece of military equipment funded, that should be the end of it. Automatic veto.BY mtvcdm on 10/06/2009 at 16:09
What a great victory for our service men and women who depend on these high tech (and yes expensive) machine to help them accomplish the task that the military leaders require them to do.BY Dave on 10/06/2009 at 16:35
why is the army getting something it says it doesn't need? The army can get what it wants nearly when it wants, but when it doesn't want something it gets it? Talk about wasteful spending! Smarter spending is cheaper and more efficient!BY AJ on 10/06/2009 at 16:56
Why are we funding any manned fighter plane? They are already obsolete! It makes no sense to put a pilot in harms way today. He only shoots at things over twenty miles away on the radar. Spend the money advancing a large fleet of UAV's this is just a boondogggle for the military industrial complexBY Pete on 10/06/2009 at 17:12

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.