IBJNews

House panel moves to revive alternate jet engine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A U.S. House panel on Wednesday took a step toward reviving the alternate engine for the next-generation F-35 fighter plane over the objections of President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who consider it wasteful spending.

The Indianapolis operations of Rolls-Royce Corp. had been working on the alternate engine.

By voice vote, the Armed Services subcommittee overseeing land and air forces approved legislation that would force the Pentagon to re-open competition if it has to ask Congress for more money so Pratt & Whitney can build the chosen engine. Inevitably in military contracting, the Defense Department has to seek more funds for a highly sophisticated warplane.

The provision would apply to Pentagon spending in the next budget year.

When Congress passed a long-delayed 2011 defense budget in April, it contained no money for the extra engine. It was part of the deal worked out by Obama and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. The Pentagon recently notified the General Electric/Rolls-Royce group that it had terminated its contract and work was stopped a month ago, saving $1 million a day.

Rolls-Royce had about 130 people, mostly engineers, working on the F-35 project in Plainfield and Indianapolis, spokesman George McLaren said.

About 2,500 jobs—mostly in Indiana and Ohio—are tied to development of the engine, and GE has said that figure was in line to nearly double if the project reached peak production.

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., chairman of the subcommittee, said killing the engine project was a mistake.

"Many of us believe it was short-sighted for Congress to have failed to fund the F-35 competitive engine program for the remainder of the fiscal year," Bartlett said. "Yes, our country faces major fiscal challenges. However, to continue to fully fund a $1 trillion F-35 aircraft program and not take the opportunity to maintain competition in the $110 billion engine subcomponent of the program is not in ... the long-term best interests of the program and taxpayers."

In February, House Republican freshmen led the charge in voting to cancel $450 million for the alternative engine, going against Boehner and other House GOP leaders. The House vote was 233-198, with many lawmakers arguing that it was a surefire way to fulfill campaign promises to cut spending.

Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Fla., a member of the Armed Services Committee, led the effort to cut the funds. He vowed on Wednesday to eliminate the provision, calling it a "cutesy way to get it (the extra engine) back in there," and said he would likely offer an amendment to knock it out when the House considers the defense bill.

"I am confident that either in the full House or the Senate, it's not going anywhere," Rooney said.

Gates has urged Congress to kill the second engine for several years, calling it an "unnecessary and extravagant expense." In congressional testimony, Gates said the second engine requires another $3 billion to develop. Spending that money "in a time of economic distress" is a waste, he said.

The Pentagon plans to buy engines for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter solely from Pratt & Whitney of Hartford, Conn. General Electric and Rolls-Royce opposed the move.

The crux of their argument is that forcing Pratt & Whitney to compete against them will produce more efficient, less expensive engines for the nearly 2,500 F-35 fighters the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps plan to buy and fly over the next 40 years. Eliminating the GE-Rolls Royce team gives Pratt & Whitney a "$100 billion monopoly" on the engines, according to the two companies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT