Fri 4 May 2007
Congresswoman Jean Schmidt proudly sent out a press release Wednesday announcing that the House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee has restored funding for the Joint Strike Fighter “alternate engine” program. The $480 million authorization tasks Rolls-Royce with building the parts and GE assembling them in Cincinnati.
There’s just one problem… as DefenseTech’s Christian Lowe points out, the Pentagon doesn’t want it:
Every year, the Pentagon zeros out funding for the costly earmark, and each year lawmakers representing districts that have a vested interest re-insert the cash. It would be one thing if the pork could swim around the bloated defense bill as an eight-figure vote-getter, losing itself in a myriad of such programs inserted into the bill without a Pentagon request. But the alternate engine program is on a nearly half-billion dollar life support system that sucks a chunk of funds away from needs the Air Force claims are more urgent.
How many more MRAP vehicles could the Pentagon buy to protect forces in Iraq with the $480 million Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) says will result in “lower acquisition costs; reduced development and operational risk; and long term savings in life cycle costs?”
That’s right – at about $1 million a pop, the Army and Marine Corps could use that money to buy nearly 500 of the IED-resistant vehicles. Not to mention how that money could be put to use in the Air Force’s $17 billion unfunded priorities list – like A-10 upgrades ($37 million) and force protection equipment for Airmen ($250 million).
According to the Congressional Research Service report advocating the end of the project by National Defense Specialist Christopher Bolkcom, the idea of creating multiple engines from competing contractors stems from what he calls “The Great Engine War” that ran from 1984 to 1994. (The name cracks me up.) The idea was that forcing contracts to compete would create better engines and save money in the long run. There has been no evidence to back up this billion dollar experiment.
The idea that Congress has to force the military to duplicate the manufacture of items from multiple contractors is one of the most insane things I have ever heard of. There’s got to be better ways of putting 2nd district people to work then assembling British made parts for an engine that the Air Force doesn’t want.
Now advocates of the program are forced to fall back on the argument that because we’ve already wasted so much money on the program it would be a waste to not waste more by finishing it… creating a sort of logic death spiral.
Between The Banks and this so much for her claims of being a “fiscal conservative”.
As much as I dislike Schmidt, the JSF is good idea. Congress is forcing the military to demand defense companies to create products with interchangeable parts. It’s the same concept that commercial airliners follow. Boeing ensures that engines made by GE, Pratt & Whitney, and Rolls Royce will all work with their aircraft. If an airline purchases a Boeing fleet, but has contract problems with Rolls Royce, they have alternatives to choose from. If not, then the company might have to seek Airbus planes instead.
A design is not the same thing as a build. It’s a good design to insist on interchangeable parts, and as far as I can tell, that is a part of the JSF design. That’s not the same thing as forcing two builds.
Since this isn’t the first time that they’ve tried this idea, you’ll have to show me evidence that it delivered on it’s promise. So far the only evidence that I have seen has come from the Congressional Research Service report, which says the exact opposite. (Please be prepared to include bonefides.)
What this sounds like is an “I wanna”. I wanna flat screen TV… I’ve got to pay the rent. I wanna have companies building seperate engines… I need to make sure that my pilots are safe from incoming surface to air missiles.
You tell me… is this program so important to you that you are willing to sacrifice Air Force lives in order to have it? From what I can tell, that is exactly what this thing is doing.
As mentioned in the report, GE currently does not have an engine capable of generating the required thrust to support the JSF. If they lose the contract, I don’t see how it would make much business sense for them to invest in similar projects in the future. This will create a situation where a single supplier will exist. A company (in this case the DoD)is put at great risk when their suppliers have a bargaining advantage over them(Think of the Porter Model).
This funding can be viewed as discretionary because in the short run, we spend more. Though the end game here is to improve the acquisition and sourcing processes. Based on our nation’s experience with no-bid contracts, I’m sure you would be hard-pressed to argue that supply management reform in the military is unnecessary.
Am I willing to sacrifice lives? No. That’s why I never supported the Iraq war in the first place. If military spending is reformed and we can actually provide the protective equipment that our troops need in the future, then maybe we should proceed on these types of projects.
People in Congress, ESPECIALLY members of the House Armed Services Committee need to wake up to the fact that we’ve got people over in Iraq DYING RIGHT NOW.
While the leadership is fighting over legislation that they know wont pass, the pork train is flowing like business as usual.
PRIORITY ONE needs to be on backing up the troops in the field. EVERYTHING ELSE waits. That’s how it works when you send men and woman to die for you.
The answer to that is to eliminate all funding for Iraq. That brings the troops home. Not all government spending is pork. Pork is in the eye of the beholder. Is it possible that this earmark has gripped you because Schmidt is the Congressperson who advocated for it?
Cute trying to reverse it instead of providing any substance to why we should spend half a billion dollars on a program that the defense department doesn’t want.
The fact is that I’ve been very much against pointless Pentagon spending from long before I ever heard of Jean Schmidt.
Also, you can’t use Iraq as a logic bomb justifying any and all wasteful spending. If only our soldiers could enjoy sitting on gold plated toilet seats if it wasn’t for this damned war in Iraq.
The war only raises the fiscal prudence bar. Before it was just a bad idea. Now it’s a bad idea that could cost lives.
My previous comment addresses Congress’ directions vs. the Pentagon’s wishes. The DoD is in need of acquisition reform and would naturally resist change if not ordered to do so. Someone who opposes pointless Pentagon spending should see this as a step in the right direction.
Incidentally, you used Iraq to justify the denial of this earmark. I merely inferred that we shouldn’t be there anyway.
Calling this acquisition reform is like calling bulimia a diet plan.
AGAIN, make your case by citing facts that counter the report cited or admit that you are pulling your arguments out of your behind.
I’m drawing on my experience in corporate life and my finance education. I cited Porter’s bargaining power of suppliers model as an example of competitive disadvantage. My company keeps its costs down by developing contingency plans built around our purchasing decisions. We never make a capital expenditure on a product or service from a company that does not have a strong competitor. The DoD issues contracts to single suppliers for its large projects and as expected, overpays and experiences overruns.
Also, the DoD has other priorities that may not mirror those of Congress. Other nations are stakeholders in the JSF program and have made significant investments in its development. To preserve diplomatic ties, Congress is insisting that the project continue to be funded.
So to recap. If funding is lost, GE will have no incentive to commit its research dollars to developing these types of engine technologies. This eliminates a competitor from the market and keeps our defense expenditures high.
Pick your battles. Not everything a disliked politician does is as scurrilous as we would like to believe. The law of averages tells us that every so often even Jean Schmidt will get one right.
The problem with your argument is that your confusing the plan with the action. I’m all for having plans A, B, C, D or whatever. The crazy thing about what you are arguing is that they should do all of the plans at the same time.
You have fall back plans in place so that when things go wrong you can avoid taking a big hit. Doing fall back plans before there’s a need is crazy.
Well… I really like that Ford Mustang, but just in case it breaks down I’d better buy a Taurus too. Run your household, run your business, run your country like that and you’ll quickly run out of money. OOPS, when it comes to our country we’re already too late.
I think you are missing the point. Let’s keep the discussion within the aerospace sector. As an airline, you really want to buy Boeing aircraft. You don’t buy both Boeing and Airbus as a contingency. You buy Boeing aircraft, but negotiate deals with GE, Rolls Royce, or Pratt Whitney for the aircraft engines. If you don’t like the service or product of your incumbent vendor, you have others to choose from. That’s the incentive to provide a quality product/service. In the case of the JSF, the Pentagon seems to only want to have one engine supplier design engines. That’s inefficient.
I think you’re missing the point. If the idea were more efficient it wouldn’t cost half a billion dollars more.
To get concrete about this, at the center of the GE engine plant in Cincinnati is an enormous block of concrete, perhaps the largest in the world. It’s the building where GE developed a nuclear engine for the ill-fated Atomic-Powered Atomic Bomber in the 1960s.
The problem with the nuclear engine was that it was too heavy to get off the ground. They had to remove shielding to lighten it, but that meant lengthening the aircraft, so the pilots wouldn’t die from radiation poisoning. As the engine got lighter, the plane got longer, and more and more GE workers got sick from working on unshielded nuclear reactors.
The plane never did fly and the building got so contaminated that it couldn’t be torn down, they simply had to pump it full of concrete, a giant monument to blockhead stupidity.
Maybe Jean should do a photo op there.