By Emelie Rutherford
The heads of a congressional panel dug in their heels yesterday on their opposing stances on whether Congress should continue funding a jet engine program over which Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he will push the president to veto Pentagon budget bills.
Yesterday’s Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing, the first of the fiscal year 2011 budget season that kicked off Monday with the unveiling of President Barack Obama’s $548.9 billion base Pentagon proposal, was less acrimonious than last year’s sessions with military leaders. Obama’s new defense proposal calls for some program cancellations–including the General Electric [GE]-Rolls-Royce alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Boeing [BA] C-17 cargo aircraft, and future efforts for the Navy’s CG(X) cruiser and EP(X) intelligence aircraft–yet far fewer than those made in FY ’10.
Gates reiterated to the panel his Monday pledge to stand up to “political pressure” to continue building the C-17 and the F-35 second engine, and said he will “strongly recommend” Obama veto the FY ’11 defense budget bills if the efforts are included.
SASC Ranking Member John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he “strongly support(s) such a recommendation” of a veto from Gates but fears “it may fall on deaf ears up here unless that veto threat comes early, consistently, and directly from the president.”
“We cannot continue to condone spending billions of dollars on programs that the (Defense) Department doesn’t want or need,” McCain said.
SASC Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) in writing said he was “disappointed” with Gates’ veto-recommendation pledge for the F-35 second engine. The SASC chairman argued that the business case for maintaining the engine effort, which Congress consistently funds over Pentagon objections, may be stronger today than four years ago when the Defense Department first tried unsuccessfully to cancel it.
Levin asked Gates to compel the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to update a study previously conducted regarding the savings the alternate engine would have to achieve to make economic sense.
Sens. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) also made pitches for continuing production of the C-17.
Inhofe argued the military’s “lift capacity is in dire straits” are more “state-of-the-art” C-17s are needed. McCaskill quizzed Gates on whether, if the Pentagon were not bound by Congress, it would continue to modernize Lockheed Martin‘s [LMT] C-5 transport aircraft or retire them; C-5 retirements could lead to more C-17 purchases.
Gates said the Pentagon would continue to modernize “a good portion” of the C-5s but would retire some older C-5As. He added he would welcome “any greater flexibility” to manage the C-5 program.
Still, Gates stood by his stance that additional C-17s are not required, and that spending more money on the F-35 alternate engine would divert modernization funding from more- pressing needs.
Gates addressed his decision, announced Monday, to restructure the overall F-35 program because of cost growth and performance problems. He delayed production by 13 months, removed Marine Maj. Gen. David Heinz as the program executive officer, and withheld $614 million in performance fees from prime contractor Lockheed Martin.
McCain said he agrees with Gates’ F-35 changes but has concerns regarding the aircraft program, including the speed at which Gates learned about cost and performance issues and whether the military services will receive “sufficiently capable” F-35s when they need them. McCain cited a Pentagon finding regarding increased risk associated with continued production concurrent with a slow increase in flight testing. He also noted a Navy finding regarding costly operational costs for the Marine Corps and Navy’s variant.
Gates sought to assure SASC lawmakers–some of whom are still upset about Gates’ cancellation of production of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jet under the auspice that the F- 35 would soon come on line–that delivery of the F-35 is on track.
“Even with the restructured program, we still expect the training squadron to be at Eglin (AFB, Fla.) in 2011 and we expect (initial operation capability) IOC for the Marine Corps in 2012, for the Air Force in (the second quarter of) 2013, and the Navy…the fourth quarter of 2014,” Gates said. “There will be fewer delivery aircraft at IOC; that’s…the result of reducing the production ramp as has been recommended to deal with some of the issues associated with that.”
SASC lawmakers asked about pet programs of theirs. Inhofe cited concerns regarding Army modernization as well as the Obama administration’s cancellation of previous plans for missile-defense sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) expressed frustration that the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) report unveiled Monday calls for further studying a long-range bomber, and delays a 2018 fielding date that had been in the 2006 QDR.
And Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), and Susan Collins (R-Maine) said the Navy does not have enough ships.
Mullen said growing the Navy’s fleet to “a floor” of 313 ships, up from 283 now, remains the Pentagon’s goal, and that was not changed during the 2010 QDR process.
He said acquisition reforms and controlling costs with ship programs are a critical part of bolstering the fleet following hiccups with efforts including the Littoral Combat Ship.
“I would not want to be satisfied with 283 (ships)…given the demand that we have for our military and our Navy,” Mullen said.
A few years of acquisition reforms–such as controlling requirements growth, building in-house expertise, and holding people accountable–will be needed “before that really takes a grip and starts to have the kind of impact to be able to generate…the kind of capability we need within cost,” Mullen said.
Collins raised the possibility that more ships may be needed to fulfill the new Pentagon plan for sea-based missile defense around Europe.
Mullen said he is more focused on upgrading existing ships with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system than on buying additional ships, and questioned if enough ships are being upgraded.
Since Obama announced last week defense spending is not included in his proposed federal spending freeze, lawmakers have warned the Pentagon budget may have to be subject to more cost controls.
Webb, a former Navy secretary, said yesterday the defense budget should not be “sacrosanct” when it comes to looking for funding constraints.
Asked what efforts are being taken to ensure contractors bear costs when programs are delayed, Gates told the SASC that Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter is “taking a very close look at a large number of contracts” with defense firms.