By KATE BRANNEN Published: 3 May 2011 19:29
The alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and the Abrams Tank production line are both given new leases on life in a version of the 2012 defense authorization bill introduced by the House Armed Services subcommittee on tactical air and land forces.
Leaders of a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee say they will not let weapons programs such as the alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter die.
The Pentagon has not requested funding to keep either program going, but the subcommittee's leaders - Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., and Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, - say they should not be allowed to die.
Together, the two lawmakers released their mark of the 2012 defense authorization bill May 3, the day before the subcommittee plans to mark up the bill.
The document represents a first and early step in a very long process to pass a defense authorization bill for 2012. And, while it is far from becoming legislation, the mark provides insight into what leaders of the congressional defense committees are thinking on certain programs.
For example, Bartlett and Reyes support an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, despite the fact that the Pentagon has officially canceled the second engine program, saying one engine for the aircraft is enough.
The mark limits the Air Force from spending obligated funds for performance improvements to the F-35 "propulsion system" unless the defense secretary "ensures that funds are made available and expended in Fiscal Year 2012 for two options for the F-35 propulsion system."
Pratt & Whitney are on contract for the engine, while the Pentagon canceled a second contract for a General Electric-Rolls Royce engine.
The mark also shows the subcommittee does not want to see a break in the production lines for the Abrams tank or the Bradley Fighting Vehicle and it has certain reservations about the Army's high priority Ground Combat Vehicle (GCV) program.
The Army's current plans for its Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles would lead to a break in both vehicles' production lines for at least one year, something Bartlett, the subcommittee's chairman, does not want to see happen.
The mark provides a $425 million increase over the 2012 budget request for modernization of both vehicles.
When the Army's multiyear contract for Abrams tanks ends in 2013, it will be the first break in production at the Lima Army Tank Plant in Ohio since production began. The service intends to start an Abrams modernization program, but not before current production ends.
The situation is "concerning," but "at some time, you have to stop building something and work on something else," Army Lt. Gen. Robert Lennox, deputy chief of staff for Army programs (G-8), said in February.
General Dynamics Land Systems, who builds Abrams tanks, has expressed concern about what that production break may mean for its supplier base.
Bartlett shares the company's concerns.
"First, the workers and companies in our industrial base supply chains can't be turned off and on like a light switch," he said in a statement accompanying the bill language. "Second, and in particular, our country has to maintain the capability to build and field modernized Abrams tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles."
The Bradley Fighting Vehicle is supposed to be replaced by the GCV, for which the Army has yet to award development contracts.
The subcommittee fully funds the Army's request of $884 million for the GCV, but limits the Army from spending more than 70 percent of the money until the secretary of the Army submits an updated analysis of alternatives to the congressional defense committees. The subcommittee wants the Army to compare its revised GCV design to the most current upgraded Bradley Fighting Vehicle, as well as other alternatives.
"Before the Army starts another major development program that could cost over $30 billion, the committee must be convinced that the GCV will be significantly more capable than an upgraded version of current fielded platforms," the bill language reads.
The subcommittee leaders have other outstanding concerns regarding Army programs.
The mark limits funding for the Joint Tactical Radio System to no more than 70 percent of the requested amount until the secretary of the Army submits written certification that the service's acquisition strategy for full rate production includes full and open competition.
The bill language also highlights the ongoing saga of the Future Combat Systems (FCS) program, the Army ambitious modernization effort that was canceled in 2009.
"The committee understands that the Army has chosen to continue development of multiple legacy FCS systems and capabilities within various funding lines, although precisely which efforts the Army is continuing is still unclear," the bill language reads.
The service is also in extensive contract termination negotiations with FCS prime contractor Boeing. While the FCS Manned Ground Vehicles were canceled in April 2009, a termination fee for them has yet to be determined.
In order for Congress to make informed funding decisions, the Army needs to outline the FCS legacy efforts it plans to continue, as well as the cost and schedule projections for terminating its contracts with industry, according to the bill language.
The subcommittee also urges the Pentagon to make up its mind about the Vertical Lift Consortium ? either fund it or disestablish it, it says.
The Vertical Lift Consortium was formed last year at the direction of the Defense Department by members of industry and academia with a stake in future vertical-lift initiatives. Congress supports its establishment, but the subcommittee notes that the effort has yet to be funded.
The bill language directs the Defense Department to decide what it wants to do with the group and to let Congress know by April 1, 2012, what its plans are.
Defense News
0 comments:
Post a Comment