In formulating their FY-08 spending proposal, Pentagon budget officials were not convinced that the possibility for risk reduction in the overall F-35 program, as a result of dueling engine programs, justified the costs of funding both efforts, Director of Force Structure, Resources and Assessment for the Joint Staff Vice Adm. Steve Stanley said during a Feb. 5 budget briefing at the Pentagon.

“The rationale is basically the investment, the cost of the investment, we don’t believe [is]. . . offset by the risk reduction,” Stanley said. “That’s the basic business case that we used to make the decision to again. . . seek congressional support for not developing the second engine.”

Congressional lawmakers thwarted the Pentagon’s first attempt to put the kibosh on the alternative engine program -- dubbed the F136 -- infusing $340 million into Air Force and Navy procurement coffers to finance the F136’s development, as part of the Defense Appropriations Act for FY-07.

Appropriators also inserted language into the FY-07 defense legislation, noting that funding for both F-35 power plants should continue beyond 2007.

The F135 -- a Pratt & Whitney-built engine -- is considered the F-35 program’s main power plant, while General Electric and Rolls-Royce have led development on the F136 alternate power source.

Defense Department officials laid the groundwork for the program’s termination within internal budget documents that were obtained by sister publication Inside the Navy in December 2005, justifying the move by noting the program’s elimination would free up $1.8 billion that could be directed toward other Air Force and Navy efforts.

But with just over $3 billion already invested toward the development of the F136, canceling the program now would result in those investment dollars going up in smoke, according to GE spokesman Rick Kennedy.

“The F136 has always been on schedule and on budget. It is meeting all [joint program office] expectations, including successful completion of the preliminary design review in 2006,” he said. “Imagine canceling now.”

Such a notion, coupled with concerns over the effect nixing the alternative engine may have on the JSF program overall, prompted proponents of the effort on Capitol Hill to seriously question the Pentagon’s proposal.

Specifically, former Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. John Warner (R-VA) grilled Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas over DOD’s renewed efforts to terminate the F136, during a Feb. 5 committee hearing.

Noting that the committee had “invested a lot of time” in formulating its decision to fund the alternative engine effort during its FY-07 budget deliberations, the Virginia Republican said he was concerned that eliminating the F136 would be the equivalent of handing Pratt & Whitney sole engine development rights for the JSF.

“If we have but a single engine, then we’re in effect giving a sole-source contract to one contractor, which could amount to $100 billion,” Warner said. “I’ve calculated that out. It’s extraordinary.”

In response, Jonas said the Pentagon “has evaluated and continues to evaluate the need for the second engine,” referencing the set of congressionally-mandated cost analysis studies under way to examine whether or not to fully fund the primary and secondary engine programs throughout the aircraft’s lifespan, or choose a single power plant, but she added DOD would be “happy to work” with Congress on the issue.