Last week, while opposing sides Pratt & Whitney and GE/Rolls Royce faced off at the Air Force Association’s annual conference at the National Harbor, the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee dropped funding for GE/Rolls Royce’s F-35 extra engine.  The decision could ultimately prove irrelevant, since predictions have the bill moving forward through an omnibus or continuing resolution, but was important politically nonetheless.

Naturally, Pratt & Whitney did a little dance, stating:

This Senate action is a clear message that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Defense supports President Obama and Secretary Gates in their position that funding an alternate engine will not save taxpayer’s money or improve military readiness in any way.

GE and Rolls Royce, on the other hand, seemed to sit stunned in silence… until Thursday.

Thursday brought new news from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on the potential cost of funding an extra engine.  Highlights after the jump…

DOD projected that it would need $2.9 billion of additional funding to support the alternate engine program to the point where DOD believes it could begin competition in 2017… DOD’s estimate would be characterized as a “rough order of magnitude” cost analysis. This type of analysis is typically developed when a quick estimate is needed and limited information is available, and does not include the same level of fidelity and precision normally associated with a detailed, comprehensive cost estimate.

We note that the projected completion of the JSF aircraft development program has slipped about 3 years while projected completion of F136 engine development has slipped about 7 months. Therefore, we believe the risks of concurrency in this situation would be considerably lower than that of the overall JSF program.

The two key assumptions we highlight in our report—the number of years of noncompetitive procurements and the need for government funded component improvement programs—are examples where past studies and historical data provide evidence that the funding requirements could be lower than DOD’s projection.

As result, we believe DOD’s $2.9 billion projection should be viewed as one point within a range of possible costs.

Senator Carl Levin, who requested the GAO study, issued his response right away:

The DOD estimated cost of $747 million assumes that, since the underlying JSF development program has slipped 3 years, competitive purchases of the F136 would have to slip 3 years.  However, as GAO points out, the F136 development program is only 7 months behind the contract schedule and 2 years of noncompetitive procurements could still allow sufficient time to complete the alternate engine development and qualify the engine.  A reduction in the period of noncompetitive procurement would tend to reduce the estimated cost of the competition alternative, and tend to push the economic argument in favor of competition.

…GAO points out that competition and the pressures on the two engine teams might cause them to invest their own corporate funds, and thereby, the Government would not have to pay for a component improvement program, estimated by DOD to cost roughly $345 million.  The GAO report also points out that a JSF Joint Program Office program management advisory group study concluded in 2002 that competition has the potential to offset or eliminate the need for Government funding for a component improvement program.  If that were the case, it could also reduce the cost of competition, and tend to push the economic argument in favor of competition.

The battle is far from over, but GE, Rolls Royce, and Levin have some fancy new ammunition.  As we move closer to an ultimate decision, expect to hear more about GAO’s report.

Earlier today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution of ratification on the New START treaty by a vote of 14-4.

Republicans Richard Lugar (IN), Bob Corker (TN), and Johnny Isakson (GA) joined the 11 Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote in support of New START.  The strong bipartisan support for the treaty in Committee provides a big momentum boost that bodes well for approval of the treaty during floor consideration by the full Senate.  Whether Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agree to take it up before or after the elections remains to be seen, yet there’s no substantive reason not to get this done as soon as possible.  

The Council for a Livable World, the Center’s sister organization, issued a statement, which can be found below the jump.  Expect statements from the President and the big guns at DoD and State later this afternoon.  

Josh Rogin has a good write up of the proceedings in Committee, including a crazy amendment on missile defense offered by Jim DeMint (R-SC) that was significantly watered down and included in the resolution.

On to the Senate floor…

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Vote on New START a Win for U.S. National Security

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: September 16, 2010
CONTACT: Kingston Reif, Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation, 202.546.0795, ext. 2103, kreif@clw.org

Washington, D.C. – Council for a Livable World today praised the bipartisan vote by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to approve the New START nuclear reductions treaty by a vote of 14-4 and urged prompt consideration of the treaty by the full Senate.

Republicans Richard Lugar (R-IN), Bob Corker (R-TN), and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) joined the 11 Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to vote in support of the resolution of ratification.  The resolution contains a number of conditions and declarations that clarify the Committee’s interpretation of the treaty.

“In a political climate paralyzed by partisanship on other issues, this bipartisan vote of approval demonstrates an important commitment to reducing the dangers posed by nuclear weapons,” said John Isaacs, Executive Director of the Council.  “The bipartisan support for the treaty in the Committee provides a big momentum boost that bodes well for approval of the treaty during floor consideration by the full Senate.  Committee Chairman John Kerry and Ranking Member Richard Lugar should be applauded for their leadership.”

Isaacs added: “New START strengthens U.S. national security because it will promote stability and predictability in the U.S.-Russia nuclear relationship.  For these reasons and many more, the treaty is unanimously supported by the US military leadership and is backed by five former secretaries of defense, six former secretaries of state and seven former heads of the military command in charge of our nuclear weapons.  We are glad that Senators on the Committee listened to their advice.”

The pact now moves to the full Senate, where it will await Senate floor debate and a final vote.  The treaty requires 67 votes for approval.

“The full Senate’s approval of New START is an urgent national security priority,” said Kingston Reif, the Council’s Director of Nuclear Non-Proliferation.  “The United States has not conducted an on-site inspection of Russia’s nuclear arsenal in over 285 days and counting.  The sooner the full Senate debates and votes to approve the treaty, the sooner U.S. inspectors can return to Russia and resume monitoring Moscow’s still enormous nuclear arsenal.”  

Reif added: “Previous arms control agreements between the U.S. and Russia have been approved by overwhelming margins.  The resolution of ratification passed by the Committee answers the questions that have been raised about the treaty during the Senate’s deliberation and deserves a similar outpouring of support.”

###

Council for a Livable World is a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit, non-partisan advocacy organization dedicated to reducing the danger of nuclear weapons and increasing national security.

The National Journal is serving as a forum for “debate” today on the merits of the New START treaty.  I threw some scare quotes around debate since there is overwhelming support for the treaty among current and former national security leaders and experts from both parties.  Our own John Isaacs was asked for his two cents.  Here’s a teaser:

On Thursday (Sept. 16) the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is (once again) scheduled to vote on a resolution of ratification on New START, providing a key group of Senators with the opportunity to demonstrate to America and the world that it is serious about nuclear security.  Hopefully the rest of the Senate will soon have the same opportunity.  As just-retired Center intern Alex Rothman writes:

&nbsp

Duyeon Kim and I have a new piece in the World Politics Review on the status of the goal to secure all nuclear material in four years.  Here’s how we lead off: In his April 2009 Prague speech, President Barack Obama ambitiously pledged to “secure …

Friend of NoH Johan Bergenas hit the online pages of Foreign Affairs on Tuesday to make that case that an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, while something we should seek to prevent, would not cause a cascade of proliferation in the Middle East.  He makes a persuasive case, because, well…Johan is a persuasive guy.  And did I mention that the piece has a great title: “The Nuclear Domino Myth”?  Nice.  

Come get some:

But there’s one problem with this “nuclear domino” scenario: the historical record  widespread nuclear proliferation; 65 years later, only nine countries have developed nuclear weapons. Nearly 20 years elapsed between the emergence of the first nuclear state, the United States, in 1945, and the fifth, China, in 1964.

The next 40 years gave birth to only five additional nuclear countries: India, Israel, South Africa, Pakistan, and North Korea. South Africa voluntarily disarmed in the 1990s, as did Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. After Israel developed a nuclear weapons capability in the late 1960s, no regional nuclear chain reaction followed, even though the country is surrounded by rivals. Nor was there even a two-country nuclear arms race in the region.

[snip]

Predictions of catastrophic consequences resulting from a nuclear Iran are not only wrong but counterproductive. The assertion that the widespread proliferation is unavoidable could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The myth of a nuclear domino effect creates an excuse for other Middle Eastern countries — expecting that their neighbors will be nuclear powers — to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

Nightmare scenarios are dangerous for yet another reason: the expected consequences of a nuclear Iran, real or imagined, will determine the policies pursued to prevent Tehran from developing the bomb. If the consequences are out of sync with reality, the methods applied will be disproportional to the threat. Seven years ago, the United States walked into Iraq based on worst-case-scenario predictions about its nuclear program that were far from beyond a reasonable doubt. Washington cannot afford to wage another war on false pretenses.

There is no question that the world would be better off if Iran did not obtain nuclear weapons, and the international community must use all appropriate measures to prevent Iran — or any other country — from doing so. But the case against a nuclear Iran is strong enough without a nuclear domino myth. By invoking worst-case scenarios, policymakers are only clouding nuanced thinking.