Panel to weigh plan to end alternate fighter jet engine program

International partners working on the Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation aircraft for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps as well as U.S. allies, will weigh in next week on Pentagon plans to freeze domestic giant General Electric Co. and the British firm Rolls-Royce out of lucrative work on the program.

Representatives from eight countries will testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee March 14 on the Pentagon's decision to terminate the fighter's alternate engine program, potentially steering billions of dollars of work away from Britain.

Tension already is high between the Defense Department and its international program partners, with the decision potentially aggravating a precarious situation. Connecticut-based Pratt & Whitney will now develop the sole engine for the plane, which is being assembled by Lockheed Martin Corp. in Fort Worth, Texas.

Several partners already have "complained about the amount and quality of work their companies have received," said Christopher Bolkcom, an Air Force analyst at the Congressional Research Service. Essentially, it could send a message to partners that other countries are "not really partners, but in fact junior partners," he added.

Many countries have threatened to abandon the program altogether and instead buy the Eurofighter Typhoon now used by the German, Spanish, Italian and British air forces, defense sources said. So far, no country has bailed out from the program.

Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft analyst at Teal Group, acknowledged that canceling the alternate engine would not do the international partnership "any favors." But he said he expects Congress to restore the money.

"What is, in reality, just a political game may look to [other countries] like a genuine effort to freeze out foreign suppliers," Aboulafia said.

Indeed, Congress required the Air Force to seek an alternate engine on the Joint Strike Fighter more than a decade ago as a backup in the event of technical problems on the initial engine. Doing so, lawmakers hoped, also would foster competition and decrease program costs.

Key members, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner, R-Va., have continued to emphasize those points as they question Pentagon and Air Force officials, both publicly and privately, on their fiscal 2007 budget decision.

In addition to costs, Warner said Tuesday he is concerned about the United States' image in the competitive international marketplace, particularly as the country's defense industrial base shrinks. The United States must work with "our allies and friends overseas [on] joint military programs," he said.

For their part, Pentagon officials say canceling the alternate engine would free up $1.8 billion for other, higher priority items over the next several years. Last year, the Defense Department signed a $2.4 billion contract with General Electric and Rolls-Royce to develop the engine.