Eliminate Funding for the M1A2SEP Abrams Tank Upgrade Program
1-Year Savings: $699.2 million
5-Year Savings: $3.5 billion
Over the objections of senior DOD officials, members of Congress have for many years provided funding for the M1 upgrade program. In FY 2023, legislators added two earmarks costing $699.2 million for the Abrams, including $602 million to upgrade 46 tanks.
Although the tank plant is in Lima, Ohio, its suppliers are spread across the country, which helps to explain the widespread support. Past versions of the DOD bills, including in FYs 2016 and 2017, hinted at a parochial incentive for the program’s continuance: industrial base support. There’s nothing like a jobs program disguised as a national security priority.
The continued funding for the program makes it worth revisiting why the Pentagon has long objected to finite resources being wasted on an unwanted project. In testimony before the HASC on February 17, 2012, then-Army Chief of Staff General Raymond Odierno told Congress that the U.S. possesses more than enough tanks to meet the country’s needs, stating “our tank fleet is in good shape.
“On September 6, 2023, the DOD announced that it intends to move on from the M1A2SEP. Adapting in part from lessons learned in the fighting in Ukraine, the Pentagon intends to redistribute funding once intended for the M1A2SEP program to develop the M1E3. This new version of the Abrams will integrate technologies designed to increase survivability and maneuverability on the battlefield and will likely be fielded in the 2040s and onward.
Unfortunately, members of Congress have a long history of earmarking funding to upgrade tanks beyond the number requested by the Pentagon, crowding out spending on other priorities. Since FY 1994, there have been 43 earmarks for the M1 Abrams, requested by at least 13 members of Congress, costing taxpayers $2.4 billion. Continuing to commit vast resources to an unnecessary program will inevitably make upgrading the Abrams in the manner the Pentagon prefers much more difficult.
Eliminate funding for the F-35 JSF Alternate Engine
1-Year Savings: $588.4 million
5-Year Savings: $2.9 billion
Taxpayers can be forgiven for believing that the alternate engine for the JSF was dead and buried.
Between FYs 1998-2010, legislators provided 13 earmarks costing $1.5 billion for a second engine for the F-35, despite opposition by the Pentagon, independent experts, and two presidential administrations. The matter was finally settled in March 2011, when the DOD issued a stop-work order following five years of attempting to terminate the program. In its order ceasing the program, the Pentagon labeled the alternate engine “a waste of taxpayer money that can be used to fund higher Departmental priorities.”
Unbelievably, Members of Congress seem set to again pursue a second engine that nobody wants, aside from defense contractors.
New capabilities have necessitated an upgrade to the JSF’s engine. The DOD determined that it could upgrade the existing Pratt & Whitney engine through the Engine Core Upgrade (ECU) program or fund a second, or alternate engine, built by GE through the Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP).
The Pentagon’s FY 2024 budget request established the ECU as the department’s preferred option, including $462 million for the ECU and shuttered the AETP. The ECU was the logical choice because, most importantly, it bests the AETP on cost and compatibility.
In a April 27, 2023, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, Secretary Kendall stated that the AETP would require, “a large upfront cost associated with engineering, manufacturing and development.” Funding the AETP would necessitate “several billion dollars before you start production. So that was definitely something that was not affordable.”
The Air Force estimated upfront AETP development costs would be nearly $6.7 billion, which is 279 percent more than the $2.4 billion development cost for the ECU projected by Pratt & Whitney. The engine manufacturer determined that the ECU would save tens of billions in total JSF lifecycle costs by avoiding a duplicative production line and global supply chain to service two separate engines.
Despite the arguments against the alternate engine, the House Armed
Services Committee version of the FY 2024 National Defense Authorization
Act (NDAA), H.R. 2670, passed on July 14, 2023, authorized $588.4
million for the AETP. House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces
Subcommittee Chairman Robert Wittman (R-Va.), who was primarily
responsible for the funding, believes it is necessary to maintain the country’s
industrial base. This earned Rep. Wittman CAGW’s Porker of the Month
award for July 2023.
The White House rejected this funding proposal in the House version of the NDAA. In its July 10, 2023, Statement of Administration Policy on the NDAA, the Biden administration said it “strongly opposes” the $588.4 million authorization. The statement added, “There are currently no plans to transition AETP engines to a program of record. The F135 ECU and F-35 cooling enhancements are more affordable and a common solution across all three F-35 variants. Continued funding for AETP would defer the transition of a skilled workforce to the Next Generation Adaptive Propulsion (NGAP) program. This, in turn, would increase the risk that NGAP prototype test results would not be available in time for the [Next Generation Air Dominance] programs and that future NGAD platform capability would be compromised by legacy propulsion constraints.”
Speaking at the Potomac Officer Club’s 2023 Air Force Summit on July 18, 2023, Secretary Kendall stated that even if the alternate engine funding makes it into the final version of the NDAA, the AETP will never be used in the F-35 because the Air Force is committed to the ECU. Despite being unsuitable for the JSF, “As often happens, the Hill doesn’t want to let go.” Secretary Kendall also stated that other Air Force priorities might go unfunded should Congress persist in its support of the AETP, and that building an alternate engine would mean the Air Force alone would be forced to purchase 70 fewer JSFs.
The alternate engine would not even meet the needs of the entire JSF
fleet. It is incompatible with the Marine Corp’s F-35B variant, and would
require substantial airframe modifications to fit into the F-35A and F-35C.
Secretary Kendall reiterated this point on March 10, 2023, saying the Air Force was the only service that was “seriously interested” in the second engine, and that it would be “very, very difficult, if not impossible” to incorporate the engine into the F-35B.
Unfortunately, members of Congress are highly unlikely to allow the second alternate engine to fade away. If the $588.4 million in the House version of the NDAA or any other amount for the AETP makes it into the final version of the bill, legislators motivated by parochial concerns are likely to add funding for the alternate engine in the FY 2024 DOD appropriations bill and other legislative vehicles in the future.
