Why is CAGW opposed to an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)?
CAGW first exposed the alternate engine as a pork-barrel earmark in the 2004 Congressional Pig Book. The organization opposes all earmarks on a procedural basis, and many also qualify as wasteful spending on the merits, including the JSF alternative engine. The Pentagon and Presidents Bush and Obama have been trying to eliminate funding for the alternate engine since 2006. There have been no conclusive studies to say that an alternate engine will either save the Pentagon money or enhance the capabilities of the JSF. Despite this opposition, Congress has appropriated $770 million in earmarks from fiscal years 2004-2009, including three anonymous earmarks totaling $465 million in the fiscal year 2009 Defense Appropriations Act. The House of Representatives and the Senate have earmarked $603 million and $439 million, respectively, in the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization Act in defiance of President Obama’s threatened veto of such funding.
Related Questions
- Is there a capability gap in our air defence given the delays in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the changeover between the F/A-18s and the Super-Hornets?
- How much was the second engine developed for F-35 Joint Strike Fighters expected to cost?"
- Why is the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) known as the F-35 instead of F-24?
