GovernmentExecutive.com

Warning that every year of delay adds $1 billion to the cost of the program, Navy and Marine Corps leaders Wednesday pleaded with Congress not to impose further delays on the Joint Strike Fighter.

The officials also strongly defended the short takeoff and vertical landing -- or STOVL -- version of the proposed fighter, which is intended primarily for the Marines.

Navy Secretary Gordon England, Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations, and Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine Corps commandant, found themselves defending one of their highest priority programs from challenges coming from two of their usually strongest supporters during a hearing of the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee.

Defense Appropriations Subcommitee ranking member John Murtha, D-Pa., questioned the health of the JSF program, which has been delayed one year to resolve engineering and weight problems, and asked, "Would it hurt if we had to slip it again?"

England said additional delay would mean the naval services would have to keep flying older aircraft, which are getting increasingly expensive to maintain. "I very much encourage you to keep the program on schedule," he said.

Clark echoed that concern, noting that the one-year delay already initiated "cost me at least $1 billion." He noted that the early model Navy F/A-18 Hornets that the JSF would replace are getting old and their operating costs increase 13-20 percent each year.

"Those costs will impact my ability to transform the Navy," Clark said.

Rep. Randy (Duke) Cunningham, R-Calif., a former Navy fighter pilot, said he was concerned that the JSF was not advanced enough to outfight the best Russian-made fighters. And he suggested it would be cheaper if the program were limited to just the conventional aircraft, designed for the Air Force, and the carrier version planned for the Navy.

England, a former aerospace engineer and executive, said the JSF "is designed for future threats and is definitely superior to anything we have today." And he said the STOVL version was considered "vitally important," not just by the naval services but also the defense secretary's staff.

Hagee also strongly supports the short takeoff aircraft, noting the valuable role played by the AV-8B Harriers -- the Marines' current STOVL plane -- in the Iraq war. Flying from amphibious ships in the Persian Gulf and rearming and refueling from crude bases in Iraq, the Harriers were able to provide more support for the ground forces than fighters that had to make the long trips from the carriers, he said.

COMMENTS

• Why do we need all these new toys? We are told it is too expensive to maintain our newly bought FA18 aircraft. Balderdash, look at the B52 its still mission capable and utilized fully. Our adversaries dont have fighter aircraft that can even match the FA18 and Super Hornet so why do we need a 100 billion dollar joint strike fighter which will also need maintenance and repairs. This is pork for the big defense contractors and we dont need it. It is more cost effective to keep the aircraft we have now flying and they are for the most part new aircraft also. GovExec.com reader Posted March 22, 2004 6:41 PM
• I thought the cold war was over? I remember the administration telling the American people there was no need for huge military arsenals because there would not be any more large scale conflicts. That we would be engaged in high tech world police actions and that all of these airplanes, tanks,etc. would no longer be needed. We would rely on small tactical units. GovExec.com reader Posted March 21, 2004 8:33 AM
• I totally agree. Congress should not delay the joint strike fighter - they should kill the entire program! GovExec.com reader Posted March 19, 2004 6:21 AM