GovernmentExecutive.com

Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program might be cut by as many as 100 aircraft if the Pentagon is forced to restore a backup engine made by General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce Group Plc, according to the Air Force general who manages the program.

"If the money comes out of JSF, we'll trade airplanes to pay for it,'' Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Davis told Bloomberg News in an interview this week. "That's our only source of dollars."

Davis said the number of fighters may be lowered by 50 to 100, out of about 2,500, to pay for a second engine. The House and Senate fiscal 2007 Defense appropriations bills would restore the F-136 backup engine -- which the Pentagon wanted to terminate to save about $1.8 billion through 2011.

The purchase of the first plane, dubbed the F-35 Lightning II, already may be pushed back by more than a year to allow for additional testing after the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, responding to concerns from the Government Accountability Office about the adequacy of the initial test schedule, cut $1.2 billion from the procurement budget.

Davis said the cuts, if sustained, will lead to a delay of about 20 months, likely driving up costs. The first flight, originally scheduled for this month, will not take place until November because of "frustrating" technical issues, he said.

Lockheed, the largest U.S. defense contractor, is leading the program while United Technologies Corp.'s Pratt & Whitney unit is the primary engine supplier. The Pentagon was told by Congress in 1995 to develop a second engine to maintain competition, lower costs and have an alternative should technical problems arise.

The Joint Strike Fighter, estimated to cost $250 billion to $276 billion, is the Pentagon's most costly weapons program.

COMMENTS

• Again and again I read about these contractors being paid for work that hasn't been done. These companies are getting performance bonuses even when they haven't earned them. Also, the military often buys defense systems it doesn't need and inflates quantities. They let production contracts for technologies that haven't even been properly tested or even (sometimes) invented. Then there is the matter of killing ants with sledgehammers. If we want to do something to reduce the loss of life, we need to do something about who we elect to office. The Pentagon wastes millions of dollars needlessly but refuses to listen to anyone with an ounce of expertise and our Congressional representatives hesitate to do anything to offend their campaign contributors. No more money! Robert M. Posted August 24, 2006 8:13 AM
• It amazes me that General Davis can make this decision (set spending priorities) while the Army leader cannot do the same thing. I still wonder why the Air Force and Army refuse to cut the singing sergeants or the bands to get money for these very important projects. Guess the band and singers are more important for the generals’ parties than the war fighting weapons are for the country. Taxpayer Posted August 18, 2006 6:35 AM