The U.S. Navy could cut the number of Joint Strike Fighters (JSFs) planned for purchase if Congress again forces the Pentagon to continue funding an alternative engine for the aircraft, a Navy and Marine Corps acquisition official warned June 4.

Bill Balderson, deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for air, told a Heritage Foundation audience near Capitol Hill that planned acquisitions would offset the costs of the second engine, which the Defense Department has been trying to jettison from the JSF effort since last year. He declined to comment further since legislation is pending on Capitol Hill.

Under its fiscal 2008 defense authorization bill, the House earmarked $480 million to continue the alternate engine. To pay for that, the bill deletes a $230 million request for one aircraft and cuts F-35 research and development by $125 million each for the Navy and Air Force.

In its competing bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) included a provision that would require DOD to obligate "sufficient" annual amounts to develop and procure a "competitive" JSF propulsion system to conduct a "competitive propulsion source selection." The SASC also added $480 million to the JSF program for this effort, but explained that it did not recommend cuts to the JSF budget to pay for the "competitive engine program."

The alternate engine represents one of a myriad of challenges that could affect naval aircraft acquisitions and research in coming years.

Navy and Marine Corps officials told the Heritage audience that they have a fully funded budget blueprint to modernize their aircraft fleet over the next several years despite numerous challenges. "We have a fully funded program...we have to continue to make sure we have that maintainability," Balderson said.

Still, the service's shipbuilding issues and other acquisition challenges stress the department's acquisition work force and skill set, he acknowledged. But the $12.4 billion planned for fiscal 2008 acquisition of 185 aircraft, along with $5.8 billion for eight major research efforts, balances affordability and capabilities, Balderson asserted.

But Eric Labs of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reiterated his accounting that the Navy will have to spend far more on shipbuilding than now projected, and that additional funds there could come at the expense of other Navy accounts like aircraft. "Both have foundations that are built on sand, not on rock," Labs said.

The CBO naval analyst now believes that the Navy will have to spend $22.5 billion annually to carry out its shipbuilding plan, far above the Navy's estimate of $13.5 billion (DAILY, March 29). Besides shipbuilding, other costs such as personnel and health care are expected to skyrocket, meaning more pressure on other accounts.

Meanwhile, the Marine Corps has no intention of abandoning the short-takeoff-and-landing variant of the JSF in favor of F/A-18 E/Fs, the Navy has no intention of giving up the carrier-based JSF version, and the two services plan to proceed with the CH-53K heavy lift helicopter despite a related Army program, according to two-star Rear Adm. Bruce Clingan, director of the Navy's Air Warfare Division, and Brig. Gen. Robert Walsh, deputy assistant commandant for aviation.

They also argued for their respective JSF variants to address their services alleged fighter "gap." And Christopher Griffin, a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, told the audience that the JSF will make Navy plans for a "1,000-ship navy" with allies possible.