A key operational milestone for the tri-service Joint Strike Fighter would be pushed back one year if funding cuts included in dueling versions of fiscal year 2007 defense authorization legislation eventually are enacted, a senior program official says.

“I think in both cases, the initial operating capability for the services is going to slide because you just aren't buying enough planes to fill the first squadrons,” JSF Program Manager Rear Adm. Steven Enewold told Inside the Air Force last week. “If there's not enough operational test airplanes, there's a whole cascading of things that can happen.”

Enewold said that cuts to the Pentagon's requested FY-07 funding level for the effort that were hatched in recent weeks by House and Senate authorizers would create a “production gap.” The resulting chasm, according to Enewold, would hinder production of the initial batch of F-35s, which is slated to start in 2012.

“One [congressional proposal] is lowering the production ramp up profile and one is pushing production back a year,” Enewold said during a May 25 interview. “They have kind of a different effect of the program” but “either way you end up with a bad solution at the back end.”

House and Senate authorizers levied substantial cuts to the Pentagon's F-35 budget request for next fiscal session, slashing $241 million and $1.2 billion, respectively.

For their part, members of the House Armed Services Committee said the proposed cuts will allow for additional testing and evaluation of the aircraft, according to a report accompanying that chamber's defense bill.

The full House approved its version of the FY-07 defense authorization bill May 11, while the Senate Armed Services Committee signed off on its version of the legislation May 4. At press time (June 1), the full Senate had yet to take up the bill.

In a separate May 2 interview, JSF Deputy Program Executive Officer Brig. Gen. Charles Davis opined the authorizers' moves were part of an congressional effort to find dollars to revive the F-35's alternative engine program (ITAF, May 5, p1).

Pentagon officials proposed killing the General Electric and Rolls-Royce alternative engine endeavor -- known as the F136 -- to free up $1.8 billion toward other Air Force and Navy directives.

The move was outlined in internal budget documents obtained by sister publication Inside the Pentagon last December.

The F135 -- the Pratt & Whitney-made engine derivative for the F-35 -- is considered the program's main power plant. GE and Rolls-Royce have led development on the F136 alternate power source since late 2005. The Pentagon plan would have left Pratt & Whitney as the JSF's sole engine provider.

But in recent months, both chamber's Armed Services panels rejected the DOD plan, opting instead to reinstate full funding for the F136 alternate engine effort. The House-backed defense bill authorizes $408 million for the F136 program in FY-07; Senate authorizers are proposing to infuse $400.2 million into the alternative engine effort next fiscal year.

According to Davis, both chambers' authorizers used some funds from the sizable cuts to the program's procurement coffers to revive the alternative engine program.

Further, both pieces of defense legislation include language calling for independent assessments of both engine programs and their economic viability to the overall F-35 effort (ITAF, May 12, p2).

But if either chambers' proposed funding cuts are adopted by an authorization conference panel, it would diminish the number of viable JSF aircraft that could complete operational testing, an integral step before achieving IOC status, Enewold noted.

Noting the first three years of production represent the transition point from development to full-scale production in the F-35, the ripple waves from a rightward shift during that time frame could alter the fighter's overall development track for the next decade.

“If that transition is smooth, you save the most money or you don't spend the most money, if the transition has a gap or something in the middle of it, you end up incurring more costs,” Enewold said. “So depending on which way this goes, it could have differing effects on how the program unfolds for the next ten years.”

Lockheed Martin spokesman John Kent this week said a year-long delay in the F-35's production track is “in the ballpark” of anticipated scenarios being weighed by company officials. Lockheed Martin is the prime contractor for the international tri-service effort.

However, the spokesman noted that it is still too early in the FY-07 budget process to begin considering adjustments to the program.

“If there is a significant cut to the schedule, we will be able to react,” Kent said during a May 30 telephone interview. But “let's not assume that we will have a major delay,” he said, adding that from a historical context, when compared to past fighter programs the F-35's progress is commendable.

Enewold said program officials will simply wait for a final version of the bill to emerge in coming months and determine what programmatic change must be made.

“Frankly that's our job to execute what we're told to do, [and] there would definitely be program adjustments if either of those marks are sustained,” Enewold said. “There's going to have to be a lot of thought that's going to go into what the program changes will be, [to] minimize the impact to the overall program.”