There is no question that the federal government needs to quit spending so much. Indeed this was the major of theme of the 2010 elections in which congressmen were sent to Washington to specifically to rein in spending. Of course, doing so is much easier promised than done, especially when it comes down to deciding which programs get cut.
Last week, President Obama’s Deficit Commission issued its report setting forth several suggestions (although they failed to achieve enough votes to get the report to Congress), among which are proposed cuts to the F-35 Lighting II Joint Strike Fighter program. Unlike the boondoggle to keep the C-17 alive, however, the F-35 is something that the military really wants, is heavily invested in, and will be worse off without.
The JSF program goes back over a decade, and has seen its fair share of problems, including escalating costs and completion delays. It’s also been plagued by its own boondoggles, such as billions of dollars allocated to a program for a second engine that both the White House and the Pentagon say isn’t needed, but which Congress keeps forcing it to pay for anyway. Accordingly, it should come as no surprise when, faced with severe budget contstraints, Congress looks to slice some of the fat away from what appears to be an already problematic program.
But the real problem with that approach is that the F-35 is ready and raring to go. According to a defense industry insider with whom I spoke, there are still some issues with the short take-off and landing of the F-35B (the version built specifically for the Marines), but othewise the new fighter planes have been up and flying for awhile, and they are ready to be rolled out of the assembly line in fulfillment of orders. To cut back on the program now means not only more expensive aircraft, but also potentially killing the whole deal:
Indeed, the F-22 program was finally cancelled when the decision was made to put all our strategic fighter eggs into one F-35 basket. But the lead up to that decision looked remarkably like what is currently happening with the F-35: fantastic new aircraft designed and development funded; costs rise; delays ensue; politicians get antsy; cuts in acquistion of new planes made; program dies.
More than $60 billion has been spent on the research, development, and procurement of the F-22, putting the per unit cost of each aircraft at roughly $340 million. But the marginal cost of buying one additional aircraft has come down to (just!) $138 million, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop.
Yet when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates went to Chicago last month to make the administration’s case for killing the program (and several others), he didn’t portray the F‑22 as unaffordable–just unnecessary. Gates said the administration wanted to end F-22 production in favor of another jet, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter, which has yet to enter production. “If properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come,” Gates said in the speech, “if–and it’s a big if–money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft.”
Whether it was wise or not to quit the F-22, it would be absolutely foolish to undermine the program designed to replace it. Yet, that appears to be what Congress will do if/when the Deficit Commission’s proposals are followed.
If, as expected, cutting back the number of fighters purchased in FY2011 raises the costs of planes bought in the future, the entire F-35 program could be placed in jeopardy. While the U.S. will be the primary purchaser (with 2,443 aircraft planned for), several of our allies and partners have agreed to chip in as well, including Britain (180 aircraft), Italy (131), Australia (100) and Canada (65). In total, our allies have planned to purchase 723 aircraft over the next several years.
When the price of each jet rises, however, those planned purchases will fall, causing yet further price spikes. The fewer airplanes a country is able to purchase, then the less likely that country is to invest time, money and manpower in acquiring, operating and maintaining it, especially when those resources could be put to greater use on cheaper craft that will be used by a larger number of airmen. And thus the death-spiral accelerates.
If the F-35 program dies by budgetary cuts, our national security will suffer greatly and unecessarily. Our allies will also be less militarily capable, which is the exact opposite of what we want since the bigger of a load they carry, the less of one we are required to manage. In addition, good jobs around the country will be lost when unemployment is already hovering around 10%. Killing the F-35 program just doesn’t make any sense at all.
To be sure, fiscal reality means that the government needs to trim its spending way back, including on defense. But Congress could accomplish that by getting rid of the second engine (at $500 million per year) that nobody wants instead of cutting the number of fighters purchased. They also might want to consider cutting appropriations for things like the NEA (which isn’t seeing any cuts), and the Department of Education (overseeing more than $150 billion in spending for a matter that belongs to states and localities). Cutting back on the billions in funds spent to tackle “climate change”, spending that pervades every department and agency of the federal government, might be prudent as well.
What we should not do, however, is undermine the future of our air power superiority. Congress needs to make some deep cuts, but that does not mean it needs to amputate. Keep the F-35 program alive and America safe.
