F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending

[unhappycamper]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html



The $243 million dollar F-35

F-35’s ability to evade budget cuts illustrates challenge of paring defense spending
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Published: March 9

At EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. — With an ear-ringing roar, the matte-gray fighter jet streaked down Runway 12 and sliced into a cloudless afternoon sky over the Florida Panhandle. To those watching on the ground, the sleek, bat-winged fuselage soon shrank into a speck, and then nothing at all, as Marine Capt. Brendan Walsh arced northward in America’s newest warplane, the F-35 Lightning II.

~snip~

But its greatest strength has nothing to do with those attributes. The Defense Department and Lockheed Martin, the giant contractor hired to design and build the plane, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, have constructed what amounts to a budgetary force field around the nearly $400 billion program.

Although it is the costliest weapons system in U.S. history and the single most expensive item in the 2013 Pentagon budget, it will face only a glancing blow from the sequester this year. And as the White House and Congress contemplate future budgets, those pushing for additional cuts may find it difficult to trim more than a fraction of the Pentagon’s proposed fleet, even though the program is years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial price tag.

~snip~

The reasons for the F-35’s relative immunity are a stark illustration of why it is so difficult to cut the country’s defense spending. Lockheed Martin has spread the work across 45 states — critics call it “political engineering” — which in turn has generated broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. Any reduction in the planned U.S. purchase risks antagonizing the eight other nations that have committed to buying the aircraft by increasing their per-plane costs. And senior military leaders warn that the stealthy, technologically sophisticated F-35 is essential to confront Iran, China and other potential adversaries that may employ advanced anti-aircraft defenses.




unhappycamper comment:

[daybranch]

1. Done it again.

The B-1b adopted this same strategy and it kept this program going a long time and wasting a lot of money until the B-2 was revealed. In short the services say they need at least one major program to maintain a technology edge over the rest of the world. Recent programs have been cut as performance problems, cost overruns, and obsolescence has been revealed.
Many billions were spent on the advanced superiority fighter - the F-22 and as costs per unit continued to grow, the decision was made to reduce production. Now we see that it has severe problems for its own pilots health. Maybe it will be cut more.
The F-35 has been sold as less expensive due to ability to take advantage of technology that has come about after the F-22 design. It also was to be used by the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marines which united the services in support for it. Of course spreading out the production of sub-components has helped unite the Congress to support it.
There are three principle threat to purchases of the F-35 in the quantities now planned. These are first performance problems. Second competition for funds and the belief in the superiority and safety of pilots using drones. Third, a change in the way we view future wars through a hardnosed grunt, Chuck Hagel.
The grunts are shouldering with drones most of the fighting burden now. If the belief is that is the way it will be in the future or that air to air combat between large numbers agile fighters is obsolete, the F-35 quantities may be reduced.
I would ask why we need it? Has anyone deployed fighters capable of defeating F-15s in air to air combat? Has anyone deployed ground to air defenses that make F-18 and or F-16s incapable of air to air and air to ground roles? Has anyone built a system that can stop the B-2 or protect against long range near precision guided weapons on the B-1 or B-2?
So while it is nice to have a very high tech stealthy dual role aircraft, it just may not be necessary or cost effective. Hopefuly Hagel will take a close look and make a rational decision in the best interests of both the military and the taxpayers.