Marine Major Aric "Walleye" Liberman was uncharacteristically modest
for a Navy SEAL turned fighter pilot. He had just landed an F-35--one of
the 2,457 jets the Pentagon plans to buy for $400 billion, making it
the costliest weapons program in human history--at its initial
operational base late last year. Amid celebratory hoopla, he declined
photographers' requests to give a thumbs-up for the cameras that sunny
day in Yuma, Ariz. "No, no, no," he demurred with a smile.
Liberman's
reticence was understandable. For while the Marines hailed his arrival
as a sign that their initial F-35 squadron is now operational, there's
one sticking point. "It's an operational squadron," a Marine spokesman
said. "The aircraft is not operational."
The F-35, designed as
the U.S. military's lethal hunter for 21st century skies, has become the
hunted, a poster child for Pentagon profligacy in a new era of
tightening budgets. Instead of the stars and stripes of the U.S. Air
Force emblazoned on its fuselage, it might as well have a bull's-eye.
Its pilots' helmets are plagued with problems, it hasn't yet dropped or
fired weapons, and the software it requires to go to war remains on the
drawing board.
That's why when Liberman landed his F-35 before an
appreciative crowd, including home-state Senator John McCain, he didn't
demonstrate its most amazing capability: landing like a helicopter
using its precision-cast titanium thrust-vectoring nozzle. That trick
remains reserved for test pilots, not operational plane drivers like
him.
The
price tag, meanwhile, has nearly doubled since 2001, to $396 billion.
Production delays have forced the Air Force and Navy to spend at least
$5 billion to extend the lives of existing planes. The Marine Corps--the
cheapest service, save for its love of costly jump jets (which take off
and land almost vertically) for its pet aircraft carriers--have spent
$180 million on 74 used British AV-8 jets for spare parts to keep their
Reagan-era Harriers flying until their version of the F-35 truly comes
online. Allied governments are increasingly weighing alternatives to the
F-35.
But the accounting is about to get even worse as concern
over spending on the F-35 threatens other defense programs. On March 1,
if lawmakers cannot reach a new budget deal, the Pentagon faces more
than $500 billion in spending cuts in the form of sequestration, which
translates into a 10% cut in projected budgets over the coming decade.
Two years ago, the White House predicted that those cuts would be so
onerous to defense-hawk Republicans that they would never happen. But
the GOP is now split, with a growing number of members who are more
concerned about the deficit than defense.
"We are spending maybe
45% of the world's budget on defense. If we drop to 42% or 43%, would we
be suddenly in danger of some kind of invasion?" asked Representative
Justin Amash, a Michigan Republican and part of a new breed of deficit
hawks who talk of spending as a bigger threat than war. "We're
bankrupting our country, and it's going to put us in danger."
No comments:
Post a Comment