Several news sources, CNBC among them, reported this week that the United States’ newest fighter plane cannot tolerate hot fuel. Crews testing the high-tech F-35 Joint Strike Fighter at Luke Air Force Base in Arizona discovered the problem. Their solution was to repaint the fuel trucks white to reflect, rather than absorb, the sun’s energy.
Considering where U.S. forces have been fighting in recent years, one would think keeping fuel cool might be a problem. It is hardly the first for the F-35.
When the new Congress convenes next year, Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, said to be Congress’s leading critic of wasteful defense spending, will chair the Senate Armed Services Committee. His House counterpart will be Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas., who also wants to focus on Pentagon spending. They may find a kindred spirit in incoming Defense Secretary Ashton Carter – and perhaps a chance to work with President Barack Obama.
While the F-35 has become the poster child for cost overruns, it is only one example of wasteful defense spending. Indeed, Washington Post columnist Fareed Zakaria (Opinion, Herald, Dec. 7) described the situation as “a Pentagon so out of control that it is difficult to fully comprehend or explain.” And even a casual look at the Department of Defense suggests he is right.
The Washington Post reported on a study from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments that said that between 2001 and 2011, the Pentagon spent $46 billion on a dozen programs it then canceled. Of course, the actual cancellations may have been cost-effective. The question has to be why the DOD spent billions before figuring that out.
Some examples of canceled programs: The Crusader artillery system ($2 billion); the Comanche helicopter ($8 billion); and the Army’s Future Combat System (about $16 billion.) And, as a retired Marine major general told the Post, “you won’t find anybody who was either fired or got a letter of reprimand or didn’t get promoted. ... No one is held accountable.”
Still, for all that, the F-35 takes the prize. Designed to be stealthy and to replace almost all the services fighters, it has models designed for the Air Force, Navy and Marines. But in that the services have different missions and requirements, the plane is extraordinarily complex and too heavy for its single engine, which keeps breaking.
Reuters reported in July that the F-35 fleet has been grounded 13 times since 2007. It also quoted two RAND Corporation analysts who ran a computer simulation of a war with China as saying the plane “can’t turn, can’t climb, can’t run.” Another observer, from the Project on Government Oversight said the F-35 “is a dog ... overweight and underpowered.”
But it is not cheap. In fact, it is the single-most expensive program the Pentagon has. It has been widely reported to be the most expensive weapons program in history. The Congressional Research Service puts the total cost to date at more than $320 billion (in 2012 dollars), although some predict it will top out at more than $1.5 trillion. Per unit cost estimates range as high as $337 million. Zakaria quotes the Government Accountability Office as saying that the F-35 now is $150 billion over budget, part of the $500 billion total overruns for current weapons systems.
This is nuts. The only good aspect is that it would not take much of a percentage change to Pentagon spending to find what would be real money for other programs or debt service.
McCain and Thornberry have their work cut out for them. And Obama and the Democrats should help.
