The Exception to Every Defense Budget Rule

There is a new talking point coming from military leaders, and the Navy got the memo.

The Navy's second-highest-ranking officer signaled Monday that troubled weapons programs will fall victim to the budgetary ax as the service tries to spend its money more wisely.

During a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, vice chief of naval operations, said the termination of inefficient or ineffective programs will be one part of the service's so-called wholeness reviews of its plans, priorities, and budgets.

If the Navy determines "we're just not going to get there" with a program, the service will kill it and redirect the funding to higher-priority items, Greenert told an audience that included several defense industry executives.

The thing is though, the application of this talking point will be quite selective. For example, the troubled Joint Strike Fighter program will continue to be funded regardless of the problems because it is too big to fail.

The possible delays were first reported by Bloomberg on Monday. It said projections based on preliminary test data indicated that development of the planes could cost as much as $5 billion more than previously estimated. That comes on top of a $2.8 billion increase in the spring, which brought the total for development alone to $50 billion.

Bloomberg said that the versions for the Air Force and the Navy could be delayed by an additional year, while the Marine Corps model, which has had the parts failures, could be delayed by two to three more years.

The problem here is the F-35 is getting more expensive by the day, and very little in terms of detail is getting out to the public. Stephen Trimble had some details worth considering at the DEW Line back in September:

Here's what we do know: LRIP-4 negotiators will have to work hard to keep the average price per aircraft on a downward trajectory.

In May 2008, Lockheed received a $2.2 billion contract to build 12 F-35s in LRIP-2, which averaged $183 million per jet excluding the engine and long-lead acquisition costs.

Fourteen months later, Lockheed received a $2.1 billion contract to build 17 F-35s in LRIP-3, or $123 million per jet with the same exclusions as above.

Now we're waiting to see the value of the LRIP-4 order for 31 or 32 aircraft.

According to Aviation Week, %20Billion-Plus%20JSF%20LRIP%204%20Talks%20Concluded">the LRIP-4 figure was around $5 billion, and they have additional information:

As of June, the Pentagon estimates the average per-unit cost to be $108.7 million, an 84% increase (averaging the price of all the conventional, carrier and short-takeoff-and-vertical-landing variants). Procurement acquisition unit cost is estimated at $132 million, an increase of 82%. Total estimated cost for development is $54.8 billion, up from $38 billion. These figures are all in Fiscal 2010 dollars, and were provided by the Pentagon.

So is Bloomberg (and now the New York Times) reporting the $54.8 figure Aviation Week reported back in September as new news, or is this $5 billion on top of the number Aviation Week reported back in September? Danger Room is reporting these costs are on top of the previously reported costs, which means the actual development cost is now approaching $60 billion? Will the real numbers please stand up?

I have no idea how many F-35s the nation will eventually get, but for over a year and half I've been saying the decision to close down the F-22 line and prioritize the F-35 line would cost more in the long run than keeping the F-22 line open a little longer and giving the Air Force their 60 F-22s. The Joint Strike Fighter is the exception to everything Secretary Gates has said about defense spending accountability, and my bet is the new Congress will remind him of exactly that come next budget cycle. With F-18s being purchased at less than $43 million each, and F-16s available at ultra low costs as well; one imagines the Air Force could have got their 60 F-22s and enough brand new F-16s to meet quantity requirements while the JSF continues being delayed.