Congressional caucus is determined to save F-35

By James Rosen and Rob Hotakainen

McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- For all its high-tech stealth and record cost, the F-35 joint strike fighter embodies the droll military motto "hurry up and wait."

Conceived in the heady post-Cold War 1990s, the futuristic fifth-generation jet fighter was to be a technological marvel built in a rush and paid for with "peace dividend" dollars.

But now the fighter is billions over budget and years behind schedule.

With the Pentagon facing $1 trillion in possible cuts, the F-35's high cost makes it a prime target. But thanks in part to campaign contributions from its main contractors and their jobs nationwide, the F-35 has its own congressional caucus of 48 lawmakers dedicated to saving it at all costs.

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Jan. 20 that he wouldn't kill the F-35 program outright, there were sighs of relief for subcontractors and parts suppliers that Lockheed Martin has promised will provide 127,000 jobs in 47 states.

Think of the F-35 as the military's version of Medicare: There are huge potential spending cuts but also powerful constituencies.

The struggle over the joint strike fighter reflects the broader challenge that lawmakers and President Barack Obama face: The biggest budget savings come from large government programs that are popular and, in some cases, needed.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Wash., calls the F-35 "the big enchilada," the most advanced stealth aircraft in the world and a great investment in U.S. national security.

Dicks, who founded the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus in November with Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Fort Worth, said the F-35 isn't the first major new weapons system to encounter problems.

"Everybody would like to see a low-cost, no-problem development," Dicks said. "But there's never been one. We have to do this: The Marine Corps needs stealth, the Air Force needs stealth and the Navy needs stealth. ... I think it's going to turn out to be a good airplane. We've got to work hard to get the fixes."

Lockheed Martin and the F-35's other primary contractors -- Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney -- are using generous campaign contributions to tilt the political field in their favor.

Those four aerospace giants contributed $326,400 to the 48 members of the F-35 caucus last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, a research center that tracks money in politics.

Each member of the caucus received an average amount that's nearly double the average that the companies' political action committees gave to other lawmakers.

In releasing the Pentagon's budget priorities this month, Panetta restated the Defense Department's commitment to the troubled joint strike fighter while delivering an endorsement that felt more like kissing a second cousin.

"In this budget, we have slowed procurement to complete more testing and allow for development changes before buying in significant quantities," he said.

Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter provided a blunter assessment.

"The joint strike fighter is not ready to go into full-rate production," he told PBS late Thursday.

It was the third slowdown in as many years for the program. That means that most of the jobs Lockheed promised haven't materialized yet in Texas, California, Florida, Illinois and other states that need them in a slow economy.

The Pentagon may fall well short of its initial pledge to buy 2,443 F-35s, and a dozen allied and other foreign countries eager to buy the plane could end up, combined, owning more of the aircraft than the United States does. Instead of an anticipated hundreds of the jet fighters flying in the U.S. military by now, it will probably be 2016 or beyond before they're deployed.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee, continues to support the F-35 despite its problems.

"It's probably one of the most mismanaged programs in the Pentagon, but the aircraft is mission essential for our country," Graham said. "When people say the F-35 is very costly and behind schedule and over budget, they're right. Part of the blame is the military; part of it's the contractor," a reference to Lockheed.

"But we need the fighter," he said. "To stop production of the F-35 now after finally getting the kinks worked out would make no sense."

Looking for comments?