In the past few months several reputable aviation magazines, such as Combat Aircraft Journal Magazine, have stated that the F-35 is not combat capable. Its April issue had many reports related to the progress of the F-35, but none even mentioned mating the bird to an actual weapon, much less using an actual weapon in training. Apparently the USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps are waiting for a software upgrade titled TR-3 that will control all weapon systems. Until that time the F-35s that have been released to US bases are being used for pilot and maintenance proficiency only.
It is unclear if the software issue was created by a deficiency at Lockheed Martin or if there are new changes required by the Department of Defense. In any event, after decades of development costs that run into the billions, the F-35 is not protecting anything. This is the worst possible outcome for any government program and especially troubling since our national defense is at risk. Or is it? First, let’s take a look at the cause of this debacle.
Lack of Economic Calculation
The underlying problem with all government programs is that there is no real economic calculation. In other words, there is no rational way to determine what program government should fund, how much it should spend, or how long the program should exist. Furthermore, no person or agency is responsible for ensuring program delivery at expected cost, with the threat of job loss or company bankruptcy if the program fails. Defenders of the current system claim that no company would foot the upfront bill for a program as expensive as the F-35; therefore, the government must pay whether the program succeeds or not. This is a prescription for cost overruns, delays, and outright failure, as the F-35 program has demonstrated.
Granted, a nation’s defense budget is not determined by normal market calculations, such as whether or not I should replace my aging car and, if so, how much am I willing to spend? As Caspar Weinberger, former Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, explained, defense spending is dependent upon the perceived threat. Obviously, determining the extent of the perceived threat is a controversial assessment.
There may be some disagreement in my household about whether or not to replace the old car and, if so, what with and how much we can afford to pay. But eventually, we’ll agree, because the factors driving the decision are not that controversial. Our personal finances are the main determinant. I may want a new Jaguar, but the budget will only fund a used, low-mileage Chevy. Spending money on anything means that it cannot be spent on something else. And there’s always the possibility that we’ll buy a lemon. In other words, there’s a tradeoff involved. Unfortunately, we mere private sector mortals live in a world of risk and scarcity, something government cares little about.
No Apparent Budget Limitations with Fiat Money
But what is the “reality” facing defense spending? It should be based upon the government’s ability to pay, but that has been made very difficult by the demise of the gold standard to be replaced by a fiat dollar that can be manufactured ad infinitum out of thin air. Now everything seems possible. There appears to be no tradeoffs involved, but that is an illusion.
The golden dollar anchored budget decisions in financial reality. If the government wanted to fund a new program or increase funding for an existing one, its choices were simple: cut a similar amount from elsewhere in the budget, increase taxes, or borrow honestly in the bond market (which meant crowding out private investment due to the inevitable and inescapable rise in the interest rate). The hidden tradeoff with a fiat dollar is the debasement of the purchasing power of currency, something that we all see every day at the supermarket.
The Threat of Irrelevancy
Defense spending for big ticket items with a long developmental lead time, such as the F-35 fighter program, face the additional risk of becoming irrelevant. Boeing has developed unmanned fighters—the YFQ-42 and the YFQ-44. Reportedly, Elon Musk is skeptical of continuing the program primarily due to the advent of drone warfare, something that wasn’t considered to be much of a potential military tool when the F-35 was conceived. Even now the lead times are very long just for normal fixes. The F-35 has a heat dissipation problem caused by its overloaded internal computer systems. Lockheed Martin claims the fix is five to seven years away! It’s the gift—to the generals, admirals, and defense contractors—that keeps on giving. But this merely exacerbates the irrelevancy threat.
The F-35 Will Never Face Combat in the Western Hemisphere
The F-35—like all American fighter jets—will face combat only overseas. It was not designed to engage in dogfights against swarms of Canadian or Mexican fighters. It will be deployed only to American-controlled bases overseas, deployed on our aircraft carriers, or sold to our allies. If, God forbid, peace should break out in Europe and the far East, there may not be a market for the F-35! The post-WWII American Empire is coming to an end. America is withdrawing from Europe. Our allies in the far East are increasingly wealthy enough to defend themselves. Japan is developing its own fighter. The Europeans have developed their own fighters in the past and are planning to do so in the future, possibly in partnership with Japan. No real statesman would rely upon another nation, even the US, to provide its national defense. If it won’t be deployed to Europe or sold to our allies, where’s the market for the F-35?
Conclusion
By sucking up so many defense dollars—especially those earmarked for the USAF—the F-35 program has harmed America’s defense capability. There is no reason to continue to dump good money after bad into this black hole. The Defense Department and Congress need to learn lessons from this debacle. The primary lesson should be that without sound money the already difficult decisions regarding how much to spend on defense become almost impossible to determine. This has resulted in massive waste of resources of which the F-35 is the poster child.
