THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1997, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Tuesday, February 18, 1997 TAG: 9702180007
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: 40 lines
Increasing technical sophistication is increasingly expensive. Computer chips may be growing cheaper, but the plants to build them are growing exponentially more expensive and may impose a limit on future development. Seeing farther into space or deeper into the subatomic world requires more and more expensive instruments.
The same logic applies in the world of weaponry. At some point, for example, the next increment in capability for fighter aircraft will become prohibitively expensive. And that point may be near. At a time of increased pressure to keep a lid on defense spending, the military is going to have to modify its wish list.
At present, the Pentagon is involved in three fighter-jet programs. The Congressional Budget Office has recently suggested the costs being forecast for the planes may be understated by $50 billion. The Air Force F-22 may cost $108 million a plane, 15 percent more than presently estimated.
A Joint Strike Fighter might cost $63 million to $81 million a copy - 20 percent to 30 percent higher than alleged. The third, the Navy's $61 million Super Hornet, will probably be the cheapest of the three. But it is also expected to be only a marginal improvement on the existing Hornet.
Between now and 2030, the programs could cost the Pentagon a whopping $350 billion. Tactical jets could consume 50 percent of the Air Force and Navy budgets if present plans are followed.
At a time of rising budget pressure and reduced military competition, it is hard to justify multiple warplanes of increased sophistication. The threats aren't there and the costs will come out of other pressing needs. Congress needs to make a choice. The days of funding every system proposed are long gone. The Hornet should survive. F-22 development could continue on a slower track. The Joint Strike Fighter? Too much too soon.