Jettisoning money

The Pentagon has announced the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in development is going to cost a little more than expected. But don't worry — it's only an extra $83 million per plane. That's good news, because everyone was wondering what to do with that budget surplus we had lying around.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program began in 1996 as a competition between Boeing and Lockheed Martin, with the latter given a contract in 2001 to manufacture the plane. Their bid was $50 million per plane. At that price the U.S. order for 2,400 aircraft would have cost $122.5 billion. Oops, make that up to 113 million each, for a total of $323 billion, according to ABC news. Apparently Lockheed Martin accountants forgot where the commas go. Pretty pathetic for a plane billed as "an affordable multi-role fighter."

Let's put this in perspective: the 2009 defense budget was $513.3 billion before special funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Filling the order for the Fighter Program will cost well over half that. Granted, it's a one-time purchase (at least until the projected 2040 expiration date), but that is not reason enough to hand the Department of Defense a carte blanche on spending. Defense spending not only must be reasonable, but also worthwhile.

In February, Russia flew the first prototype of its fifth-generation fighter, the Sukhoi T-50. Its role is to upgrade the Russian Air Force for 21st century combat, and the India are expected to join in the development and purchasing of the T-50 and MiG's fifth-generation project, the 1.42 development program.

On this side of the Bering Strait, the Fighter Program will be the U.S.'s second fifth-generation jet, joining another sexy-yet-infamously expensive aircraft, the F-22 Raptor. The stated goal of the JSF is to replace either in part or altogether the F-16, F-18, A-10 and Harrier Jump Jet in the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps. Without a doubt, the JSF improves on all these.

This fifth-generation jet is a self-described striker and fighter rolled into one package. It is said to be superior to fourth-generation fighters in multiple ways: four times more effective in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective against fixed and mobile targets and three times more effective in reconnaissance and destroying enemy air defense.

These are excellent improvements, especially considering the dominance al-Qaida's Air Force has displayed in the skies over Afghanistan. While we shouldn't discount a future war with an enemy of strength and technology comparable to our own, the fact is our current conflicts require a shift from the old model.

For centuries the edges gained in warfare were technological. Although tactics were certainly important, they were more standardized across the board and the army with the advantage was the one with bigger cannons, more accurate firearms and the most soldiers. The arms race of the Cold War was largely upended by the prospect of extending missile defense to the cosmos — an initiative too costly for the Soviets.

The fundamental objective of war is to kill the enemy and incapacitate the ability kill you. Where one side has an advantage, the other will look for a counter-measure to offset that advantage so the fight can continue. America has the technological edge in this war and because there is absolutely no way al-Qaida can match us in budget or weapons, terrorists simply look for other ways to gain an edge. The solution has been roadside bombs and plain-clothes soldiers. The bottom line is that a $113-million aircraft cannot defend against IEDs and suicide bombers any better than F-16s or Harriers.

The military needs to arm for the present as they develop for the future, directing spending to maximize effectiveness against our current enemy while keeping an eye on the potential conflicts of tomorrow. I'm not against development, just debilitating and irrelevant spending. If the day comes when we absolutely need a fighter fleet worth the GDP of Argentina, I'm all for it. For now let's focus on nomadic mountain guerrillas.

Adam Bechtold is a senior history major.