Fleckenstein & Leas: Leahy drops bombshell in response to snowballing criticism of F-35 program

Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Paul Fleckenstein of Burlington and James Marc Leas, a patent lawyer in South Burlington.

Faced with snowballing criticism of the F-35 program as the most expensive, wasteful, and ineffective weapons system in history, “The Most Expensive Weapon Ever Built,” Time magazine, Feb. 25, 2013, Sen. Patrick Leahy, the most senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, dropped three bombshells in a widely circulated letter to constituent Christopher Hurd on the morning of Tuesday, March 12:

The F-35 program has been poorly managed and is a textbook example of how not to buy military equipment. The causes of the F-35 program’s present difficulties are too numerous to detail in my response to your letter; however, I believe the F-35 program is approaching a point where the military services and a majority of Congress will recognize that the jet is just too costly to proceed with purchases at today’s planned levels. That recognition may lead to a decision to diversify of our future fighter jet fleet, with the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps opting to modernize their current fleet of fighter jets and substantially reduce the total number of F-35s that they plan to buy …

I have pushed and continue to push for a better approach to buying military equipment.  I don’t think “one size fits all,” monolithic, ultra-expensive equipment is what our troops need …

Sen. Leahy’s letter comes in the context of a slew of articles sharply criticizing the F-35 program. For example, two weeks earlier, Business Week on Feb. 25, 2013 called for “killing” the F-35 program, “the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history and one that offers only marginal improvements over existing aircraft” to save hundreds of billions of dollars. Even the chief of the Pentagon program “slammed its commercial partners Lockheed Martin and Pratt & Whitney,” as reported in Business Insider, “Chief Of Dysfunctional F-35 Program Calls Out The Pentagon’s Defense Contractors.

Sen. Leahy’s letter legitimizes reports that F-35 procurement is poorly managed, an example of how not to buy, and is too costly. In addition, the Time magazine article and other authoritative reports detail how the F-35 fails to meet performance requirements of any of the service branches, Air Force, Navy and Marines.

Sen. Leahy’s letter would be extremely noteworthy if it stopped at such criticism of the F-35. But his letter goes much further, stating that the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps all have an alternative: they can modernize their current fleet of fighter jets — including the F-16C currently flown by the Vermont Air National Guard. Sen. Leahy’s letter then goes even further, concluding that the F-35 is not what our troops need.

Within 12 hours of Sen. Leahy’s bombshells, an article appeared on the Reuters website, “Pentagon aims to restructure F-35 office,” stating that Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, who heads the $396 billion F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, is “reorganizing and I am making personnel changes” in the F-35 acquisition program … Bogdan said he hoped to avoid the kind of ‘death spiral’ that resulted in much smaller orders for the F-22 fighter, also built by Lockheed, as well as other aircraft.”

The Reuters article notes that “the F-35 program is about seven years behind schedule and has seen costs rise about 70 percent above initial estimates.” The Time magazine article quotes the Pentagon’s top weapons buyer, Frank Kendall, saying: “Putting the F-35 into production years before the first test flight was acquisition malpractice. It should not have been done.”

While Sen. Leahy’s letter to Chris Hurd did not mention the proposed basing of the F-35 in South Burlington, an article about his letter in the Burlington Free Press the next day said:

Leahy has joined Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Rep. Peter Welch, D-Vt., in supporting the basing of the F-35A at the Burlington Air Guard station, despite local concerns that it will be up to four times louder than the F-16s. Airport noise has led to the need under FAA guidelines to purchase and raze homes near the airport.

The Free Press article quoted Leahy spokesman David Carle saying, “Senator Leahy’s preference is for Vermont’s Air Guard to be a part of the Air Force’s future, with basing in Vermont, for the many strategic reasons that led the Air Force to consider Vermont basing in the first place.”

The Air Force might desperately want to decide against basing the F-35 at Burlington International Airport because of the devastating effect the Air Force draft Environmental Impact Statement reports on thousands of families who live in noise and crash zones:

• The runway at Burlington airport aims at Williston, Winooski and part of Burlington, all about one mile away. Thousands of homes are in the noise zone the Air Force says is “unsuitable for residential use.” The Air Force already agreed not to use the runway at Eglin Air Force base that aims at Valparaiso, one mile away, for F-35 flights.

• The FAA gave Burlington nearly $40 million to purchase and raze up to 200 homes in South Burlington. Fifty-five have already been demolished. The Air Force draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) reports that the F-16 dominates airport noise and that commercial jet noise is negligible compared the F-16. The F-35 will put 3,000 homes in the same noise zone that required the purchase and razing of those 200 homes in South Burlington.

• The Air Force EIS designates “Accident Potential Zones” (APZ) and “Runway Protection Zones (RPZ), “areas recognized as having the greatest risk of aircraft mishaps (crashes).” These zones extend from both ends of runways used by military jets. For safety reasons, the Air Force wisely restricts housing and other development in these areas in case a military jet loaded with 18,000 pounds of fuel crashes shortly after takeoff. Hundreds of homes in Winooski, Colchester, Burlington and Williston are in these crash zones.

In addition, a scientific consensus has emerged within the past 10 years confirming far more severe health effects from the noise level imposed by the F-35 than was described in the Air Force draft EIS, which relied on earlier studies. The effects are particularly severe for children. The results of the more recent studies were presented by Winooski resident Richard Joseph in a 29-page report, “Endangered Health.”

Thus, the Air Force secretary has more than adequate grounds to say no to basing the F-35 in Burlington.

Except for the intense pressure Senior Sen. Patrick Leahy is applying.

Sen. Leahy’s letter can certainly be understood as threatening a substantial part of the F-35 program if the Air Force fails to quickly correct problems with F-35 procurement. And the quick response from Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan shows the Air Force is listening to him.

However, Sen. Leahy’s letter can also be understood as threatening a substantial part of the F-35 program if the Air Force makes the rational decision not to base the F-35 in South Burlington.

Notwithstanding the pork aspect, Sen. Leahy’s letter necessarily undercuts two central arguments advanced by supporters of F-35 basing in Vermont, that the Air Force has no alternative to the F-35 and that our troops depend on the F-35.

Upgrades to extend the life of the F-16C and D past 2030 were announced by the Air Force and reported in the Air Force Times on Sept. 19, 2012. The Air Force Times report, now given impetus by Sen. Leahy’s letter, means that the Air Guard has the ability to upgrade many of its F-16C planes, acquire new ones, and keep them flying for at least 17 more years. Long enough to find another mission that is compatible with the residential character of the Burlington airport. And long enough to find another mission consistent with the desire of Vermonters to keep our soldiers and airmen safe from the illegal, immoral, and unjust wars for oil cooked up by politicians in Washington.

Ideally, the Air Guard will find a mission vastly different from collaborating with stealth attack on foreign countries. In view of hurricanes Irene and Sandy, Vermonters need our state militia to have a focused state mission giving them the tools to protect Vermonters from the continuing and sharply increasing threat from global warming. Certainly not an F-35: useless in a state emergency. Burning 2,000 gallons of fuel each time it flies. Its noise and crash zones putting thousands of Vermonters at severe risk.

Sen. Leahy’s letter leaves many questions unanswered, and constituents have a right to meet with him to get answers. So far, Sen. Leahy has refused to meet with any of the thousands of Vermonters who will be affected. As reported in the Free Press, Christopher Hurd, the constituent to whom Sen. Leahy sent his letter, said, “he is gratified that Leahy ‘has acknowledged the massive problems’ of the plane’s cost and development. ‘Finally!’ he said. ‘However, this does not exonerate Sen. Leahy from his responsibility to hold public hearings’ to discuss the basing of the plane at the Burlington airport … ‘He needs to be accountable.’”