For the last few months, Vermonters have been arguing over whether the Air Force should bring its new F-35 fighter jets to Burlington International Airport.
Anyone following the debate should take a few minutes to read the F-35 story in this morning’s New York Times (“Costliest Jet, Years in Making, Sees the Enemy: Budget Cuts“) The Times does a thorough review of the F-35 project, which is facing increased scrutiny as we approach the fiscal cliff.
Why? Because each jet is now expected to cost up to $137 million to build. According to the NYT:
The jets would cost taxpayers $396 billion, including research and development, if the Pentagon sticks to its plan to build 2443 by the late 2030s. That would be nearly four times as much as any other weapons system and two-thirds of the $589 billion the United States has spent on the war in Afghanistan. The military is also desperately trying to figure out how to reduce the long-term costs of operating the planes, now projected at $1.1 trillion.
That’s a chunk of change. Here’s another eye-popping number: 24 million. That’s how many lines of code are required to make these planes work. And they’re not all “secured and tested” yet. The new general who’s about to begin overseeing the project calls that “the gorilla in the room.”


Interesting angle, Cathy!
RETN has been trying to capture the opinions of local Vermonters on
video. We got a few takers at the VT 3.0 Tech Jam (most opposed to the
F-35 being based in Burlington). You can see why by watching this
playlist of short videos: http://www.youtube.com/playlis…
If anyone reading this wants to record and send us their own brief
(1-5 min.), respectful, “Thinking Out Loud,” we’ll do our best to put it
on TV and on our YouTube channel.
My guess is that long after the Vermont base is shuttered, our planes will still be patrolling the skies over the European Union, Korea and Japan. Countries who all became prosperous by somehow convincing Americans it was our responsibility to buy 137 million dollar planes to protect them.