For all its high-tech stealth and record price tag, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter embodies the droll military motto, “Hurry up and wait.”

Conceived in the heady post-Cold War 1990s, the futuristic fifth-generation jet fighter was to be a technological marvel built in a rush and paid for with “peace dividend” dollars.

Now, the economy is struggling out of recession and the fighter is billions over budget and years behind schedule.

Part of the problem: Axing the F-35 would eliminate tens of thousands of jobs in 47 states. Few members of Congress are willing to go along.

Another part: The jet fighter is needed to replace aging U.S. planes, but — as the most costly weapons system ever, at $385 billion and rising — it might be more expensive than the nation can afford.

Despite criticism from defense secretaries, government investigators and powerful senators, the Pentagon still wants the Joint Strike Fighter. But the Defense Department might want more plane than it needs.

“A lot of times, the Pentagon just wants to sexy these things up and make them do wow stuff when wow is not required,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who sits on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With the Pentagon facing $1 trillion in possible cuts, the F-35’s high price tag makes it a prime target. But thanks in part to campaign contributions from its main contractors and their jobs spread across the country, the fighter plane has its own congressional caucus of 48 lawmakers dedicated to saving it at all costs. None of the caucus members hail from Idaho.

When Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Jan. 20 that he wouldn’t kill the F-35 outright, there were sighs of relief across the country from subcontractors and parts suppliers.

A FUTURE IN IDAHO?

The jet’s main manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, has promised it will provide 127,000 jobs in 47 states.

Other states, like Idaho, are hoping to be graced with squadrons of the next generation fighter once its goes into production.

Idaho was passed over in the initial selection process for the first round of F-35s. Too much costly construction was needed at Mountain Home Air Force Base and Boise’s Gowen Field to accommodate three squadrons, the Air Force told Idaho's congressional delegation. At Gowen Field alone, it would have taken a minimum of $167 million in construction to house the aircraft.

With that decision, Idaho lost more than a billion dollars in potential economic impact.

Idaho still could be in the running for future F-35 missions, according to the delegation and the Air Force, a fact that has some Boise residents upset over the prospect of a very noisy aircraft flying over their dinner tables, bedrooms and children’s classrooms.

Idaho’s F-35 supporters say the aircraft would bring stability and longevity to the two bases that house aging aircraft — the A-10 Warthog at Gowen Field and F-15s at Mountain Home — that like the rest of the military face potential cuts if the Congress puts the Pentagon on a crash diet.

BIG PROGRAMS, BIG CUTS

The struggle over the Joint Strike Fighter reflects the broader challenge that lawmakers and President Barack Obama face: The biggest budget savings come from large government programs that are popular and, in some cases, needed.

Rep. Norm Dicks, a Washington state Democrat, calls the F-35 jet “the big enchilada,” the most advanced stealth aircraft in the world and a great investment in U.S. national security.

For Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the Joint Strike Fighter is a scandal and a tragedy, beset by delays and huge cost overruns.

Evading radar systems at supersonic speeds, the sleek aircraft would be the first to serve three of the main U.S. military services — the Air Force, the Navy and the Marine Corps — each of which has always had its own special plane.

Panetta’s clemency for this futuristic fighter is hardly a new lease on life.

“In this budget, we have slowed procurement to complete more testing and allow for development changes before buying in significant quantities,” he said.

It was the third slowdown in as many years for the beleaguered program.

A DEARTH OF JOBS

Now many of the 6,000 workers at Lockheed Martin’s F-35 final assembly plant outside Fort Worth, Texas, will have time on their hands. The state-of-the-art factory, which had expected to be churning out 100 of the jet fighters annually, will be lucky to make 30 this year.

The slowdown means that most of the jobs Lockheed Martin promised haven’t materialized yet in Texas, California, Florida, Illinois and other states that need them in a slow economy.

Most of all, it means that the Pentagon may fall well short of its initial pledge to buy 2,443 of the F-35s; that a dozen allied and other foreign countries eager to buy the plane could end up, combined, owning more of the aircraft than the United States does; that instead of an anticipated hundreds of the jet fighters flying in the U.S. military by now, it probably will be 2016 or beyond before they’re deployed.

Graham acknowledges the program is “mismanaged,” behind schedule and over budget. But he insists the F-35 is essential for the country. The blame lies with the military and Lockheed Martin, he said.

”To stop production of the F-35 now after finally getting the kinks worked out would make no sense,” Graham said.

Dicks, who founded the Congressional Joint Strike Fighter Caucus in November with Texas Republican Rep. Kay Granger, said the F-35 wasn’t the first major new weapons system to encounter problems.

“Everybody would like to see a low-cost, no-problem development,” Dicks said. “But there’s never been one.

“We have to do this: The Marine Corp needs stealth, the Air Force needs stealth and the Navy needs stealth. … I think it’s going to turn out to be a good airplane. We’ve got to work hard to get the fixes.”

TILTING THE PLAYING FIELD

Lockheed Martin and the F-35’s three other primary contractors — Northrop Grumman, BAE Systems and Pratt & Whitney — are using generous campaign contributions to tilt the political field in their favor.

Those four aerospace giants contributed $326,400 to the 48 members of the F-35 caucus last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics in Washington, a research center that tracks money in politics.

Each member of the caucus received an average amount that’s nearly double the average that the companies’ political action committees gave to other lawmakers.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, a research center in Washington, said the F-35 was being built on the fly.

“The program plan has changed every year for a decade,” Donnelly said. “We’ve had to invent it and build it at the same time. So you’re going to take some technological risks, but you’re going to keep building and fixing.”