The GAO issued a report on the F-35 (or Joint Strike Fighter) last week, and the conclusions were all too familiar. Here's an excerpt: "JSF development will cost more and take longer to complete than reported to the Congress in April 2008, primarily because of contract cost overruns and extended time needed to complete flight testing."
Cost overruns and extended time for testing seem to be recurring themes at the Pentagon. In fact, the Pentagon is going to produce around 500 copies of the F-35 with only around 2% of testing completed. Engineers already found problems with the engine and avionics during the initial testing phase, so it can be logically assumed that by the time the rest of the testing is finished, a magnitude of problems will arise that will only shoot the cost up to astronomical levels. You can find similar construction mismanagement throughout the services; there is another report documenting the waste and inefficiency of Navy shipbuilding.
Winslow Wheeler at CDI does a good job running through the reasons that the F-35 is not likely to be a good replacement for our existing 4th Generation fighters. At $122 million per unit, you should be getting a great replacement for the F-16, A-10, F/A 18, and AV-8B, but this is not the case. It was designed to essentially be a "Swiss Army Knife" of the 5th Generation fighters, but it results in the F-35 being a jack of all trades, but a master of none. Of particular concern is its replacing of the A-10, which is a highly capable air-to-surface fighter that is highly specialized in bombing operations. According to Wheeler, the F-35 can only hold two 2,000lb bombs in its internal bay, far fewer than any other specialized bomber the USAF deploys. The F-35 is also too fast to conduct close ground support operations, rendering it pretty much useless in conflicts such as Afghanistan. This is troubling when you hear Gates say that the Pentagon is only going to buy weapons for the conflicts America is likely to face.
The stealth technology is also questionable. The air craft has to fly in certain postitions in order for it to be effective, and after the shootdown of a F-117 during the NATO campaign in Yugoslavia in 1999, it has been proven that stealth technology really isn't as impenetrable as we all like to think it is.
We have to get serious. We have not faced an enemy with a functional air force in decades, and that doesn't look like it's going to change anytime soon. We have a huge advantage in fighters compared to places like China, so it really would be wise to scrap the F-35 and let it go the way of the F-22. After that is finished, we should design an aircraft that can meet the demands of the USAF and Navy as well as be cost effective. That combination is possible I think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Agreed, the F-35 is a mess right now, and this administration like all other things they do thinks they can just throw more of our money at it to fix it. Also things like the A-10 are irreplaceable, even just for the fear it strikes in the enemy, nothing is safe from that monstrous GAU-8 cannon. I think we should have just built and purchased a reasonable of F-22s and used that as a bit of a multi-role since it can drop JDAMs very accurately while super cruising.
ReplyDeleteThe F-35 is proof that military contractors run the Pentagon and Congress.
ReplyDeleteLockheed Martin intentionally outsourced all parts production to as many states as possible in order to prevent its cancellation because every senator would have jobs to protect. The problem is you can't get those parts to all fit together properly with so many vendors.
When the F-35 was first delivered the USAF rejected the first batch because it had VISIBLE seams in the bomb bay doors. The tolerances were off that bad, and gaps nullify any stealth as well as present a danger to the pilot as the doors could just rip off from the wind in flight