Powered by WebAds

Friday, October 26, 2012

The F-35 disaster

Some of you may recall that early in the Obama administration, the President forced Congress to drop funding for the F-22 fighter jet by threatening to veto the Defense Authorization bill. The argument went that after all, soon we would have the F-35, which would make the F-22 obsolete.

Had the F-35 been built, it is unlikely that the F-22 would have become obsolete. But now, more than three years later, the F-35 has not been built. It has also seen huge cost overruns. And as a result of President Hussein Obama's foolish decision, the United States will be forced to use F-15's and F-16's - many of which are older than many of you reading this post - for many years to come.
Lockheed Martin first received the contract in 2001 to produce the plane, and there now is little hope that it will be ready for full production and deployment by the projected 2020 date, aviation analysts say.
The development is placing even greater stress on the aging F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s and the more recent stealth fighter F-22, whose production was halted in favor of proceeding with the F-35. Almost all of these aircraft, produced by Lockheed Martin, have been in service since the 1980s.
While they have been updated with new avionics and internal technologies, they are becoming less competitive with the new fifth generation fighters being developed and beginning to go into production in Russia and China.
Since it’s been 11 years since the contract was awarded, and there’s still uncertainty when the F-35 will be available, there is mounting concern that it may not be the aircraft envisioned in 2001 as plans are proceeding to prepare for the “sixth-generation” fighter to be ready by 2030.
Now, the sustainment cost for the F-35 is estimated to approach $1 trillion, and the new head of the joint program office for the F-35 is thinking of abandoning Lockheed’s support system for the aircraft and open it up to competition.
Critics say that the approach may work in the long term but it won’t ensure delivery of the aircraft by 2020. By then, it is estimated that only a fraction of the requested 2,400 will be operational.
The services needing the F-35 will still have to rely primarily on updated F-15s, F-16s, F/A-18s and F-22s, as will European partners who will have to weigh whether to continue their investment in the F-35 or instead place their limited funding in upgrading what they have.
At this point, the services, especially the Air Force, need to worry about the U.S. industrial base that not only supports the development of the F-35 but has been involved in the production of the older aircraft.
In recognition of maintaining the industrial base and meeting legitimate defense needs, critics say the decision may have to be made to continue production of the older aircraft and devise new ways to adjust military plans to new capabilities to meet future needs by 2030.
 I'm sure Mr. Putin will be pleased.

Labels: , , , ,


At 8:09 PM, Blogger Findalis said...

Obama has no plans to build the F-35. In a second Obama Regime he will cancel the F-35 with no replacement in the future.

Thus he will weaken the American defenses even further.

At 8:40 PM, Blogger Empress Trudy said...

I do not believe that the tooling, forms, data and technology was destroyed, compared to for example all the technology that went into the SR-71 program, intentionally. This means that the F-22 could be restarted, potentially. The problem will be for the US to develop an export version of the F-22 if anyone still wants it. It's highly unlikely the US would permit foreign nations to get involved in subassembly manufacturing so there's a lot less of an incentive for foreign nations to get involved and, importantly, the problem of where to service aircraft will have to be resolved. But in theory, it's possible to keep building F-22's.

I said years ago the F-35 was a boondoggle that would never see the light of day. It's simply trying to be too many things to too many people while at the same time serving as a foreign policy tool to other countries who want to make money off it.


Post a Comment

<< Home