The active-duty 388th and Reserve 419th Fighter Wings conducted an F-35A Combat Power Exercise at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, Jan. 6, 2020. The exercise, which was planned for months, demonstrated their ability to employ a large force of F-35As -- testing readiness in the areas of personnel accountability, aircraft generation, ground operations, flight operations, and combat capability against air and ground targets. (U.S. Air Force photo/R. Nial Bradshaw)
WASHINGTON ― The House Armed Services Committee chairman railed at the expensive F-35 Joint Strike Fighter on Friday, saying he wants to “stop throwing money down that particular rathole,” ― just days after the Air Force said it too is looking at other options.
“What does the F-35 give us? And is there a way to cut our losses? Is there a way to not keep spending that much money for such a low capability because, as you know, the sustainment costs are brutal,” Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash., said a Brookings event.
Air Force officials recently said they are conducting a study to find the best mix of fighters including Lockheed Martin’s F-35, Boeing’s F-15EX and a replacement for the service’s oldest F-16s.
Smith was thinking along similar lines.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: Lockheed Martin defends the program .... Lockheed Martin defends value of F-35 as USAF programme under new pressure (Flight Global). But the problem for Lockheed Martin is that some in the US Air Force have lost faith in the F-35 .... The U.S. Air Force Just Admitted The F-35 Stealth Fighter Has Failed (Forbes).
More News On The U.S. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Wanting To End The F-35 Program
Stop Throwing Money Down F-35 'Rathole,' Top Lawmaker Says -- Military.com
Powerful lawmaker calls F-35 fighter jet a ‘rathole,’ suggests Pentagon should cut its losses -- Washington Post
3 comments:
This thing has been criticized for a long long time time.
The builders don't see monetary excess when it's the country's wallet, not theirs.
I though making a jack of all trades plane was a mistake. It is a generic argument and so could be considered weak. I can see the benefits in supply chain and economies of scale of having one airframe.
Maybe we should be looking at reliability growth of the the F35. Is availability going up?
In short what does the performance of an F35 or and F35 squadron today look like versus those of 2 or 3 years ago?
For another system in trouble, emals, it does not look good.
“Poor or unknown reliability of new technology systems critical for flight operations,” including the carriers’ electromagnetic launch system worth $3.5 billion could affect its ability to generate sorties, Bloomberg reported, citing the assessment
It is hard to tell without quantitative data which for often good reasons is simply not to be had in the MSM.
Rep Smith is not the worst representative. He worked during college at Fed Ex. I am fairly confident that he actually got a work out. But his education is the usual narrow bland one of poly sci followed by a JD. I fear he may have a rather bigoted view of the world.
I think if a case is going to be presented to the public by newspapers and magazines, it should be presented using the same terminology and metrics as used by the acquisition corps.
Otherwise people are talking past each other due to benign reasons and reasons foul and just in general people will be beating around the bush chasing the answer and never finding it.
Can Rep Smith tell us if KPPs and KDAs are being met?
Do those KPPs and KSAs meet or surpass those of the planes they replaced?
They said the same thing about the F-22. all through the 1990's and early 2000's how terrible it was. Now the same politicians who trashed it cant stop praising it. The same will happen with the F-35. Remember they trashed the F-15 in the 1970's, the F-16 in the 1980's the F-18 in the 1980's. I work on the F-35 line. If you want parts shortages to go away? end the stupid (JUST IN TIME) inventory system. Just today I was stopped in a job because the vendor part was not to print. And because of the JUST IN TIME inventory system that is mandated by the pentagon, We aren't allowed to have quantities of parts stored for such a situation because Lockheed is only allowed to by a few parts at any given time instead of ordering large quantities.Our other major problem is no bid contracts to vendors. With no competition there is no incentive to deliver parts that are to print or on time. The Pratt Whitney engine is the best example of that. If the Pentagon had any forward thinking people running the place, they would have completed the development of the GE F-136 engine. Then There would be a competition for engines like the F-16 and F-15 had during their production runs. That's why those engines are still being produced today. Their performance and quality over the years had dramatically improved due to competition. There are a lot of faults with Lockheed Martin on the way they manage the program. (micro management, Incompetent people in leadership roles, Fostering an us verses them mentality on the floor between management and the workforce, etc...). The F-35 program is a glaring example of how not to build an airplane from both the pentagon and Lockheed Martin's side.
Post a Comment