Slashdot Mirror
America's F-35s Can't Fly 22% of the Time, Repair Facilities Six Years Behind Schedule (indiatimes.com)
"[N]early 200 F-35s might permanently remain unready for combat because the Pentagon would rather buy new aircraft than upgrade the ones the American people have already paid for," according to one defense news site. And now Bloomberg reports:
The Pentagon is accelerating production of Lockheed Martin Corp.'s F-35 jet even though the planes already delivered are facing "significantly longer repair times" than planned because maintenance facilities are six years behind schedule, according to a draft audit. The time to repair a part has averaged 172 days -- "twice the program's objective" -- the Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog agency, found. The shortages are "degrading readiness" because the fighter jets "were unable to fly about 22 percent of the time" from January through August for lack of needed parts.
The Pentagon has said soaring costs to develop and produce the F-35, the costliest U.S. weapons system, have been brought under control, with the price tag now projected at $406.5 billion. But the GAO report raises new doubts about the official estimate that maintaining and operating them will cost an additional $1.12 trillion over their 60-year lifetime.
Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."
The Pentagon has said soaring costs to develop and produce the F-35, the costliest U.S. weapons system, have been brought under control, with the price tag now projected at $406.5 billion. But the GAO report raises new doubts about the official estimate that maintaining and operating them will cost an additional $1.12 trillion over their 60-year lifetime.
Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."
Most of the money is being funneled into the Stargate program to build more F-304s.
"To face death, that's nothing much. But to feel really stupid when you die, well, that would be insufferable."
The really funny part is how far the reality is from what the fanbois on the internet keep repeating to each other; the A-10 is primarily used as a missile platform. It does still do a little bit of close air support, duties it shares with the F-16, but it does it from high altitude as a generic missile launch platform.
People like to repeat that they're really reliable, and it is true they can survive a lot of AAA damage, but the threat in modern combat isn't AAA it is RPGs and MANPADs. And the A-10 is a sitting duck for those. Sure, the pilot is protected by armor, but the engines aren't; they're very vulnerable. They can't loiter at low altitude over infantry to do the type of close air support that the fanbois are picturing! They get shot down doing that. So yeah, they're still stuck using them, but they don't use them differently from the way they use an F-16 for that; flying in circles high overhead, dropping shit on coordinates.
Why do they need new wings? Because the enemy weapons can reach it more easily.
Actually the main reason why everyone on the ground wants A-10s as support, is because they are slow enough to be able to get a good picture of what's going on on the ground. That enables pilots to provide air support even when belligerents are very close to friendlies. In this regard, it doesn't matter what weapons this aircraft carries. It can operate low enough and slow enough when needed, and that is what matters. In this role, it has no real fixed wing competitors other than AC-130. And that aircraft is actually severely vulnerable to ground fire, unlike A-10.
The rest of your points are exactly what you accuse "fanboys" of. Opinionated ignorance. A-10 like all low and slow aircraft is indeed threatened by shoulder launched guided missiles. It's also extremely resilient against such threats and more than capable to take multiple hits without suffering fatal damage, which is why it can and does operate as it does - low and slow. Its gun is an excellent tool to engage soft targets like technicals and supply trucks, conserving heavier missiles and bombs for hardened targets. It provides a unique niche just like Su-25 does. It's a faster and more resilient platform than an attack helicopter with greater payload and ability to loiter, mixed with greater survivability due to design than a gunship like AC-130. Yet it can and does operate "low and slow" when needed, able to accurately view the battlefield from close by and still have time to provide accurate fire support based on this information and not already have passed the target area like other fixed wing attack platforms.
And wings? They go because of metal fatigue as well as ground fire. The fact that they can easily take the ground fire and continue to operate needing just wing replacements every once in a while shows you just how well this particular platform is designed for its role.