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."

12 of 304 comments (clear)

  1. Maintenance? We don't need no steeking maintenance by HangingChad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Slashdot reader schwit1 writes, "This is akin to buying an exotic car you can barely afford, without also budgeting for insurance, repairs, and tuneups."

    Actually it's like buying a new exotic car every three months so you don't have to do schedule maintenance on any of the others.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  2. Thanks for the analogy.. by Junta · · Score: 4, Funny

    I couldn't possibly relate to paying for uber expensive fighter jets that I couldn't budget repairs for..

    Thanks for the far more relatable scenario of buying exotic cars I can't budget repairs for...

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Thanks for the analogy.. by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not budgeting for maintenance is how this country can "afford" nice things. It's a Ponzi scheme..

      Then instead of repairing old bridges, we build new ones right next to the old ones and let the old ones crumble. Or we raid other budgets, or we raise massive infrastructure bonds, or we simply build new neighborhoods for the rich and let the poor live with potholes, broken sidewalks, and the occasional water main break. Because keeping the poor segregated from the wealthy is the American Way! (Try to build apartments in a middle- or upper-class neighborhood and you'll quickly see what I mean.)

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  3. F-35 program is just a smoke screen by Exsam · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."
  4. Oh please by sunking2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The total plane contract is signed. They are going to be built. Bringing the cost of each plane down is dependent on production increasing. You want to slow that down and increase line costs so you can spend money on upgrades for planes that could be replaced by new planes coming off the production line? Look, I'm not saying the program isn't a mess at every level of the contractor. As a subcontractor for not only this but just about every major defense/NASA contractor I see it every day and its infuriating. But this is just a FUD hit piece.

  5. The public just has no idea how bad it is by DeplorableCodeMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The public wonders why we could get stuff done so effectively in the past. I can tell you why: the government didn't have the level of red tape it has today in the name of "accountability." Your "accountability" was "do the damn job effectively or go to the private sector." I have much older relatives who used to be in the federal civil service. They hate what they see it has become today. They hate the red tape that lets people shrug off responsibility for thinking and puts a committee of 10 people in charge of a $2M budget that is a rounding error in the agency's budget.

    It is just rampant, out of control legalism at its worst. Laws and regulations choke everything and ensure no one just assumes authority and gets stuff done (because that would Fascist, since wanting the trains to run on time means you are a natural Fascist who doesn't respect dissent and demands submission to arbitrary authority).

  6. How the mighty have fallen by hyades1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The same nation that built the SR-71, the A-10 and the F-15 serves up this lemon and tries to pretend it can still build great military aircraft?

    The swamp that needs cleaning is the unholy triumvirate of US weapons manufacturers, government procurers and military brass, all sucking on the US taxpayer like a bunch of bloated leeches.

    The rest of the country is going to hell while these parasites get fat providing garbage like this trailer queen. When I heard an F-35 completed a trans-Atlantic flight, I had to ask if they'd cut it up and sent it as luggage.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
  7. Re:Is the F-22 production line still up? by Daemonik · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The Air Force does not scrap a plane for being expensive, as the F-35 demonstrates. The F-22 was shut down over politics and to fund, and justify, the F-35, as were the A-10 and a few other planes.

    Take the A-10 Thunderbolt for instance. Preferred dedicated ground support aircraft of the Army. So to help nudge along the F-35, the AF killed the A-10 so they could claim that they needed a replacement ground support craft, and aha! the F-35 could fill the roll. Pay no attention to the facts that the F-35 is not armored like the A-10, probably couldn't handle the weight if they tried, and carries a pitiful amount of ammunition for its pitiful little gun.

  8. Oh America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh America, a land where the government thinks a trillion dollars for a fighter jet it can't use much of the time is a good investment, but universal health care like the rest of the developed world has would be considered a waste of money.

  9. Re:Is the F-22 production line still up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, the AF should get it over with and give the A10s to the fucking Marines, who actually know and could use a badass CAS airframe that's cheap, reliable, and deadly.

    See also: C-130s. Best workhorse cargo plane for the kind of missions the Marines need to support (short takeoff, heavy load, etc).

    I would also put in a recommendation for the kind of missions we fly against ISIS and the like a return to high loiter time support aircraft like Broncos, etc. ISIS knows jets can only fly around for 20-30 minutes before they have to heat to the base and then they can resume their asshole activities. It changes when you can put bullets in the sky for 4-5 hours, cheaply, and with multiples/shift changes...

  10. Plan B by petes_PoV · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Nearly half a trillion to build and buy. Over a trillion more to keep them flying.

    At what point would it be cheaper to start being nice to all the other nations, so you don't need to spend more on defence than every other country combined?

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  11. Re:Great Britain by hey! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The US Marines are screwed without the F35 too. They have 9 amphibious assault ships, each larger than a WW2 fleet carrier. Each of these ships are supposed to be able to debark highly mobile , self-contained "expeditionary units" of 2200 troops, each of which has a squadron of ground attack aircraft which have to operate from improvised air strips.

    The thing is, the air component of that doesn't work against modern, mobile air defenses, like those possessed by Iraq unless you have a stealth aircraft that can take off and land vertically or nearly so. This will leave the Marine units tied to air support from carriers.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.