Pentagon vows to "protect" funding for F-35 if possible

What a waste. Stop it now and stop spending more money after something bad. Cut the Military/DOD budget from more waste!

The Soviet Union isn’t there anymore, but somebody forgot to tell the Pentagon.

Ah, our ‘Defense’ Dept. protecting an official corporate welfare project…

A piece of flying junk that keeps underceeding projections and expectations while costing more and more.

Wonder where your taxes went? Just look at this POC.

The next-generation stealth fighter was flying from the Lockheed plant in Fort Worth, Texas to Nellis Air Force Base near Las Vegas on Monday afternoon, when a caution warning light came on, requiring the pilot to land at the nearest airport, said Lockheed spokesman Michael Rein.

He said the pilot landed safely. The second plane landed as planned at the Nevada air base, joining two other aircraft that arrived there last week, where they will be used for operational testing and evaluation of the new warplane.

A team of Lockheed maintenance experts was en route to examine the single-engine plane at the Lubbock airport, which is about 300 miles from Fort Worth, Rein said. It was not yet clear what caused the caution light to come on, he said.

With all the problems with the F-35, and the cost over-runs, the Pentagon said that they neither wanted, nor needed them. Now they’re fighting to keep the funding for them? This is what’s wrong with the Pentagon; they’re a relentless money pit that wastes valuable resources that could be used to help Americans in need!

Frank Kendall says the Pentagon and Services have adequate budget (in FY13-FY14 at least) to support the F-35.

Well, what precisely does this mean, “Support”? Is he saying there should be adequate budget in coming years to support procurement of only 19-20 F-35′s annually? Maybe 25x max? Or does it mean actually continue to support the inherently flawed Business model, which will require massive increases in Procurement budgets YoY for the next 10 years until they finally flatten out?

Sure, the Air Force could conceivably support acquisition of only 10x F-35s per year if they decided, but that would totally fail to fulfill requirements of the USAF to replace the retiring F-16s and let alone, the Program would NOT be sustainable as an affordable fighter acquisition (especially for allies) if the USAF will not be able to more than double Procurement budgets necessary to acquire the expected 80 +/- F-35A jets per year!

Lastly, no, the USAF and USN have NOT been able to adequately support Procurement budgets to date, as were originally expected, needed to procure originally estimated annual buy rates. And unfortunately, there is No evidence to show that there will be the ability of USAF, to name one, to more than double it’s Procurement budgets by around 2017 necessary to SUPPORT the Program’s sustainability.

The USAF needs to cut a deal with Congress and seek a reduced ‘avg’ combat aviation procurement budget estimate for the next 10 years, yes, unfortunately to include a clean-sheet, more sustainable strategy for TACAIR recapitalization. eg, New F-16s and possibly a mix of F-15E+ for the near-term (eg, FY15 to FY20), mixed with LO UCAV once they are proven… then transition over to a clean-sheet, more cost-effective, practical next-gen fighter design by the early-mid 20s. A design concept (yes, maybe common model, mutually acceptable, shared by Navy) which could be sustainable as a business model and relatively affordable even with as few as 20-30 units per year produced!

So very unfortunate, the whole unsustainable F-35 model fiasco, destined from Program inception. God speed.

Wish I had a dime for every time some clueless internerd calls the F-35 a “piece of flying junk”. I’d be richer than Bill Gates. But I guess ignorance is bliss.