Why? Built to hover, land on a carrier, and fly Mach 2.0 with an impressive array of weapons (up to four different missiles depending on the target) and electronic gear, the airplane has been plagued with problems primarily due to the fact that no one design can effectively perform all of the complex tasks of each service. General Dynamics has built about 4600 of the aircraft costing $100 million each after huge and continuing cost overruns.
It is supposed to fly at twice the speed of sound, but comes with a label on the control panel warning the pilot to fly supersonic in case of emergencies only. Hardly the label you expect to see in a robust jet intended for sustained combat operations. Then there are the switches; most combat aircraft make do with reliable mechanical switches. The designers choose to use touch screens, in keeping with its hyper-technical selling points. Tech is fine when it works, however pilots report the screens do not work 20% of the time, a rather annoying glitch when you have a supersonic enemy aircraft in your sights. The list of defects gets worse. The heat coating on the engine rotor blades is failing at a rate that keeps 5-6% of the US fleet grounded for replacement of the engines. The canopy bubble delaminates making the aircraft impossible to fly. So many have failed that the Pentagon had to fund a new canopy vendor. Canopies are not the only thing peeling on the F-35. One of its highly touted features, stealthy operation, is compromised by the special anti-radar coating flaking off at high speeds. The Navy version had problems with its tail hook for two years. The Marine STOL version is too heavy, and the duct work enabling hovering takes up room from missile storage. The jet has become the Ferrari of the Air Force--you only drive it on Sundays at a sedate speed.
The Pentagon solution to this embarrassing failure of an airplane? Build another "fifth generation" fighter, of course. This one will be more like the good "old" F-16. Hey, we have those already! Could not we update and modify a successful existing design? After all, the US still flies the B-52 and Russia still deploys the TU-95 "Bear", both designs that are over half a century old. NOT--too easy and cheap a solution for the generals who are riding the Pentagon gravy train fueled by overly ambitious designs, and planned obsolescence. Meanwhile™, we should ask the Russians and Chinese to only start a war on Sunday. [photo credit: Getty Images]
 |
| US defense contractors get 'golden showers' |