America's Super-Expensive F-35 Fleet Is Grounded

No worries. Once Windows 8 comes out, all of these bugs will be fixed.

For that you would need Service pack 4.

Maybe we finally built a weapon to expensive to use? How many of these equals a James Webb telescope?

Who knows? Both the JWT and the F-35 are not fully deployed. The JWT is a unique instrument so it has a high non-recoverable engineering (NRE) cost that has so far spent $3 Billion. So to compare the yet to be determined production cost of an F-35 ($122 million to $150 million depending on version) without including the growing $54 Billion development cost is an unfair comparison. Oh, I almost forgot the F-35A requires a $180 million weapons system. So if you grant NASA their requested additional JWT money to about $6 Billion, the price of the first F-35 prototype would pay for 10 JWT caliber complete NASA programs.

Fredski, I agree with you wholeheartedly. GA from me!

I'm not a big fan of the F-35 program from an engineering standpoint. Never was. If ever there was a boondoggle that program is. And the escalating costs do help it's cause at all.

You would have thought that Uncle Sammie would have learned from the TFX program (F-111) of the mid-60's that good old McNamara tried to push down everyone's throat. Problem was that it didn't fit! LOL He was trying to make that plane a Jack of all Trades as well by forcing the USN and the USAF to share a plane with commonality. I was just kid back then (DOB 1958), but the first time I saw a plastic model of one I fell in love with it! Besides, my uncle, a F-105 pilot always was talking about the new F-111 as if it was made of fairy dust! LOL

Problem with today's weapons programs, especially aircraft, is that there is no true competition between US aircraft manufacturers anymore like back during the Cold War. Once the Berlin Wall came down, the Soviet Union dissolved, and we crushed Saddam's regime during Desert Storm (Gulf War I) the very solvent US aircraft corporations gobbled up the lesser ones, all at Uncle Sam's wink and a nod. Whatever happened to breaking up monopolies? The way things are going is a great disservice to the US Taxpayer...

Yes, we need more F-22 Raptors, together with upgraded and stealthier variants of the trusty F-16 Fighting Falcon and A-10 Thunderbolt II, plus continue on with the F-18E/F Super Hornet program and future development. Hells bells, I would love to see a new version of the old Republic F-105 Thunderchief that was built out on Long Island...that was one hell of a workhorse, just that it had short "legs". Also, bring back the an updated version of the fantastic Grumman F-14D Tomcat!!!!

What is sad is that the reporter has no sense of grammar or spelling.

wasting trillions of dollars is the current modus operandi of America.

Wow, yet another crappy 'Gee Wiz" GizWad article, and the writer didn't even do a spell check to boot!? Why do we keep getting these articles pasted into the forum? They're as useful as "T*ts on a bull"....

In regard to the problems of the F-35. That's to be expected with any new weapons system, as there are always "teething" problems. Let us not forget that the F-35 program is still in the testing phase, and not truly operational yet.....ie, not combat certified and in front line units.

All one has to do is look back at McNamara's boondoggle of the 60's, the TFX program, aka the F-111 Aardvark, the first combat operational swing wing fighter. At first, trying to make a common airframe for both the USN (the F-111B) and the USAF (F-111A) seemed like a great way to save money, but it was not practical in the end for the Navy due to weight restrictions, engine thrust issues (w/ the TF-30), and aircraft size....hence the Grumman F-14 Tomcat program was born, and as we all know it became one hell of more capable Fleet defense aircraft then the cancelled F-111B could ever have been. But, let us not beat-up on the F-111A altogether and not forget that the F-111A was initially plagued by technical problems from the get-go (like the loss, for unknown reasons, of several A/C over N. Viet Nam late in the war...possible failure of the Titanium wing box or terrain following radar failures are thought to be the cause), yet what eventually emerged was a very capable and wonderful medium fighter-bomber and strategic bomber (SAC's FB-111A, aka, the SACVARK, my personal favorite.....if you're not familiar with it please check it out by Googling the FB-111A websiteit...they were once based at Plattsburgh AFB in NY, and at Pease AFB in NH). Ahhhh I could tell you some great tales about my encounters with SACVARKS low level flying terrain following missions over the North Country (Adirondack Mtn's) of NYS back in the 70's, 80's, and early 90's while fishing or backpacking through the High Peaks region!!!! One hell of an airplane and I sorely miss them. At least the Aussies had the good sense to keep their F-111C's and buy our retired FB-111A's (later designated F-111G)!!!! Way to go Oz!!!

Frankly. I personally think that the designers of this F-35 aircraft were overreaching and made the damn thing too complicated and prone to mechanical failures. The three aircraft (F-16, F-18 & AV-8B Harrier) that it's suppose to sub-plant were battle-proven, simple, easily maintainable, and relatively cheap to build. We should have gone that route and designed newer, more effective, and much cheaper clones of those aircraft...all one has to do is look at the USN/USMC F-18E/F Super Hornet, which is an improvement on the older F/A-18 Hornet design, though really a new airframe that was designed back in the late 80's. Even if it is not "Stealthy" like the new F-35 it is however a very capable fighter/fighter bomber, and a hell of lot less costly too...so we can have more of them in the fleet.

IMO, I still think that Congress was foolhardy to kill the F-22 Raptor program as the current fleet of F-15C Eagles and F-15E Strike Eagles (became combat operational the first time during Desert Shield, Fall of '90...21 years ago, when they were deployed to Saudi Arabia) are rapidly growing older by the minute. Also, the F-35 in no way can fill the shoes of the F-15 or the F-22.

Just my 2 Cents for what it's worth, now that USA's Bond Rating has been downgraded from AAA to AA (+?)....

Signed, a "Zoomie at heart" since I was a kid....

us

I agree whole heartedly that the F-22 is an exquisite plane that will stay well ahead of other air superiority aircraft for some time. It will be able to maintain air superiority over virtually any air space for quite awhile. I also believe that the 187 total planned planes are insufficient to maintain this superiority for the quite some time. But as we are again seeing in Afghanistan and Iraq commanding the air does not guarantee controlling the ground. Not controlling the air makes any other military objective many times more difficult, so I'm very glad to have this bird in our arsenal. We need more cost effective planes designed for ground support that can haul larger volumes of munitions where needed on the ground. Instead of a real lower cost A-10, B-52 or even AC-130 Spectre gunship, we're getting this apparently cost out of control F-35 that is designed to do all things for all players. A Jack of all trades tool never performs as well or better than a tool designed for that specific job. Every time I see the confused mission purpose and skyrocketing price tag for the F-35 I see nothing but waste.

Getting back to the F-22, I have no problem with Lockheed Martin pursuing a true upgrade to the F-22 in five to ten years, the F-22A maybe.