The F-35 still has hundreds of problems the Pentagon has no plans on fixing

The beleaguered F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is still suffering from hundreds of unresolved design flaws, according to a new report from a non-governmental watchdog, dozens of which the Defense Department has "no plan" to ever correct.

The Joint Strike Fighter Program Office’s Deficiency Report Metrics, dated Feb. 28 and obtained by the Project On Government Oversight, indicates that the Pentagon is still dealing with roughly 883 design flaws, more than half of which remain "open, in dispute."

This designation means that "pilots or engineers believed they found a problem, but the contractors tasked with fixing the problems are claiming no problem exists," according to POGO.

“Defense companies are not run by people who care or marvel at the machines they make. “

Boeing and Space X were both given contracts to develop manned spaceships to supply the international space station. Space X has successfully delivered men to the station and brought them successfully back to earth in a reusable craft. Boeing has not. This despite the fact NASA contracted with Boeing for $90 million per astronaut per flight while Space X contracted for $50 million. Also despite the fact the original development contracts let by NASA paid $4.3 billion to Boeing and $2.5 billion for Space X. Boeing has become fat, wealthy, arrogant and complacent with its cozy contractual relationship with the federal government.

The day Boeing decided to move its headquarters from the Seattle area, where R&D and manufacturing take place, to Chicago should have been a wake up call that Boeing’s management is not involved in the day to day business of developing products, testing products, manufacturing products efficiently, and making customers happy. The debacle with the 737 Max shows a management team out of touch with its civilian business as well. The senior management team is focused on managing multimillion dollar stock options and bonus packages instead of running the business efficiently and effectively for its customers.

When your biggest customer, the federal government gives you favored treatment, doesn’t hold you accountable for mistakes, and hands you an open checkbook, the results are predictable. Likely the government contract writers are more concerned with Boeing’s diversity programs than the cost and effectiveness of the equipment they are buying.

What are you going to shoot cannons at anyway?

The plane is supposed to take over the A-10 ground support mission - so that would be bad guys on the ground shooting at our troops. Meanwhile, it was supposed to bomb and take out anti-access installation. Then it is also supposed to be a fighter, taking on planes like the SU-35. It was also supposed to be able to defend its self from enemy planes, after all its missiles are expended. So it has a 25mm cannon, but only 220 rounds at 3300 rounds/min.

Those were the missions it was originally designed for as a joint strike fighter. Before that it was just supposed to supplement the F-22 as a bomb truck. But the all the forces wanted one for their missions and so entered the committee - this one for the AF, that one for the Marines, and one for the Navy, each variation having more and more design changes and compromises. The Marine VTOL even requires special deck plating to be retrofit on ships, as the original plating would melt.

“What are you going to shoot cannons at anyway?”

VeniVidiVici, my thoughts on this: that would be many different targets, like PIF said. . .ground targets for one, though not as effective as the A-10, and also for the A/A environment the gun is needed.

Huge mistake made when the F-4 first came off the line because there was no gun. . then we quickly discovered we needed a gun for offensive/defense post merge.

Engineers all thought we no longer needed a gun because we had A/A missiles. While A/A missiles now are very effective and lethal, back in the day the A/A missiles were awful. A friend of mine, Col “Hands” Handley (RIP), his missiles all failed (https://theaviationgeekclub.com/how-a-usaf-f-4e-flying-at-mach-1-2-gun-killed-a-north-vietnamese-mig-19-scoring-the-worlds-only-supersonic-gun-kill/) & (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPLZazga4RM&t=4s), 5 min, 5-sec part , so he had to use his gun for the highest speed A/A gun kill ever (Mach 1.2).

And, of course, only so many missiles can be carried and while current tactics don’t plan on closing to the merge, we WILL be there because combat is fluid and unscripted and sometimes the enemy can slip through—do we need to relearn the lesson’s for the need for a gun?

Gun is needed because we never KNOW for sure what environment we will be operating in and in a target rich environment, that means we run out of missiles. . .don’t want to be caught without a gun.

We don’t have a successful history designing a common platform for cross service operations. . .for example, the F-111 was supposed to be for the Navy and Air Force and Navy F-4’s needed design changes the Air Force didn’t.

Thing is, great jets like the A-10 are supposed to be replaced by the JSF. Why? Budgets. You see, the JSF is supposed to be a multi-mission jet, whereas the A-10 is single mission. Ergo, according to civilians at the highest-level in the DoD, a multi-mission jet is a better use of bucks (versatile jet as opposed to a single-mission jet).

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.