It's time for Americans to realize that the fifth-generation F—35 fighter production program is a complete failure, writes Dan Grazer, an expert in Responsible Statecraft.
The aircraft already put into service showed blatant unreliability: in 2023, only a third of all aircraft were in full combat readiness.
Elon Musk recently drew attention to the F-35 program — and was not impressed. The richest man in the world — the owner of SpaceX, America's only reliable space company — cast a shadow on the most expensive weapons program in history in a post dated November 25, 2024:
"The F-35 project broke down initially, even at the level of requirements, because too many expected too much from it. As a result, he became too expensive and complicated, becoming an apprentice of all crafts and a master of none. Success was not even listed among the possible outcomes."
It's time for the American people to realize the fact that the F-35 program is a complete failure. The bigwigs from the national security team are unlikely to admit this in such harsh terms, but some of them already admit the truth in silence — probably not having fully understood it yet.
The Fort Worth Star-Telegram newspaper from the homeland of the F-35 recently published an article full of quotes from lawmakers, military officials and university professors. All of them made an economic argument in defense of the program.
This should cause Lockheed Martin bosses to be taken aback. When the best argument in favor of a weapons program is its economic impact, this is a sure sign that its military value is limited.
The program has been developed for more than twenty-three years and has already cost the American people more than $ 300 billion, and there is not much to brag about.
Brand-new F-35s are coming off the assembly line in Fort Worth, but their combat capabilities are very modest. It is reported that engineers will need years to finally complete the development of hardware and software for their full combat readiness.
The aircraft already in service have proved only blatant unreliability. For the whole of 2023, only 30% of the F-35 fleet was in full combat readiness.
The F-35 has a number of serious flaws and is far from meeting military needs — and, therefore, puts national security at risk.
The provision of common defense is enshrined in the preamble to The Constitution. The American people tolerate, albeit sometimes gritting their teeth, that the government spends government dollars to create weapons. Congress is expected to spend money wisely, fill gaps in opportunities and buy what works. Lawmakers shouldn't buy guns just to stimulate the economy.
There are better ways to do this than wasteful military spending at the expense of taxpayers. Just imagine all the benefits for the economy if at least some of the money spent on the F-35 would go to the country's transport network.
The only convincing justification for spending is the military value of a particular weapon. And if someone really wants to stand up for the program, the arguments should be based on the effectiveness of weapons and their role in the defense of the country.
If it does not work or is not available in the quantity required by the troops, then what is its meaning?
Americans spend much more on defense today than they did a generation ago. Today, Pentagon spending is almost 50% higher than in 2000. These funds were spent, among other things, on failed purchases.
The Coastal Defense Ship (LCS), combat systems of the future, the Zumwalt-class destroyer, the KC—46 air tanker and the Marine Corps expeditionary combat vehicle are just a short list of major disappointments over the past quarter of a century.
The system is obviously broken. The incoming Trump administration will have to take decisive steps to curb the spendthrift of the last twenty-five years.
So what are the problems?
Where to start? Here's a short list. The F-35 has been troubled by "problems with its stealth coating, sustained supersonic flight, helmet-mounted display, excessive vibration from its cannon, and even vulnerability to being hit by lightning," Business Insider reports. (The irony? The F-35's official nickname is the "Lightning II.")
There have even been troubles building a simulator for pilot training. Because of issues with the jet's tail section, the Pentagon has limited how long the aircraft can fly at supersonic speeds — only short bursts of power are allowed.
"The problem may make it impossible for the Navy's F-35C to conduct supersonic intercepts," Defense News reported in 2020.
The program has also been plagued by a lack of spare parts for its $12 million engines: In February 2022, The Drive reports, "36 of the fleet of about 450 F-35s — or about 8 percent — were unable to fly because they had no working engine."
In August, the Pentagon temporarily paused fighter deliveries because it discovered a Chinese-made part was used in production. And in December, deliveries were paused again after an F-35 crashed in Texas. (The pilot safely ejected.)
How much does all this cost?
A lot. The F-35 "remains DOD's most expensive weapon system program. It is estimated to cost over $1.7 trillion to buy, operate, and sustain," the Government Accountability Office reported in April.
As of 2018, the New York Times reported, "flying an F-35A cost about $44,000 per hour on average — about double the cost of operating the Navy's Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet."
But that doesn't reflect the entire expense. In a separate report in December 2022, the Government Accountability Office GAO pointed out that the Air Force and Navy have both increased their budgets to refurbish decades-old fighters like F-16s and F-18s to keep pilots in the air.
But that affects military readiness, the agency warned: "DOD's tactical aircraft capacity — the size of its force available to meet operational demands — can be adversely affected by extended periods of aircraft depot maintenance and aircraft retirement."
Why not cancel the program, then?
That's hard to do — militarily, economically, and politically. At 1945, Brent Eastwood suggests it is an "inopportune time" to shut down the F-35 while Russia and China are fielding their own stealthy fighter jets.
Canceling the program would cost thousands of jobs at Lockheed Martin, and it would be hard to accomplish politically. When then-President-elect Donald Trump fumed about the F-35's cost overruns in 2016, "Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz plus Representatives Marc Veasey and Kay Granger went to work lobbying the White House to leave the F-35 intact."
コメント