It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The 2018 report from the Pentagon's operational testing and evaluation arm, set for public release this week and obtained early by Bloomberg's Tony Capaccio, indicates that ongoing reliability issues have drastically shortened the service life far below expectations, so far that there's "no improving trend in" available aircraft for training and combat missions — a dangerous combination for a perpetually buggy aircraft.
Lockheed Martin's CEO pushed back on the criticism during a call with investors, stating that, "If they chose to have an order on F-15 … it won't be at the expense of F-35 quantities," per the Washington Post : "I'm hearing that directly from the leadership in the Pentagon … not just our suspicion, but I've been told that directly. So I'm not concerned about that."
and
,-The service life of the F-35B variants adopted by the Marine Corps "may be as low as 2100 [hours]," an eye-popping shortfall compared too the expected service life of 8,000 hours.
-"Interim reliability and field maintenance metrics to meeting planned 80% goal not being met," which means fewer aircraft available to actually train on and, therefore, increased barriers to improving readiness among aviators.You
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Fools
The platform in the article is the b model.
originally posted by: Fools
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Fools
The platform in the article is the b model.
I have read similar issues with the A and C model in the past. Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35 is a great aircraft. I just think that the idea that it could be everything to everyone is dumb. And these issues are the result of that sort of thinking.
originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight
Basically. The whole concurrency thing was destined to fail on a program this complicated. It has been an expensive failure. There is all sorts of valid reasons to be critical of how it is being or has been run. It just seems that a lot of the loudest critics are ill -informed, deliberately misrepresent, draw unusual conclusions from information available, or are just naive.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Fools
There's a reason the early 787s were dubbed "The Terrible Teens". As others have said, it's not a huge issue. It would be nice to be past the point where people freak out about it, but the management of this program has been ridiculous, and here we are.