How Lockheed Martin Costs Taxpayers Big Money

[unhappycamper]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/02/20/lockheed-martins-f-35-is-costing-taxpayers



There are real savings to be had in ending the F-35 program.

How Lockheed Martin Costs Taxpayers Big Money
By Ryan Alexander
Feb. 20, 2014

If you are paying attention to the Winter Olympics, you may have read about the embarrassing debut of the Under Armour Mach 39 super suits American speed skaters were wearing in Sochi. Failure to produce even one speed skating medal for the Americans (despite a pretty talented and well-ranked team heading into the games) has Under Armour on the defensive – the company’s stock price even took a hit.

Critics are paying less attention to Under Armnour's high tech, aerodynamics partner, defense giant Lockheed Martin. But if you look at Lockheed Martin’s recent track record with the F-35, well on its’ way to becoming the most expensive plane in U. S. military history, you have to wonder why Under Armour wanted to partner with it in the first place.

The F-35’s failures go beyond its exorbitant cost. For a plane that is supposed to be stealthy, it is an order of magnitude louder than the planes it is replacing, particularly the short take-off and landing variant being tested for the Marine Corps. Software development for the plane has fallen behind schedule, as detailed in a recent report by the Pentagon’s Office of Test and Evaluation. This, in turn, has a negative impact on the ability to complete development and to flight test the initial combat software package prior to the Marine Corps’ stated desire to have operational aircraft in the last half of 2015.

In many ways, the F-35 was doomed from the start. The plane was originally conceived as a so-called “joint” development program with the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps, all looking to produce a next generation aircraft to replace, among others, the F-16, the F/A-18 and the AV-8B. And here is where the problems start. These three aircraft have vastly different capabilities, and these three military services have vastly different requirements.