« Is Industry Influence at the FDA Putting Women at Risk? The Case of the Yasmin Advisory Committee | Main | Morning Smoke: Taxpayers on the Hook for $20 Billion in Fees to Wall Street for Bad Swaps »

Jan 13, 2012


Womens Steel Toe Boots

For something that looks so "beautiful" yet carries so much destructive power is quite ironical. One would think that if there are issues that need to be "retrofitted" to make it work properly that the supplier should pay to make their product perform as advertised?

Richard McGinnis

"Much of the most difficult testing remains, during which there is a high likelihood deficiencies that will have to remedied—that can increase cost and schedule delays—will be found."

Thank you for your oversite POGO,

Susan Christ

Well. Aside from the TRILLION DOLLAR TAXPAYER TAB, it sure looks pretty.

It's time to tighten the belts just like the rest of America, - get better at what you do - stop contracting out so much and maybe we could afford it - eh? Plus, the Osprey is a pile of junk as well and you folks keep wasting money on a poor functioning, costly, limited use item!!! Cha-ching!$$$ Maybe HAARP needs their budget cut too.

Tired of paying your wasted $$$ bills while Americans go hungry, have no medical care, can't complete college, NO JOBS for graduates, no $$$ to buy food because our public schools funding was cut by 'mistake'!!!

It's time to stop thinking Americans are stupid and act like you work for America instead of the corporate-industrial complex.

TC Taylor

This is yet-another-failed-weapons-system we cannot afford. If they took the Congressional Pork & Giveaways out of this plane it would weigh several tons less. Why can't our Federal Government, ie, the President and/or Congress, kill this thing? Wasted money and time, like the wars we don't need.

Robyn Ryan

The Air Force, and to a lesser extent the Navy, have had an unhealthy fixation on the 'fighter' platform since Wilber Creech.

The Air Force, under Merrill McPeak, divested itself of every other role, or attempted to transfer the mission to the fighter platform. McPeak's favorite saying was "The Air Force mission is to put bombs on target."

Prior to Creech, that mission was accomplished with platforms designated as 'bombers.' Post McPeak, 'strike fighters' not 'bombers' were assigned that role.

"Strike fighters' are obsolete.

If a platform with sex appeal is deemed necessary, let's return to the mounted cavalry. With sabers.

Just as sexy, but the 'warrior' has to kill face-to-face.

Willy Roentgen

"A high level of concurrency means large numbers of aircraft are being bought before the aircraft’s design is mature . . ."
That's not the way I read it. The aircraft are being built (not just bought) before the design has been thoroughly tested and any necessary re-design accomplished. In other words, expensive fixes or rework will probably be needed with the associated cost increases and schedule delays. A risky strategy.

Peter Goon


One of the things that we at Air Power Australia (APA) have observed over the years is that when anyone directly associated with and being responsible/accountable for the JSF Program has talked about the deficiencies, defects and the many risks that have now materialised on the aircraft and in the program, itself, and the related issues/problems these have generated, the words used have nearly always seemed somewhat convoluted.

In fact, at many if not most times, the words can be seen to be so convoluted as to being very much open to various interpretations which can be misleading, if not deceptive.

This was especially so during the formative years of the program and remains the case, programmatically, within pretty much all the program governance organisations from the Congress down, except for the JSF PEO which, since circa 2011, seems now to be taking a slightly different tack.

The other thing we have observed is that those with independent oversight of this program (e.g. GAO, CRS and, since Dr Michael Gilmore took up his current appointment, the DOT&E) use language that is quite pithy when reporting on the same circumstances and related issues/problems as well as the many, now materialising risks identified and advised by independent experts quite early in the program.

Like his previous reports on the JSF, this report from the DOT&E is very, very pithy.

One of the many such pithy statements which should strike a coherent chord with everyone who seeks what is right and what is best for the defense and security of America and its allies can be found imbedded in the right hand column of Page 34 of the report:

“...the F-35 Program...is not on track to meet operational effectiveness or operational suitability requirements...[of] the JSF Operational Requirements Document, which was re-validated in 2009".


Peter Goon
Head of T&E
Air Power Australia


The comments to this entry are closed.