Operation: THIN AIR

Good analysis which counters the recent false-flag of  lower  F-35 operating cost claims by the U.S. DOD program boss, General Bogdan.

Then there is USMC Air Fraud:

The Marine Corps has also radically changed its F-35 operations to claim lower costs. Lt. Gen. Robert Schmidle, deputy Marine Corps commandant for aviation, told Reuters that the Marines would fly their F-35Bs “in STOVL mode just 10 percent of the time, far less often than the 80 percent rate factored into the initial estimates.”

This is a stunning statement, and one that contradicts all the arguments that the Marine Corps has used to justify the F-35B STOVL variant. It also shows the lengths the Corps has to go to show it can afford to buy and operate the F-35.

If STOVL is needed only 10% of the time, then it is, at best, a secondary capability, and is no longer enough to justify the F-35B variant’s exorbitant cost, both in terms of acquisition ($153 million, without engine, in LRIP Lot 5) and of operations ($41,000 per flight hour).

So, the taxpayer just poured billions into the dubious capability of U.S. STOVL jet ops for little gain. Gee thanks. More likely that the F-35B--when finished--will have a mission capability rate (MC rate) of 10 percent. Then this:

Schmidle also told Reuters that the Marines would “trim maintenance costs by doing up to 90 percent of the work in house, rather than farming it out to contractors.”

Good luck with that. That is the exact opposite of the F-35 business plan (including the USAF plan) and is not "joint" with the rest of the F-35 user family. Also, of interest will be observing how they change the F-35B's $27M jet-engine on-board ship.

The article brings more questions into this fraud by the timing. These overly optimistic DOD claims could be used as F-35 program back-fill because of the recent reporting that the jet lost as a replacement fighter in Korea . Odd since there isn't a complete jet to evaluate and fly. Also odd that these lower operating cost claims came out during a recess on the Hill.

So, again, with no real go-to-war operating systems on the jet, the F-35 program office and fan-base are using spin to help their cause.

Historically, that is the only reliable performance for the F-35 program; 12 years after contract award.






---

-Time's Battleland - 5 Part series on F-35 procurement - 2013 
-Summary of Air Power Australia F-35 points
-Aviation Week (ARES blog) F-35 posts (2007 to present)
-U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) F-35 reports
-F-35 JSF: Cold War Anachronism Without a Mission
-History of F-35 Production Cuts
-Looking at the three Japan contenders (maneuverability)
-How the Canadian DND misleads the public about the F-35
-Value of STOVL F-35B over-hyped
-Cuckoo in the nest--U.S. DOD DOT&E F-35 report is out
-6 Feb 2012 Letter from SASC to DOD boss Panetta questioning the decision to lift probation on the F-35B STOVL.
-USAFs F-35 procurement plan is not believable
-December 2011 Australia/Canada Brief
-F-35 Key Performance Perimeters (KPP) and Feb 2012 CRS report
-F-35 DOD Select Acquisition Report (SAR) FY2012
-Release of F-35 2012 test report card shows continued waste on a dud program
-Australian Defence answers serious F-35 project concerns with "so what?"
-Land of the Lost (production cut history update March 2013)
-Outgoing LM F-35 program boss admits to flawed weight assumptions (March 2013)


---