Faulty F-35s limp to Yuma's Operational Test Community

From a reader in relation to the Yuma fraud:

The funny thing is that all 3 jets hobbled to Yuma, yet were envisioned last month by Amos to arrive together for this ceremony. He even wanted 2 of them to perform a slow landing and a vertical landing, respectively, for the press and Sen McCain. That was vetoed by the test community as they have no test instrumentation with which to telemeter data to ground test stations (which Yuma doesn't have, either). Enough STOVL things still have a limited life on them or can't be trusted without external monitoring, yet "probation" was cleared??? Oh, and the Yuma pilots were not qualified in Mode 4 STOVL operations, either. Details.

Only 1 jet was ready last week, so off it went from Fort Worth with its KC-130 tanker (TX to AZ w/o weapons...tell me about the great range again...) and an F-18 chase plane. The "operational" F-35B still can't squawk an IFF code, thus part of the reason for the F-18 chase. The F-35B encountered clutch heating problems before the halfway point, and was forced to a lower altitude to open up a cooling envelope where the clutch cooling fan could be used. Sounds like the clutch drag problem isn't quite as solved as LM and the USG have told us. Be advised that none of this involved converting to STOVL inflight, it was merely cruising in CTOL-type mode at 20K feet.

The second and third jets were to deliver together today. Alas, one had a flight control problem and had to abort. So one went on its own with its KC-130 and F-18 to Yuma. As it held for the ceremonial arrival, it lost all nav systems. So elegant.

The third one departed hours later after having undergone emergency maintenance (any pressure to perform on a day like today??!!!). And yes, it too had its own KC-130 and F-18 chase. It had yet to arrive and some press releases already stated that 3 jets were on the ramp at Yuma. That's our beloved press, to include the cut and paste aerospace press beholden to their advertisers - as you have pointed out so well, Eric. Can't wait to hear about the state of F-35B #3 when it arrived at Yuma.

Operational...hmmm, I don't think so

LM Buzz

What are the the chances DOD LM Buzz could "report" accurately about the F-35 Yuma Fraud?

Not so good.

They have advert dollars to chase you know:

(click image to make larger)

RICO flight lands at Yuma

While there is no hard proof that Lenin said it, the term "useful idiots" applies to some of the F-35 fan-base.

For the rest, I suspect fraud is the justification to harness taxpayers to fund a faulty and obsolete weapon system that a country over $16T in the red can ill afford.

Much of the pro-F-35 publicity efforts are stitched up with faith-based arguements, hearsay and meme-theory all rolled up into a thana-marketing package which will hurt DOD combat readiness.

For years.

Consider the lastest effort by the cheerleaders at Second Line of Defense (SLD). Their "Gold Sponsor", Lockheed Martin, also the maker of the troubled F-35, want you to believe that delivering F-35B (short take-off and landing variant) Joint Strike Fighters to Yuma, Arizona is a good thing for the United States Marketing Corps.

The USMC leadership is using the same kind of plan that they used to field the MV-22 Osprey: market, hype, market, and get a woefully undertested aircraft to an operational test squadron as soon as possible.

The F-35B is not ready.

The mission software for the aircraft is not ready. The helmet and its visual cueing, (the aircraft has no heads-up-display) is not ready. The logistics system for maintenance people is not ready. The flight envelop is not fully expanded. There are no working weapons. This would entail a wide range of clearance scenarios and hitting actual air and surface targets.

SLD's big problem with being a zombie marketer of the Joint Strike Failure is that the U.S. DOD just handed an operational test squadron a non-ready aircraft. Operational test squadrons are supposed to figure out how to use a weapon for war and write up the procedure for operational training so other training squadrons have a solid (and safe) training program.

All that is pretty hard to do when the development testers are far from finished. Hard to work on tactics when you are just trying to make the aircraft work.

What we have is another piece of the puzzle of the F-35 fraud:

Produce the appearance of capability; meet "milestones" to get big pay-days and for the military leadership, advance your career.

At any cost.

I am curious when Congress--who have run out of other-peoples money to spend--will realise that their shift to the Pacific is depending on what the U.S. Justice Department and FBI in their world would call: "a criminal enterprise"?

Pinning the RICO Statute on all of this is not hard to do.

As America's combat readiness gets worse because its' "Department of Defense" buys a long line of dud combat systems (LCS, F-35, DDX, obsolete carrier air wings, amphibs with no well-deck, etc) the best strategy for the U.S. is to avoid war because we are not capable of winning.

And, propaganda from the likes of SLD won't improve that situation.

Stryker--legacy of lies -- Logistics

The Stryker used by the U.S. Army is a fraud of the highest order.

If you thought the protection and air mobility videos were interesting, consider the logistics issues surrounding this nonsense:

Chapter 6: Logistics-

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8


----------

Stryker--legacy of lies--protection

Stryker--legacy of lies -- air mobility

Stryker--legacy of lies -- air mobility

Hopefully you enjoyed the low tech presentation on the defective Stryker in relation to survivability.

The whole program was a con-artist dream by former and serving military and industry.

Enjoy this installment which shows you how the Stryker failed all of its critical air mobility requirements.

Chapter 5 - Air Mobility

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Making ready for the rent-seekers

SLD continues with its' propaganda campaign which imagines value in the F-35 program.

All this....


And...

Operational testing is nowhere near realized.

A tremendous waste.

SMH-Defence gear gone, public pays the bill

This article shows how the gap from negligence to conflict-of-interest to fraud is easily bridged when no useful oversight or enforcement is in place.

The Defence Integrated Distribution Services contract caused controversy in 2001 when then defence minister Peter Reith cancelled the original tender process and gave six bidders $1 million each to re-submit claims. In 2002, Mr Reith's successor, Robert Hill, announced Tenix-Toll as the preferred tenderer. Mr Reith was working as a consultant for Tenix at the time, having not contested the 2001 election.

Good reporting.

Giving to those that do not need charity

The current, gullible, Australian leadership gave Indonesia some C-130s for free. Part of the justification was that they could help with border security.

This is an effort by the current Australian leadership to give the impression that they are doing something about the illegal boat arrivals, even if they aren't doing anything (worth-while) about the problem.

Indonesia already has C-130s and most likely intends not to use the ones gifted by the Australian taxpayer for the use imagined by a nutty Australian leadership that has helped balloon national debt to $158B and counting.

In other news; while we are giving stuff to Indonesia that they can easily buy for themselves, they are purchasing used main-battle tanks, new submarines, fighter aircraft and a recent spend on these:

Don't hate the player.

Hate the game.

The concurrency fraud

For the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and U.S. Air Force the tac-air mess known as the "fighter-gap", was totally avoidable.

The fighter-gap is based on the idea that the military has not bought enough aircraft to support operations into the future years. Fighter aircraft are getting old and so on. Yet, the responsibility for this problem rests on the shoulders of the military. It is senior leadership's fault and no-one else.

The military believed the F-35 concurrency lie. That is that the F-35 could be built cheap in high numbers, early and any development problems along the way would be fixed up. The risks in relation to the complexity of the program were waved away with a can-do attitude or ignored.

If the F-35 program was built without that concurrency nightmare that deeply worries the current DOD F-35 program manager, there would be less risk. The people that have been consistently accurate (for years) about these risks--The Government Accounting Office (GAO)--even told us so.

Counting airframes, motors and military construction, in procurement dollars alone, the F-35 program from U.S. fiscal year budget 2007 to 2012, will have cost us $29.2B.

Instead, the Navy could have used their $14B to procure 186 extra Block II Super Hornets. Probably several more if they could commit to only buying single-seaters. Combined with their existing multi-year buy, most of the legacy Hornets on our big aircraft carriers could have been replaced.

Instead of buying LRIP F-35 mistake-jets, the USAF could have used their $15B to procure 214 F-16s.

The USMC? Their Harriers are good to go until around 2023-24. Oh, they didn't tell you that?

Once F-16 and F-18 numbers got up to reasonable health, low-rate production of both the F-16 and F-18 could continue. No fighter-gap.

And the F-35? It would still be in development. Until it was mature enough for production.

Early assumptions on the F-35 program from the dumb as a brick crowd

Visual tricks with colors are fun. Just not so much when it is the DOD and industry trying to pull one over on a gullible Congress so as to get your money.

Take a look at these very interesting Joint Strike Fighter graphics pulled from 1997 and 2001 briefings.

The look at the first one from 1997 and ponder it for a bit.

Then take a look at the one from 2001. Notice how the colors change for production and operation and sustainment costs yet the physical position of the bars don't change a lot.

What it looks like is as it got closer to the time where Congress had to make a decision, the numbers for earlier spending (R&D and procurement) had to look smaller; a lot smaller.

Interesting how O&S shot up. But hey, that is later and can be creatively covered by several colors of money.

How many ways can the Pentagon waste your money?

Good grief. The waste.

And; a little historical reference...

"We all have to recognize that we have to cinch up our belts, and we haven't done that in a decade."

-Admiral Mullen-

A good summary by CDR Salamander:

"Don't get me wrong - I like nice displays ... but ... do you know how much work a taxpayer has to do in order to pay for this? How many taxpayers it takes? Money that does not go to their children so it can go to Uncle Sam instead? Have we pondered how many cars you can buy for that."

And having seen some things myself, I don't think this is just a Navy problem.

Buying worthless defense platforms...continued

Before someone cries a river about the defense industry they may want to buy a clue.

The Navy will have to mothball more than 60 ships including two carrier battle groups, while the Air Force will have to substantially reduce the procurement of the F-35 which is supposed to be our bread-and-butter fighter for decades to come; the F-35 variants intended for use on amphibious assault ships and aircraft carriers will most likely be cancelled altogether. Cutting all these programs will result in even more job losses—the report projects at least 25 percent of the civilian defense workforce will have to be furloughed, resulting in the elimination of 200,000 jobs.

With our limited money situation, why should we fund things like the faulty F-35 that take money away from real dominating platforms?

The strategic stupidity is amazing.

But yeah, close down the F-22 line. The kind of stupidity displayed is destroying our defense posture.

Under-skilled bureaucrats bag big bounty

Over-paid.

Beyond their capability. And where is the performance to back up the pay level?

Five of Australia's most senior public servants are expected to be granted pay rises of between $250,000 and $300,000 to bring them into line with other public service bosses and high-flying corporate executives.

Current salary packages for the new Chief of the Defence Forces, the Tax Commissioner, the Auditor-General, the Chief of Customs and the Australian Statistician are expected to be boosted soon beyond their current $500,000 a year to $800,000 in line with recent rises granted to corporate regulators.

Funny, as I know people of worth that earn a lot less. They did it themselves and didn't need a government hand-out.

Home grown subs could be a $70B nightmare

It is funny to read the words from the rent-seeking crowd.

Actually it is not. We have heard the pitch of the Ponzi scheme before.

This is the cousin to the industry that can't build common warships without goofing it up. In partner of course with the entrenched Defence bureaucracy. Most of the money the rent-seekers talk about comes from you the taxpayer; or they dream it will anyway.

This idea of building home-grown subs needs to be shut down. Home industry is great; when it is based on realistic goals. When it is not, it does more damage to the defence posture of this nation than an enemy by burning up limited defense dollars.

And, they would rather have a faulty product tied up to a dock instead of something that works; off the shelf. These people do not have the defence of the nation in mind; even if they pretend they do.

Rico Gates and his great air power knowledge failure

Different day. Same thing. Gates is still clueless about air power.

"The nation must field the F-35 joint strike fighter at a cost that permits large enough numbers to replace the current fighter inventory and maintain a healthy margin of superiority over the Russians and Chinese."

Here is some additional reading for you and your replacement Mr. Gates.

What the U.S. Navy needs are frigates (sorry Mr. Work)

Last week a British destroyer (more frigate than destroyer) had to use its main gun in a fight. The weapon is similar to the kind of gun on other frigates and not just destroyers.

The RN engaged low tech targets using a low cost and effective weapon; a weapon size that the dysfunctional Littoral Combat Ship (the great hope of the Navy) will never see. The Littoral Combat Ship has a small pea-shooter and if the mission packages arrive someday, maybe some overly expensive missiles that won’t bring value to taking out pirates and third-rate threats.

China has claimed they are not out to trump the U.S. Navy. Depending on if you believe that or not, certainly the Littoral Combat Ship is not the answer for that threat either.

Frigates (the kind that don’t pretend to be destroyers) are cost-effective and can carry a helicopter and are generally useful for a variety of work the U.S. Navy will face.

Hunting pirates with aircraft carriers, cruisers and even destroyers is money we can ill afford to spend. The U.S. Navy budget needs a serious realignment. One that is more practical to our real needs. When looking at the kind of work the U.S. Navy is likely to do, there just is no use for the gold-plated and faulty Littoral Combat Ship.