5 Reasons Why Our F-35s Are Too Dangerous to Fly

The F-35 has been around as long as global warming. The aircraft had its origin in the Joint Advanced Strike Technology (JAST) program started by the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy in 1993. The word “Strike” in the designation of this program indicates that it was oriented toward developing a light bomber. The following year, the JAST program absorbed the Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter program and a separate short take-off/vertical landing program. This became the Joint Strike Fighter program, with the aim of producing a common airframe and engine across the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and U.S. Marine Corps. This aircraft was claimed to be 20 percent cheaper to acquire and operate than legacy aircraft such as the F-16. That was the intent. Lockheed Martin won the flyoff against Boeing in 2001.

Many years then passed. The production prototype F-35 first flew in 2006.

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    Since the entire F-35 program is draped in F.U.D. (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) and they are so damn expensive, convert what’s left of them to “Wild Weasel” mission and call it a day. It’s too expensive and has had too protracted of a development cycle as this aircraft was supposed to be in service over a decade ago.

    If you (as a friendly foreign government) want a ground attack aircraft we can sell you fully reconditioned A-10s for a fraction of the cost of an F-35 that is cheap enough to fly and easy enough to to maintain and will be combat ready for the next few decades.

    If you need a fighter, any of our 4th-4.5 generation fighters can be had under the same conditions and nobody you (you friendly foreign governments that is) are likely to ever fight will have anything better.
    One F-35 will run you between 181 million and 252 million, depending on options.

    You can have 2 A-10s, 1 F-15E, and 1 F-18G, and two F-16s for that same money and be neigh unstoppable on the modern battlefield.

    • V10_Rob

      Sounds like a plan. Literally more bang for the buck.

    • El Martyachi

      The super hornet makes a fair bit of sense for us.

  • Ron MacDonald

    The F-35 is now landing on aircraft carriers, When production starts on a large scale the price will come down. Once it is in service Russian or Chinese fighter aircraft won’t be able to touch it.

  • andycanuck

    Why do we care? Justin’s cancelling them.

    • Clausewitz

      That’s what Liberals do. Wonder how much money cancelling that contract will cost the taxpayers. Remember those helicopters the Liberals cancelled that cost us about $500 million.

  • Spatchcocked

    Still serviceable enough to lay eggs on Isis I warrant……

  • FactsWillOut

    The F-35 is supposed to be part of an “integrated strike force”, ie a NATO weapon, not a weapon for a sovereign nation.
    Canada should go for Super Hornets.

  • Micky C.

    It’s a pity these were such a money hole. I think once we were in for a penny, we were in for a pound. With current and future drone technology, single seat fighters are now redundant. Not to mention cheaper to have an NCO fly a computer than a fully trained pilot with a bum in the seat. Our money would have been better spent on some C-17’s, V-22’s and some helicopters along with a smattering of recon and ordnance delivering drones.

  • Hard Little Machine

    Keeping in mind of course that the other candidate, the Boeing X-32 lost because it ‘looked ugly’ and for little else. Granted it’s a weird looking plane but it outperformed the F-35 in nearly every category.