RAND 4 (National Defense Research Inst., http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9066/index1.html) JPG
While generally not redundant within NASA, a few of the NASA facilities’ capabilities are redundant with those of facilities maintained by the Department of Defense (DoD). Whether these redundancies amount to the “unnecessary duplication” of facilities prohibited by the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 was beyond the study’s scope. Further analysis of technical, cost, and availability issues is required to determine if consolidation and right-sizing across NASA and DoD would provide a net government savings. NASA should work with DoD to analyze the viability of such a national reliance plan because it could affect the determination of the future minimum set of facilities NASA must continue to support.
The F-35 hasn’t been through enough test flights and has an increased risk of crashing. Gertler 11( Jermiah, Specialist in Military aviation, 4/26, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) Program:
Background and Issues for Congress, pg 25)
In its annual report to Congress on DOD programs, the Office of Operational Testing & Evaluation (DOT&E)stated that due to late deliveries of 10 of 13 test aircraft, F-35 flight testing “accomplished only 16 of 168 flight test sorties planned for FY09,” and characterized the test plan as having substantial schedule risk. While giving credit for “a comprehensive, robust, and fully funded Live Fire test plan,” DOT&E also noted “the removal of shutoff fuses for engine fueldraulics lines, coupled with the prior removal of dry bay fire extinguishers [to save weight], has increased the likelihood of aircraft combat losses from ballistic threat induced fires.”94
F-35 have been dealing with tech setbacks Mcglaun 11 (Shane, Staff @ Daily Tech, 3/14, http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Fleet+Grounded+After+InFlight+Generator+Failure+Oil+Leaks/article21123.htm)
The problem-plagued F-35 JSF program has been dealt another setback with an in-flight failure of the power generator and an oil leak on the same aircraft during the flight. The pilot of the aircraft dubbed AF-4 was able to safely land the aircraft. Reuters reports that the entire fleet of ten F-35 aircraft has been grounded pending an investigation into what caused the leak and power generator failure during the test flight. The aircraft was flying out of Edwards Air Force Base in southern California at the time of the incident according to Lockheed spokesman John Kent.
Multiple tech failures for the F-35 Trimble 11( Stephen, Staff @ FlightGlobal, 11/3, http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/11/354281/in-flight-failure-leads-to-f-35-grounding.html)
This is the second grounding order for the F-35 in six months. On 1 October, a software problem discovered in simulations caused the programme to park the test fleet for several days. If not fixed, that glitch could have allowed a fuel pump to shut down at altitudes over 10,000ft. At the same time as fuel pump problem was discovered, a weakness was also found in the hinge of the lift-fan auxiliary air inlet for the F-35B short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) variant. That problem forced Lockheed to halt all vertical landing tests for more than two months. But the generator failure and oil leak on AF-4 marks the first in-flight issue for a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) variant since the 19 test flight in May 2007 by the AA-1 test aircraft. That issue also involved a power system failure. An electrical short disabled the flight controls in the horizontal stabilizer, but former chief test pilot Jon Beesley landed the aircraft without incident. Lockheed also has had problems before with the generator on the carrier-based version of the F-35. In 2007, Lockheed acknowledged the generator was sized to support only 65% of the power requirement for the F-35C.
The F-35 continues to have delays, an d will for the next few years Bennett 11 (John T, Staff @ The Hill, 4/10, http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/defense-homeland-security/155107-pentagon-examining-delay-of-nuclear-capable-f-35-variant)
To bridge the gap to the date when the nuclear-armed F-35s arrive in the service's fleet, officials plan to keep more of existing F-15 and F-16 fighters flying longer than initially planned, Chambers said. The additional maintenance and parts to keep those jets in the air will bring new costs. In recent years, software problems, design flaws and testing delays have hamstrung F-35 development and delayed its fielding, according to a late 2010 report from the Pentagon’s director of operational testing and evaluation. Senior DoD brass in January, spurred by a new batch of technical problems, announced the program would be delayed yet again. They added $4 billion to the entire F-35 program’s design and development phase, and altered the tri-service program’s purchasing schedule.
What did America lose? 15 years of research and development? That doesn’t come close. Key components of the F-35, from stealth materials, flight and weapons systems, to tens of thousands of man-hours of systems programming are now “out there,” available to any potential rival, military or commercial. At best, it could be considered a $300 billion dollar bank robbery, by American standards, nothing new in today’s financial world. Another spy disaster like Pollard, shoved under the rug too long due to pressure from the powerful Israeli lobby. At worst, nations whose defense capabilities were decades behind the US can now be at par, as the F-35 was estimated to be “air superiority capable” until at least 2040. Data stolen could make production of a comparable aircraft possible in as little as 36 months, particularly with several projects in the offing, Russia/India and in China, each of which are capable of quickly adapting upgraded systems. The JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) in its three variants, conventional takeoff/landing (CTOL, carrier variant (CV) and short takeoff/vertical landing (STOLV), are scheduled for production through 2026 with estimates of service life until 2060 and beyond. Export versions of the F-35, “detuned” are available for American allies, NATO and Israel. The F-35 delivers more “punch” per dollar than any current “legacy” fighter by a margin of as much as 8 to 1.
Their evidence is biased from defense hacks Palmer 10(Eric, ELP Defense, blog, http://ericpalmer.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/a-look-at-some-of-the-enablers-of-f-35-misinformation-in-australia-auspol/)
It becomes worse when other organisations cheerlead for the troubled F-35 program. As you will see with a majority of these organisations, the motivation is advert space dollars for their publications. The rest who claim to be “independent”, take money from the maker of the F-35 in the form of contributions. Unfortunately, the news media will quote some of these organisations as expertswhen in fact their opinions on the F-35 show an indifference to what is real. Some of these publications are on the news stand. All have websites. Anyone reading the views of these organisations who wants to be informed about the F-35 will not get impartial reporting. They will get F-35 advocacy. If these organisations aren’t F-35 advocates, they don’t get the the F-35 money. Most of these organisations are good when pointing out the basic structure of Defence programs and most should be read.
Libya proves Ottawa Citizen 11(http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/defencewatch/archive/2011/05/08/does-the-libyan-air-war-prove-the-case-for-a-canadian-purchase-of-the-f-35.aspx)
U.S. defence specialist Winslow Wheeler not a big fan of the F-35 said, if anything, the Libyan war shows that sophisticated high-tech stealth fighters like the F-35 are not required. He noted the U.S. did not use its F-22 new generation fighter, a counterpart to the F-35, in the conflict. Instead, the majority of the attacks were carried out by nonstealth aircraft such as the existing F-18s used by Canada, he added. (Stealth bombers flew several sorties at the beginning of the war but it was mainly cruise missiles that were used to knock out command and control sites and air defences…and there hasn’t been a lot of information highlighting the role of stealth strike aircraft in the campaign so far).