Print 83 comment(s) - last by DCCIII.. on Feb 22 at 6:06 PM

The government and Lockheed Martin are scrambling to get back on schedule while fixing the overbudget project

The Pentagon confirmed a one-year delay of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, with Deputy Defense Secretary Bill Lynn facing increased pressure to get spending under control on the project.

"The development was originally projected to last an additional 30 months; we think with the additional test aircraft it will be closer to a delay of about 12 or 13 months, but I can't give you the cost numbers," according to Lynn's statement to the media.

Pentagon officials didn't say if this one-year delay will push back final release dates, but it likely will, military experts have noted. 

The Marine Corps is expected to receive the first batch of F-35s in two years, while the Air Force and Navy are expected to receive the next-generation fighter aircraft in 2013 and 2014.  Prior to Lynn's recent announcement, Lockheed Martin officials noted they were about six months behind schedule, but still expect to be able to meet the USMC release date.

Last November, a report said the program is drastically overbudget and behind schedule, which led the government to rethink its strategy moving forward.  Actual demand for the aircraft remains unknown, but there have been at least 2,500 orders placed for the U.S. military branches, with several other nations also expected to receive the aircraft in years to come.

Due to costly delays and budget miscues, the DOD will also withhold $614 million that will eventually be paid to Lockheed Martin.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: A Lost Cause
By Amiga500 on 2/20/2010 7:18:36 AM , Rating: 3
I would simply set my cruise missiles to take out your single point of failure, aka your few factories

The factories located the far side of Moscow some even over the Urals?

Good man. Please at least try to gain a rudimentary understanding of what you are talking about before trying to make authoritative posts!

Then send out evasive squadron groups to draw out your forces and retreat when they came into contact.


Are all these evasive squadrons drawn from the fighters and fighter-bombers that would otherwise have been concentrating on the numerous Soviet divisions rumbling through the Fulda gap, and breaking any beach-heads the Soviets had established over the Rhine?

Would these evasive squadrons deliberately choose not to engage the Soviet CAS (and their associated fighter cover) that was bombing the sh!t out of the NATO formations opposite these Soviet divisions?

... this coming from the man that states he is "certainly glad you weren't a military commander during the cold war"...

Yes, it does cost more but any war of attrition would be won by the NATO group because they can service their own aircraft and keep them in the battle longer. You as the opposition are forced to take out every single squadron to gain air superiority

Erm, if the NATO airpower could not deliver a decisive victory, allowing the A-10s and AH-1/AH-64s to engage the ground forces below, then your airbases would have been "moved" to the UK and the continental USA. Also, many of your spares would now be behind enemy lines... forcing more pressure on the NATO navies to keep the Atlantic corridor open.

By the way, just to be clear, a maintenance factory (as the Soviets envisaged) does not have to be a big massive facility. It can be numerous small distributed facilities, the distinction is more in the technical skill of, and equipment available to, the the people working in it than its size (compared to an airfield maintenance facility).

I believe its called a B-52...

I believe you don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about. You are gonna send BUFFS to carpet bomb in the coverage of what was then probably the most concentrated and complex air-defense network in the world?


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki