F35, The Jet That Ate the Pentagon

“We don’t know where all the money is going.”

The F-35 is the most expensive weapons program in history, with a total cost of $1.5 trillion, that has turned into a total fiasco.

So here is an 8-minute documentary (with some cool footage of the thing flying, landing vertically, etc.) to give you the willies about how the system works, and what’s wrong with it.

Note the term, “concurrent development.” It’s a key concept – and at the core of why this deal went haywire.


For more info about the documentary and its backers, to sign a petition, or get into the hair of your lawmakers about this, check out the site of the video.

Enjoy reading WOLF STREET and want to support it? You can donate. I appreciate it immensely. Click on the beer and iced-tea mug to find out how:

Would you like to be notified via email when WOLF STREET publishes a new article? Sign up here.

  10 comments for “F35, The Jet That Ate the Pentagon

  1. Dave Mac says:

    My friends in the Military would say “SNAFU”

  2. Gee says:

    Spending twice as much! Winning! Military industrial complex is stoked! And what? It hasnt done anything to improve combat? Then we need MOAR!!!! And that means mo money for Lockheed! WOOTTT!!!!!

    Legalized greed? No, public taxpayer looting by another slice of TPTB.


  3. Mike R. says:

    All the signs of an empire top! Military industrial complex term comes to mind.
    Our “free” economy is so distorted, it is pitiful.
    The Russians would build rugged, ready to fly fighter jets and we build these overly complex, narcissistic machines. Probably a good fit for our society!!

  4. Steve in Flyover says:

    I read these comments, and I realize how basically ignorant US Americans are about technology (and associated costs).

    Until the F-35, NOBODY has made (or even had the technology to dream about) building a SVTOL aircraft capable of flying supersonically. Which is what you have to have, if you want your aircraft carrier to be able to defend itself against anyone operating even 1960-70s built land based supersonic jets.

    See the Falklands War for Exhibit “A” Harriers are/were totally defensive against Mirage IIIs. If the Argentinians had better/non-defective fuses on their bombs, that war would have been a lot more expensive for the Brits

    Also……. wonder why Nimitz-class carriers are as big as they are? That’s what it takes to be able to operate aircraft that can hold their own against land based fighters. Unfortunately, their size limits how many countries can afford to build/operate them.

    An F-35 lets you build smaller/cheaper carriers, that cost a lot less to operate and to put crews on. Thus allowing the UK/Japan/other countries to think about building them again. Pay plus benefits for 5000 people isn’t cheap.

    Has this program been run the way I would have done it, given dictatorial powers? No. But this program has reasons for being other than just being a gravy train for the MIC.

    Plus, from what I’ve been seeing, the programs opponents are using BS/distorted statistics as well. See “F-35 nutplates”. As a aircraft mechanic, the problems they are having with this are more of a “training” issue, than a “design” issue, but that’s exactly what the critics are calling it, and using it to screw the flight hour per maintenance man-hours numbers. (you can help this number immediately by telling the flight-line dumb$##Ts to back off the clutches of their cordless screwdrivers)

    • gary says:

      Listen Steve, I’m not an expert in military aircraft but your arguments are unconvincing. First of all, the Harrier Jump Jet is not a STVOL – it can take off straight up like a helicopter! There is nothing new about a supersonic airplane – they’ve been being built for 60 years now. BTW, the British won the Falklands war.

  5. Darkwing says:

    This aircraft has parts made in over 100 congressional districts. That is why it is kept in the military program. I worked for the DOD in the 1990’s and the plane was to be in service by 2005. Remember, if it is my district it is bring home the bacon, if it is your district it is PORK.

  6. Not Goose says:

    Why hasn’t this horrible jet been thrown into the trash can of history?
    Navy aircraft are supposed to have two engines.
    The wing area, even on the F-35C, is too small. The fuel tank is too small in the Air Force variant.
    Does the tailhook work for recovery on a carrier yet?
    And no cannon for the Navy version, how did that work our for the F4 in ‘Nam?
    and ‘stealth’, right… How did that work our the the F117A oh so many years ago.
    and on pure vanity, it doesn’t look good.
    Now I see why the Air Force intends on 100% pilotless vehicles by 2025.

  7. pb says:

    It’s a cool plane. Just ungodly expensive. Personally I’d rather see 100 of these than 10000 drones.

  8. hidflect says:

    Nothing whips up the fury of comments like a good ol’ bit of F-35 hate-p0rn. It’s riddled with concept mistakes (only one engine, poor visibility requiring over-tech helmet, trying to cover too many variants and a dozen others) but it’s too late to back out now. Just get this golden turkey cooked as best you can and serve it up hot. Oh, and don’t cancel the A-10!

  9. Julian the Apostate says:

    Fascinating. As usual we’re fighting the last war. The P-40 in WWII. By the time the war ended the P-51 Mustang and the Gull Wing Corsair kicked butt for a few months. At the beginning of the war they had to push their tech to the limits and launch the B-26s off an aircraft carrier on one way trips for the Dolittle raid on Tokyo. By the end the B-29 could carry an atomic bomb 3000 miles. WWI was a trench war, so the French built the Maginot Line. Hitler developed Blitzkrieg and simply went around it. You can’t build fighter planes by committee.

Comments are closed.