Advertisement

Letters: No support for the F-35

Share

Re “Struggling to take off,” June 12

Granted, Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-35 fighter jet under development is a spectacular technological achievement, but could somebody please tell me who exactly is the enemy that we need to fight with 2,457 of these planes? Is there another world war on the horizon that I don’t know about? Our biggest threat seems to come from terrorists, and last I checked they don’t have much of an air force.

Also — and I’m speaking as an ex-aerospace engineer — taxpayers should know that piloted combat aircraft are probably already obsolete. Fighters and bombers are capable of greater endurance and vastly more extreme maneuvers if they don’t have to keep a human alive in the cockpit. Of course, much of the Air Force’s senior establishment are ex-military pilots, so you won’t hear about that from any of them.

Advertisement

Your article notes that the price of one of these planes has climbed to an “unprecedented” $161 million. Eliminating this program alone would take a few hundred billion dollars out of our massive debt, which is probably our biggest national security threat in the long run.

R.T. Salvage

Victorville

Reading of the numerous problems in the F-35 program brings back memories of the last time the Pentagon tried unsuccessfully to build one fighter for both the Air Force and the Navy.

Almost 50 years ago, I was an engineer working on the F-111 program, which had two versions (the F-35 has three). The “A” model, for the Air Force, saw limited use in Vietnam, while the Navy’s “B” version never flew from an aircraft carrier. The problem was that the modifications to the “A” version needed for carrier operations just could not be made (at least not to the satisfaction of the Navy brass).

Perhaps backers of the F-35 should have considered the F-111 experience before allocating billions. But as it has been said, the only thing that we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.

Advertisement

James R. Bailey

Banning

Lockheed’s campaign cash to 425 of the 535 members of Congress and its creation of F-35-related jobs in 47 states to secure political support puts paid to Eisenhower’s “military-industrial complex.”

If the campaign contributions and plum jobs were not a factor, would the F-35 still be good public policy? Would the program even exist? Would we be building roads and schools and non-profit healthcare facilities instead?

David Fertig

Pasadena

Advertisement

ALSO:

Letters: Who loses in transplant saga?

NSA leaks: Privacy in the Facebook age

Letters: Children and same-sex marriage

Advertisement