A good place to start!

[Navy1960]

On May 3, 2007, during the 19th test flight of the prototype of the F-35A Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), a serious electrical malfunction occurred in the control of the plane. After an emergency landing the malfunction could be identified as a crucial problem, and it became clear that redesign of critical electronic components was necessary. Producer Lockheed Martin and program officials first announced there was a minor problem, and later on they avoided any further publicity about the problems.

F-35 JSF Hit by Serious Design Problems

The F-35 Lightning II strike fighter has previously undisclosed problems with its handling, avionics, afterburner and helmet-mounted display, according to a report by the Pentagon's Director of Operational Test and Evaluation.

Report Reveals Undisclosed F-35 Problems - Defense News

The generator failure was caused by a “design artifact” that was unique to the new versions of the planes and investigations continue into the cause of the incident, according to Reuters. This means the three newest F-35 test jets will remain grounded until the issue is completely resolv

http://defensetech.org/2011/03/16/design-flaw-may-have-caused-f-35-generator-failure/

The United States intends to buy a total of 2,443 aircraft for an estimated US$323 billion, making it the most expensive defense program ever.[12] The United States Air Force (USAF) budget data in 2010, along with other sources, projects the F-35 to have a flyaway cost from US$89 million to US$200 million over the planned production of F-35s.[13][14][15][16] Cost estimates have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each. The rising program cost estimates have cast doubt on the actual number to be produced for the U.S. In January 2011, the F-35B variant was placed on "probation" for two years because of development issues. In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This aircraft is a prime example of DoD's allowing a contractor use a substandard product , in this case the F-35 as a "cash cow" for over 16 years now and has yet to deliver a single aricraft to the Navy or USMC or any number of the nations involved in the program. Further, this aircrafts performance is so poor when ranked with the aircraft it's meant to replace or go up agianst by the time it comes online it will be a far exceeded by many other's in the air. So in the time where we as a nation need to look for ways to not only spend our money wisely as well as deliver the warfighter the best, we might want to start by sending Lockheed Martin a cancellation notice. Then afterwards letting the Military actually purchase aircraft that meet their needs, and not ones that the contractor has used for an "ATM Machine". There are many alternatives out there that not only perform better than the F-35 but also are much less expensive and can actually be delivered. So again , perhaps it would be a good thing in this time of budget cutting to focus on programs like these.

 

[Oddball]

Then we can shut down most, if not all, of the buttload of land air bases scatted throughout the globe.

There's no place on the planet that can't be reached via carrier or aerial refueling.

 

[Navy1960]

The F-16IN Super Viper is a unique new fighter sharing a heritage with the world's only fifth generation fighters – the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter and the F-22 Raptor. Evolutionary integration of fifth generation technologies makes the F-16IN the most advanced fourth generation fighter in the world today.

F-16IN Super Viper | Lockheed Martin

Whats ironic here, is the same company produces this aircraft that they are about to export to India. The cost of this aircraft is 70 Million each vs. 206.7 Million for each F35. The funny thing here is that the F-16IN shares 90% of its technology with both the F-22 and the F-35 and performs better than the F-35 in many aspects. So again , it does seem to me that when someone in Washington uses words like " ITS a SPENDING PROBLEM" perhaps they really mean, "IT's a POLICY PROBLEM" that lets taxpayer money be spent over and over on programs that do nothing but support favored programs at the expense of the taxpayer as well as the most important people, the Warfighter.

 

[Navy1960]

Then we can shut down most, if not all, of the buttload of land air bases scatted throughout the globe.

There's no place on the planet that can't be reached via carrier or aerial refueling.

Well I do believe there are many places in the world where the US Military need not be, among them Afghanistan, and Iraq, I also believe we can mantain a minimum presence in several places and reduce if not close many European bases. My feelings are that US Airlift capability is unmatched in the world and we can therefor move a lot of the work being done at bases in Germany for example to more central locations , thus reducing operating costs. I have long felt that the EU has used the US Military as its de-facto defense force , and has not had much of a burden financially when it comes to defense, save for the UK and perhaps France. As for our presence in the Pacific. I am not a supporter in reducing our Military in that region of the world, however, I do feel that our Military has been for the last 10 years subjugated to the whims of large Defense contractors and their supports in congres much to the expense of the very people who are in the Military . There are many many examples, the F-35 being one, the C-17 would be a prime example of congress supporting the contractor over the USAF. For years the Air Force told congress "WE NEED NO MORE c-17's" but year after year congress kept on buying them. For a Military that spends over a Trillion dollars a year which is about what the entire world spends on defense out Warfighters are shortchanged quite often. So it's about time we stopped that and spent our money not only wisely.