It's been a while since we checked in on the F-35, the Flying Swiss Army Knife, which may be a floor wax or a dessert topping, but which sure as hell isn't an viable aircraft, but is one of the epic money pits of all time, even by Pentagon standards, which are higher than the plane thus far has been able to get off the ground. How are things going, anyway?

Thought so.

First, the fake test.

For 10 days in May off the coast of Virginia, a half dozen F-35 fighter jets tested their capabilities under what military officials called real world combat conditions. The Pentagon was trying to see if the Marine Corps' version of the next-generation fighter plane—its most expensive weapons project ever—was ready for battle. In July, after analyzing the test results, Marine Commandant General Joseph Dunsford triumphantly declared that it was.

Wait for it…

Now even Dunsford's piece of good news is in doubt. A scathing memo written by J. Michael Gilmore, the Pentagon official who oversees operational testing and evaluations of new weapons systems, dismissed Dunsford's declaration, saying the conditions of the test hardly simulated real-world combat. The planes, for example, carried no missiles or bombs during the evaluation and landed on a deck that had been cleared of other aircraft. As a result, Gilmore wrote, the test "did not—and could not demonstrate" that the war plane "is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments."

So a the next generation of American combat aircraft performs spectacularly as long as it isn't armed with anything and as long as it has, say, the vacated Bonneville Salt Flats on which to land. Is it unpatriotic to suggest that they ought simply to paint a big red nose on the front of each one of these lemons and rent them out to Hollywood disaster movies and kids parties? At least then the Pentagon might get back some of the $1 trillion goddamn dollars that the GAO says building this turkey is going to cost us, assuming this project ever ends.

And, of course, according to some military officers who have seen actual combat, this lemon isn't even an improvement over what we have now.

But throughout its development, the F-35 has been plagued by seemingly endless technical malfunctions, management problems and resistance from critics who question whether the warplane will be able to perform as promised and is worth its crushing costs. One report cited flaws in its fuel tank and hydraulic systems that increase the plane's vulnerability to lightning strikes and enemy fire, especially at low altitudes. Another downgraded the single-engine plane's acceleration rates and ability to turn. Test pilots have criticized poor cockpit visibility, which they said could get them shot down during combat. They also cite faulty software and radar, as well as ejection seats that don't work. An engine fire in 2014 led to the grounding of the entire F-35 fleet, as well as two government reports that declared the Pratt & Whitney engines to be unreliable. The pilot's helmet, each an individually sculpted $400,000 system that provides a 360-degree view of a pilot's surroundings, has problems distinguishing friends from enemies. In one of the most embarrassing developments, a F-35 was pitted against an F-16 in a dogfight in July, and the aging F-16 won.

Have they tried it against a Sopwith Camel? Because that might be a fair fight.

The F-35's champions counter that the plane is designed to destroy its enemies at long distances, not in old-fashioned dogfights. But Army ground commanders who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan also question the ability of the F-35 to provide the same quality of close air support that the A-10 "Warthog" delivers. In response, lawmakers earlier this year refused the Pentagon's request to retire the A-10s.

The Warthog is a truly beloved and useful aircraft. The F-35 is a jobs program, and a contractor's grand EBT card, and a costly one at that. (Among its other distinctions, it was one of the last things that drove Barney Frank up the wall before he left Congress.)  Pilots have their doubts, as well.

During August tests of the ejection seat, built by Martin-Baker, testers discovered an increased risk of neck injury when a lightweight pilot is flying at slower speeds. Until the problem is fixed, the services decided to restrict pilots weighing under 136 pounds from operating the plane, Maj. Gen. Jeffrey Harrigian, F-35 integration office director, told Defense News in a Tuesday interview. "The bottom line is, they have to get into the realm where the seat allows that weight of a pilot less than 136 pounds [to] safely eject out of the airplane," Harrigian said. "They found some areas that particularly at slower speeds they were concerned about, so that drove the restriction that we have right now."

So, any of you fat guys out there dreaming of being fighter jocks, have we got a plane for you. Seriously, does anything on this plane actually work?  They should sell each one of them on a lot with "$185 million. No Money Down." soaped on the canopy windows.

Headshot of Charles P. Pierce
Charles P. Pierce

Charles P Pierce is the author of four books, most recently Idiot America, and has been a working journalist since 1976. He lives near Boston and has three children.