https://www.zerohedge.com/mili...ot-be-combat-capable

A September 2023 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the F-35 revealed some shocking statistics on just how unready hundreds of billions of dollars worth of F-35s are to provide actual combat power. In fact, the report indicated that only 15 to 30 percent of F-35s may be capable of combat.

But if you were to read a typical article in the media, you might believe that, on average, some 55 percent of F-35s are combat-capable. However, you would be wrong. You see, when the average person sees a report declaring that 55 percent of F-35 combat aircraft are “mission capable,” they assume mission capable equals combat capable. But in doing so, they are being deceived.

The deception comes out of how the F-35 program office and the whole of the Department of Defense define “mission capable.” It turns out that the DoD definition of “mission capable” does not mean combat capable. What it means is that an aircraft can fly and perform at least one mission. So, a plane designated as mission capable might be capable of doing some type of combat, but it might not. Instead, the mission it might be capable of executing could be testing or training, or some other mission that does not involve combat. And even if it is considered capable of testing or training, it might not be capable of doing the full gamut of testing or training you would expect from a fully functional aircraft. Likewise, it could still be classified as mission capable even if it is only capable of executing a portion of the combat-type missions it is supposed to be able to perform.

Hence, within the environs of the military–industrial–congressional complex, “mission capable” is a highly ambiguous term that allows for a whole lot of gaming of accountability metrics. And it tells us very little. Still, it is worth noting that at a 55 percent mission capable rate, the F-35 fleet is well below program targets of 90 percent for the F-35A (Air Force) and 85 percent for the fighter’s F-35B (Marine Corps) and F-35C (Navy) variants. In other words, the F-35 fleet as a whole is nowhere near meeting its mission capability goal of being able to do anything at all.

However, there is another metric that is more useful: “full mission capable.” It turns out that “full mission capable” F-35s are supposed to be able to perform all the missions for which they were contracted, including combat-oriented missions, surveillance, training, testing, show of force, etcetera. This metric is not often publicized, but in the case of the F-35, the watchdog side of the GAO actually did a detailed report of the problems and issues with the F-35 that included how the F-35 fleet looked from the “full mission capable” perspective.

Even for someone who is an F-35 realist, the results are shocking. Not only is the F-35 fleet’s full mission capable rate in the neighborhood of 30 percent (see table on page 96 of the report), the full mission capable rate of the Marine Corps’ F-35B was a miserable 15.5 percent in March 2023.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/870/861566.pdf

More current full mission capable rates have not been published, but given the program’s ongoing problems and issues, including unreliable engines that are now under-specced due to feature creep, it is highly unlikely the situation has improved in the last year.

And then there is the fact that being fully mission capable is no indicator of how well the plane executes its missions. For example, the F-35 could be designated as mission capable for conducting close air support missions despite the fact the F-35 is the very antithesis of what a close air support plane should be and is not capable of executing genuine close air support.

But given the F-35’s unreliability, talking about full mission capability rates of anything approaching even 50 percent is a pipe dream. And it cannot be overemphasized that the F-35/Joint Strike Fighter has been in development since 1994, costing billions of dollars.

This brings us back to the question of just how many of the over 600 F-35s delivered to the U.S. military can provide significant, non-trivial combat ability. The answer is we really don’t know. But if we combine the F-35’s fragility with its very low full mission-capable and sortie generation rates, it probably isn’t many. Especially, when you think of how many decades and billions of dollars we have dumped into it.

Nevertheless, we will continue to dump billions of dollars into the F-35 program that is already “more than a decade delayed and $183 billion over its original plans” as long as the incestuous relationship between defense contractors, the military, and Congress is permitted to dominate defense procurement.

We should have kept cranking out Raptors.

I’m surprised it’s that low. I would have guessed 85 - 88%

And as our newly vaunted CAS platform I pity the unit that has to call them only to find out they can’t get them started.

14 variants of 4 models. What a waste of money and they’ve started the retirement process on A10’s here at DM.

People are working very hard to make sure we can’t fight or win the next war.

AF probably cannot recruit and train enough airmen to maintain these aircraft. Also, weak senior leadership that cannot or refuses to drill down on what the problem is (besides lack of maintenance capacity, failure by contractors to deliver and maintain to contract specifications. This does not bode well for future conflicts.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
I’m surprised it’s that low. I would have guessed 85 - 88%

And as our newly vaunted CAS platform I pity the unit that has to call them only to find out they can’t get them started.

14 variants of 4 models. What a waste of money and they’ve started the retirement process on A10’s here at DM.

People are working very hard to make sure we can’t fight or win the next war.

I read some time ago that the global elitists, the Democratic Party, and the Obama Administration did not want the US to have a robust military capability for fear it would be used for "interventions" abroad. At the time, I thought this line of reasoning was conspiracy thinking but now I am not so sure that the Democratic leaders of this country are deliberately downgrading our military's capabilities to protect and defend.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
We should have kept cranking out Raptors.

Agree, but Raptor is not an air to ground attack platform and not CAS capable; ergo F35 program shortfalls wouldn’t be mitigated by more Raptors.

quote:

Nevertheless, we will continue to dump billions of dollars into the F-35 program that is already “more than a decade delayed and $183 billion over its original plans” as long as the incestuous relationship between defense contractors, the military, and Congress is permitted to dominate defense procurement.

... or until we are all speaking Chinese.

According to an article today the AF is looking at another funding request of about $26 BILLION for a new fighter.

Really? The F15EX, the F22 and the F35 aren’t enough?

How about we fix what we have, and use it.

The fact that a lot of the F35’s won’t start, have massive software problems, can’t deliver its ordinance and still have oxygen problems should be a signal to keep the A10 platform alive.

The Raptor was never designed to be CAS -

More massive $ down the drain. Aren't drones the tool of today and tomorrow?

15% FMC??

That sucks.

During Desert Storm, between VF-1 and VF-2, there was one non-FMC aircraft (it was a hanger queen).

One aircraft down out of 24.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
According to an article today the AF is looking at another funding request of about $26 BILLION for a new fighter.

Really? The F15EX, the F22 and the F35 aren’t enough?

How about we fix what we have, and use it.

The fact that a lot of the F35’s won’t start, have massive software problems, can’t deliver its ordinance and still have oxygen problems should be a signal to keep the A10 platform alive.

The Raptor was never designed to be CAS -

THIS!!!

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Nevertheless, we will continue to dump billions of dollars into the F-35 program that is already “more than a decade delayed and $183 billion over its original plans” as long as the incestuous relationship between defense contractors, the military, and Congress is permitted to dominate defense procurement.

... or until we are all speaking Chinese.

As long as the defense contractors keep getting paid, that’s all that really matters.
“Aircraft that work? Give us more money and we’ll look into it.”

Wonderful.

quote:

Originally posted by LS1 GTO:
During Desert Storm, between VF-1 and VF-2, there was one non-FMC aircraft (it was a hanger queen).

One aircraft down out of 24.

You know for a F-14 squadron, that's an outlier stat as every spare part and component needed was sent to those units in-theater, meanwhile the squadrons back home were largely cannibalized when the supply-chain ran dry. With six carriers surged during that OP, the entire Navy paid for it for nearly a decade as maintenance and rotation schedules got up ended and various areas of operations went without a carrier for quite some time; which was also compounded by OP Southern Watch afterwards.


The latest defense budget came out, for the Navy its about flat to last year however taking inflation into account, its actually about $1b short. There's so much needed to get the Navy back to some level of basic operations but, the current admin, and the ambivalent attitude amongst Congress doesn't bode will for anything beyond the status quo.

The more missions the aircraft was designed to preform the less likely it will be FMC. Everything depends on what missions you need done and what mission systems are down.

I'm not sure how much stock I would be willing to put into a article from "Tyler Durden" who copied the article from someone else who who is using a GAO report as the source of the article.

The same GAO that's part of the same government that insists you take an untried vaccine plus the 27 boosters that go with it. The same government that insists there were no shenanigans' whatsoever in the 2020 election.

The Israelis have been flying combat missions every day in the F-35 since early October, including ground support missions.

Every nation that currently flies the F-35 seems pretty happy with them. Nobody has canceled any orders yet (that I know of anyways)

Thousands of people from pilots to groundcrew to contractors have since left military, government and private employment where the F-35 is concerned. Again, I've yet to see some big outcry regarding how terrible the F-35 is from those folks.

Is the F-35 perfect. Of course not. Is it going through some real growing pains? Absolutely. The F-16 carried the nickname "Lawn Dart" for twenty years and faced the exact same criticisms as what we see now where the F-35 is concerned. Today the F-16 is regarded as one of the finest, and possible the finest, multi-role combat aircraft ever put into service by anyone.

I've yet to hear from a pilot who has transitioned from the F-16 to the F-35 bitching about how they want their F-16 back.

As to the CAS issue; Ukraine is showing how even a moderately defended airspace can devastating. The days of low and slow, treetop level gun runs seem to coming to a close. Yes, I think the A-10 is cool. But can it survive and get the job done in even moderately contested airspace?

Maybe something like the F-35 using stealth capabilities and precision munitions is the CAS answer going forward. That and Drones anyways.

Finally, who really knows what the F-35 can, or cannot do, since the entire program is highly classified. I'm betting the GAO and "Tyler Durden" are talking out their ass about things they have little if any knowledge about.

quote:

People are working very hard to make sure we can’t fight or win the next war

No single pebble thinks it’s responsible for an avalanche.

In this case, it’s every lazy, no-good, filthy, skimming, government bureaucrat that’s are the pebbles.

Zero hedge is full of shit. The issues the F-35 is having are not related to the aircraft or it's abilities.

The entirety of that poorly written hit piece is debunked in the very first page of the GAO PDF. The logistics tail of maintenance is hurting the program.



Hell, Super Hornets currently have around a 41% FMC rate and they suffer the same logistics issues. CBO 2023 F/A-18 E/F

2019, 2020, & 2021 F-22 Had about a 50% FMC rate. Air&Spaceforces Article

Overall FMC & MC rates have fallen. This is what you get when you beat the fuck out of them for 2 decades and don't fork over proper maintenance funding and time to refresh them at milestone lifetime service points.

This a a great view of the entire fleet of aircraft in the US military inventory. 2011-2021 only 5 of the listed 13 tactical fighter aircraft met their FMC goals over a 11 year period and none of them for more than 3 years total. And the F-35 was 2 of the 5! GAO Aircraft Weapon System Sustainment

Sigolicious

quote:

Zero hedge is full of shit.

Here is another source for you to evaluate
from 2021 that reaches almost the same conclusion.

The Defense Department still isn’t meeting its F-35 readiness goals

https://www.defensenews.com/ai...-35-readiness-goals/

The F-35 joint strike fighter is still struggling to meet its mission capable rate goals, with current figures well below the military’s target, the Pentagon’s outgoing acquisition chief told reporters on Jan. 19.

The Lockheed Martin-made F-35′s mission capable rate — which describes the percentage of aircraft that can meet at least one of its assigned missions — currently sits at 69 percent, falling short of the military’s longstanding 80 percent goal, said Ellen Lord, whose time as the undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment ended Jan. 20 at noon after Joe Biden was inaugurated as president.

When looking at fully mission capable aircraft able to perform all of the F-35′s assigned missions, “we’re currently at 36 percent fully mission capable, and we are striving to be at 50 percent for the fleet,” she added.

More at link


Here is another site from 2023.

Pentagon Says Only Half of Its F-35 Jet Fleet Is Mission-Ready

https://archive.ph/gjGxB#selection-3551.0-3551.62

Only about half of the Pentagon’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets are considered mission-capable, well below the target of 65% and a state of readiness the program manager terms “unacceptable.”

As of February, the monthly average rate of mission-capable jets in the US’s fleet of more than 540 F-35s was 53.1%, according to Air Force Lieutenant General Michael Schmidt, the program manager. That means they can fly at least some of their required missions, such as combat, show-of-force flights, training and testing.

The percentage of planes capable of flying all their missions — the so-called full mission capable rate — was less than 30%, Schmidt said in written testimony prepared for a Wednesday hearing of the House Armed Service Committee’s aviation subcommittee.

The readiness rates marked a drop from 2020, when the fleet’s average full mission-capable rate stood at about 39%, according to the GAO.

More at link

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Sigolicious

quote:

Zero hedge is full of shit.

Here is another source for you to evaluate
from 2021 that reaches almost the same conclusion.

I rate this source: As shitty as the original article.

How many aircraft were in depot maintenance for life cycle inspection, technical directive mods, or other program required maintenance? How many were down at the time for cyclic inspections? How many down for calendar inspections? How many are awaiting end items (things that require their own log book seperate from the airframe log book) such as engines, seats, or accessory pods that are currently on order but unavailable in the supply pipeline?

If they want to tell us that it can't meet it's FMC/PMC rate that's not terrible, but at least contrast that with actual sortie rate vs. sorties missed due to lack of available FMC/MC aircraft.