The Navy's "Operational" F-35C Is Fully Mission Capable Less Than Five Percent Of The Time

Disconcerting.

The Navy's "Operational" F-35C Is Fully Mission Capable Less Than Five Percent Of The Time
A stunning deficiency in readiness rates for Navy and Marine F-35s calls into question whether the stealth jets can fight a prolonged conflict.
20 Mar 2019

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...ission-capable-less-than-five-percent-of-time

Newly available data shows that less than 15 percent of the U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters and around just two percent of the U.S. Navy's F-35Cs were fully mission capable at any given time, on average, for more than two years at least. The details come as the readiness rates for aviation fleets across both services have plummeted in recent years. It is also a clear indication that they will have a difficult time meeting the target of 80 percent mission capability rates for both aircraft by the end of the 2019 Fiscal Year that former Secretary of Defense James Mattis had mandated last year.

Another boondoggled military program. Over budget, behind schedule, and underperforming.

Sadly, we'll just keep pumping money at it.

We never learn the lesson that one aircraft cannot do everything. Every time they try to do this it never works.

There are Air Force F-35 at Luke AFB near me. They are really loud. When we hear them takeoff we say, Must have found the jumper cables.
The AF is ordering 80 F-15's, must not be happy with -35's
https://www.upi.com/Air-Force-plans-to-restock-aging-F-15-fleet-with-upgraded-F-15X/6371553009922/

M

There are problems but it is not possible to discuss them on this forum or in public by me.

Not defending the F35 program but Mission Capable Rates are a little more complicated than they appear at first glance. A military aircraft may be perfectly flyable and not be fully mission capable - a non-flight related system maybe inop or in-work that could prevent an F35 from performing a ground attack function but the aircraft could still be an effective interdiction or air superiority fighter. Also, actual mission capability rates are, at the least, sensitive information if not classified. Again, I’m not a USN/USAF/USMC/DOD “homer” but whether a weapon system is a success or not is typically determined by its effectiveness in use - not its development time/cost. Is the F35 program a success? Maybe not. Can it/will it be one? If it is it won’t be the first time the services were handed a less than optimal weapon that they made work well. Is this the most budget efficient way to develop aircraft - nope, not even close. But the political nature of funding for development, procurement, and operations makes the F35 pretty much typical of non-existential wartime weapon system development.

cwbullet said:

There problems but it is not possible to discuss them on this forum or in public by me.

Click to expand...

So why say anything at all?

MClark said:

The AF is ordering 80 F-15's, must not be happy with -35's

Click to expand...

The F-15 fleet is seriously aged and the F-15 still serves a very useful role where stealth is not needed. That's why the USAF is buying improved F-15s. Here's why they didn't buy improved F-16s instead:

Pentagon Buying F-15EX Alongside F-35s to Preserve Manufacturing Diversity
22 Mar 2019

https://www.military.com/daily-news...e-f-35s-preserve-diversity-official-says.html

Why didn't the Defense Department propose adding an upgraded F-16 Fighting Falcon into its inventory instead the F-15EX fourth-gen plus aircraft it is currently pursuing?

To keep the industrial diversity, according to a senior defense official.

In order to keep a "robust industrial base" and "to have multiple providers in the tactical aircraft portfolio," officials with the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office arrived at the Boeing Co-made F-15EX decision because the aircraft provided "a higher-capacity" combination alongside Lockheed Martin's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a senior defense official told reporters at the Pentagon on Friday.

An F-16 jet would mean another Lockheed fighter, and the DoD wants to maintain a balance between the two largest defense companies. (That said, the U.S. Navy is still buying F/A-18 Super Hornets, made by Boeing).

"One of the considerations was the diversity of the industrial base," the senior defense official said. "Maintaining a diverse industrial base is in the best interest of the Department of Defense. The more diversity, the more competition ... and the better prices we have."

--------

That actually makes sense since there are far more foreign operators of the F-16 and the newest variants of it to support continuing F-16 production than there are for the F-15:

F-16 foreign operators (25):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Dynamics_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Operators

F-15 foreign operators (3):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-15_Eagle#Operators

--------

Actually, I'd love to see us buy some of these, too, the latest F-16 glass cockpit variant called the F-21:

Lockheed Martin Offers India Enhanced F-16 Block 70 Multirole Combat Aircraft Dubbed “F-21”

https://theaviationist.com/2019/02/...ock-70-multirole-combat-aircraft-dubbed-f-21/

The F35 has had problems with weight and heat dissipation from early on in the design stage. These are fundamental issues in an aircraft and they will dictate a lot of the design parameters. I am not holding my breath for a miraculous cure to the F 35's woes.

Jim

The trouble is that we've actually suceeded in wearing out a lot of hammers. But unlike other tools, where we would just purchase another hammer, with military gear we seem to think that we should re-engineer the hammer (a rock on a stick, something that has remained relatively unchanged for 10,000 years of human history).

Often, as now, we're left with a more expensive, inferior hammer......and a problem that requires a screw driver.

Maybe alternatively stick the nose / tail in the dirt? Would make a nice wall?

The F-22 isn't fairing much better at 60-65% FMC rate. Growing pains? Some of it. The F-15E wasn't perfect when we took delivery of our first four at Luke in 88 but they get better as troubleshooting and re-engineering takes place but the 35 and 22 should be well beyond where they are for FMC rates at this time. The Soviet solution was mass produce and overrun us with volume. Our WWII solution was to make it easy enough for a farm boy from Kansas to fly because we're going to lose quite a few. Now our pilots and aircraft are not as easily backfilled.