F-35 Joint Strike Fighter News, Videos and pics Thread

Strangelove

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Ongoing headaches with F-35 fighter jets are rippling through the rest of the US military's combat aircraft fleet​


Michael Peck

Jan 12, 2023, 6:09 PM
  • The F-35 program has been plagued by years of delays, cost overruns, and technical glitches.
  • Those problems have prompted the Pentagon to extend the service lives of older combat jets.
  • Extensions keep jets flying but don't guarantee they will meet future needs, a government watchdog says.

Top editors give you the stories you want — delivered right to your inbox each weekday.
By clicking ‘Sign up’, you agree to receive marketing emails from Insider as well as other partner offers and accept our
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

Years of delays, cost overruns, and technical glitches with the F-35 have put the Pentagon in a dilemma.

If F-35s aren't fit to fly in sufficient numbers, then older aircraft such as the F-16 must be kept in service to fill the gap. In turn, having to extend the lifespan of older planes consumes money that could be used to acquire new aircraft and results in aging warplanes that may not be capable of fulfilling their missions on the current battlefield.

"While service life extension programs are one way to keep current aircraft capable and in operation, they do not guarantee that those aircraft will be available when needed or that they will possess required capabilities to meet future needs," the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in a new report on US tactical aircraft.

The F-35 is meant to be the backbone of the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine fighter fleets, replacing several types of Cold War-era fighters and attack aircraft, including Navy and Marine F/A-18 C/Ds, Marine AV-8Bs, Air Force A-10s, and, most importantly, Air Force F-16s, which are the US's most numerous fighters.

F-35A F-16 fighter jets over Denali Alaska

F-35As and F-16s over Denali National Park in Alaska in May 2020. US Air Force/Tech. Sgt. Jerilyn Quintanilla

Despite making its first flight in 2006, the F-35 — which costs about $100 million apiece — still hasn't been approved for full-rate production and remains in limited procurement.

The aircraft has been plagued by a seemingly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, including problems with its
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, sustained supersonic flight, helmet-mounted display, excessive vibration from its cannon, and even vulnerability to being
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

The military and Lockheed Martin have resolved some of those problems, but the cumulative effect of the delays is that the Air Force has had to shelve plans for the F-35 to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which now will keep flying until the 2040s.

"Over the last decade the Air Force and Navy have funded service life extension programs for F-16s and F/A-18 A-Ds — both originally expected to be replaced by F-35 — to address fatigue of structural components and keep the aircraft capable and in operation," the GAO report said.


The remarkable longevity of some aircraft — such as the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
or the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
— tends to obscure the difficulty of keeping old warplanes flying. Production lines are usually shut down, and the original manufacturers of components and spare parts have long ceased production. In some cases, they are no longer in business.

Air Force F-35 maintainer

US Air Force maintainers work on an F-35A at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada in February 2020. US Air Force/R. Nial Bradshaw

Russia's air force has been mocked for
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
its airpower in the Ukraine war. But the US military has also long suffered from major readiness shortfalls, as have NATO nations such as Germany. In 2020, fewer than 10 of the Luftwaffe's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
were operational.

Particularly troubling was a November 2022 GAO study that analyzed readiness of 49 US military aircraft models between 2011 and 2021.

"Only four aircraft types, none of which were fixed-wing fighter aircraft, met their annual mission capable goals in a majority of those years," the watchdog warned.

To some extent, this problem afflicts all modern military hardware. Complex weapons — whether fighters, tanks, or aircraft carriers — seem prone to reliability and maintenance issues or to shortages of specialized and expensive spare parts.

But the F-35 has become the poster child for aircraft readiness woes. An
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
blamed that on a lack of spare parts, a lack of maintenance equipment, and on ground crews lacking the technical data they needed to maintain the aircraft.

Crashed F-35A jet repairs

A reassembled F-35A is hoisted during a training course at Hill Air Force Base in September 2022. Hill Air Force Base

The stakes are high. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps together plan to spend $20.2 billion a year for tactical aircraft development and procurement between now and 2027.

But the services are trying to allocate those funds between three competing needs: adequate numbers of aircraft and capabilities in the near-term, ongoing affordability issues, and preparing for future needs.

The Air Force's proposed 2023 budget already calls for delaying acquisition of 66 F-35s originally scheduled for 2023 until 2027, while the Navy is buying 31 fewer F-35s and delaying a service-life extension for the F-18E/F Super Hornet.

The GAO urged the Department of Defense to conduct a comprehensive assessment of its investments in tactical aircraft, including risk analysis and how the various aircraft programs depend on each other. But whatever happens, US airpower will be diminished until the F-35 is fully fixed.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
1676671590297.png

F-35 at Air India with lunberg lens. Typically the F-35 carries three of them -- two on the upper fuselage and one on the belly.

One interesting fact about luneburg lens is that the RCS they give off can be variable as long as it is higher than the aircraft's RCS.
 
Last edited:

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Having 1000 build is one nice number, but the number flying is quite low...

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

''According to the report, the F-35A in FY2021 was fully mission capable only half the time, while the short-takeoff and vertical landing F-35B was fully mission capable less than 20 percent of the time and the Navy’s F-35C had an FMC rate of just 9.5 percent.''

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Last edited:

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
It's a capable aircraft for sure, but it''s an hangar queen... If you need 3 to 4 time the amount of aircraft to do the job because they are in maintenance in peacetime, it's scary.
I'm not saying it's either capable or incapable. When it comes to larger organizations, especially bureaucratic ones, it's important to try and parse the wording that is used. Their definition of "fully mission capable" can mean something technically different from common sense understanding. In practice, a plane can be capable of flying and fighting, but still be categorized as "not fully mission capable" because of some other functions that are deficient, in need of overhaul/maintenance, backlogged stuff to be dealt with, etc. Likewise vice versa. It depends on the dirty details of how the mission requirements have been defined. If you define the mission requirement as confronting, fighting, and winning when outnumbered 100:1 by 4th gen enemy fighter jets, then you could technically label the entire air force as not fully mission capable, and hence requiring a huge budget increase in order to get there. All I am trying to get across is that the nitty gritty details are important.
 
Last edited:

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
I'm not saying it's either capable or incapable. When it comes to larger organizations, especially bureaucratic ones, it's important to try and parse the wording that is used. Their definition of "fully mission capable" can mean something technically different from common sense understanding. In practice, a plane can be capable of flying and fighting, but still be categorized as "not fully mission capable" because of some other functions that are deficient, in need of overhaul/maintenance, backlogged stuff to be dealt with, etc. Likewise vice versa. It depends on the dirty details of how the mission requirements have been defined. If you define the mission requirement as confronting, fighting, and winning when outnumbered 100:1 by 4th gen enemy fighter jets, then you could technically label the entire air force as not fully mission capable, and hence requiring a huge budget increase in order to get there. All I am trying to get across is that the nitty gritty details are important.

They are doing worse than other planes they have to replace... they age horribly too.

Avaibility rate vs age:

1677171139166.png
Nice article on all the data.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top