Posted on 02/07/2025 8:29:28 AM PST by george76
All three variants of the relatively new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter have failed to hit readiness targets entirely.
That’s according to a recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a watchdog agency reporting on federal programs. GAO, which assessed all the nation’s tactical aircraft, found that no fighter planes are doing particularly well at meeting annual mission-capable goals – no Navy or Marine Corps platforms hit that target in the last six years – but the report’s data particularly underscores challenges faced by the F-35, despite maintenance and sustainment costs climbing at an unmatched rate.
The report, which covers the years 2018-2023, shows Air Force platforms leading the other services in readiness. The service’s F-15C Eagle and F-16C Fighting Falcon were at the head of the pack, meeting readiness targets in three out of the six years assessed. The F-15C and F-16D each met annual mission capable goals for one out of the six years. Mission-capable rates, according to the report, are defined as the percentage of total time when aircraft can fly and perform at least one mission, versus being sidelined in maintenance or out of commission for other reasons.
The beloved A-10, familiarly known as the “Warthog” for the loud 30mm Gatling-style autocannon in its nose, perhaps had the most notable performance success story. Over the six-year span, according to the report, the Air Force only spent 87% of the funds it requested for the aircraft, saving a total of $390 million and spending just under $2.5 billion for operations and maintenance. The A-10 met its readiness goal in the year 2020 – shortly after the Air Force completed a $1.1 billion re-winging project intended to keep at least some of the planes flying into the 2030s.
Yet, that success is unlikely to keep the A-10 airborne beyond that point: as Sandboxx News has reported, the retirement gears are finally turning for the beloved close air support aircraft, sending large batches of the fleet, which numbered 280 at the start of 2024, to long-term storage at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.
For the F-35, which has exceeded cost estimates since its earliest developmental days, the increase in maintenance spending year-over-year is eye-watering, according to the report’s findings.
...
The Air Force’s conventional takeoff and landing F-35A has seen its operation and maintenance (O&M) budget nearly quadruple from 2018 to 2023, but has still exceeded requested spending every year since 2020, data shows. O&M spending has totaled nearly $7.5 billion, or 107% of the requested funds, according to the report.
The Marine Corps’ short takeoff/vertical landing F-35B and the Navy’s carrier-variant F-35C also saw their at O&M budgets increase, albeit at more gradual rates. F-35B spending increased from just over $300 million to more than $600 million annually over the reporting period, and O&M funding for the F-35B, the variant with the fewest aircraft, grew from around $200 million to about $500 million in the same period. The Marine Corps spent 95% of requested F-35 maintenance funds, while the Navy spent 99.5%. In all, the two services spent more than $4.6 billion on F-35 maintenance.
GAO acknowledged that its report was the latest in a series of concerning reports about Joint Strike Fighter readiness: In September 2023 it has pointed out maintenance challenges driving down mission-capable rates; and in April 2024 had found that the Pentagon’s projected F-35 sustainment costs had ballooned from $1.1 trillion in 2018 to $1.58 trillion in 2023.
“In recent years, DOD has expressed a desire to have more governmental control over sustainment activities,” GAO’s new report states. “However, as DOD seeks to expand government control, it has neither (1) determined the desired mix of government and contractor roles nor (2) identified and obtained the technical data needed to support its desired mix,” it adds.
Law requires that the F-35’s Joint Program Office transfer the duties of sustainment management, planning and execution to the relevant service secretaries by the start of fiscal year 2028, and Pentagon officials have said they are working on it.
...
If there’s a bit of good news for the F-35 from the new report, it’s that the Marines’ F-35B was one of only five aircraft variants that saw mission capable rates that increased over the six-year period even while the service spent less than requested. GAO did not release the exact year-over-year changes in readiness rates, because the Defense Department determined that information was sensitive.
Although only five out of 15 tactical aircraft variants met readiness targets for any of the last six years, this is certainly not a new problem. Historically, only a small minority of military aircraft have consistently met annual mission-capable targets – and none of them are fighters. In fact, in 2020, two years after then-Defense Secretary Jim Mattis launched an initiative aimed at raising aviation readiness rates, the Defense Department quietly moved away from a stated requirement of 80% mission-capable rates across the board in favor of a “more holistic view” of readiness.
The fact that GAO made no new recommendations, referring instead to past findings about challenges related to maintenance and aging platforms, shows how the military has grown into an acknowledgement that it’s fighting an uphill battle when it comes to meeting its own readiness targets.
Meanwhile, though, the much-maligned F-35 continues to mark milestones on the battlefield. In September, the Navy announced that the carrier-variant F-35C had executed its first airstrikes in combat, hitting Houthi weapons storage facilities in Yemen during a mission launched from the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln.
Hmmmm. Same/similar plane
yet one branch had fewer problems, and spent less than the others.
Sounds also like a management/discipline issue.
not a very informative and actually kind of misleading take on the situation.
The F-35 uses complex composite materials that require several days to cure a repair.This extended repair time poses a challenge in high-tempo combat situations, where quick availability is crucial. Efficient maintenance and specialized support are necessary, but these repair delays limit its operational flexibility.
“several days to cure a repair”
Perhaps the purchase of a $25 heating pad could speed things up.
You would think there would be efficiencies, here since the plane is no longer brand new.
Not!,
The A is a much more simplified variant than the B, C
The Pentagon’s solution to speeding up F-35 repairs? A $25 million dollar composite-curing heating pad.
The B model is also more complicated to maintain. But I think they were built later on, so that might have something to do with it.
Marines have a much more complex variant of the 35. The Marines have also passed their audit two years running. Wonder how?
Its a platform problem. They need to get rid of it.
The Navy is only just getting their F-35C’s. Pretty much the last version to be fielded. The B’s (Marines) were fielded first, but are by far the most complex. The A’s will be the most numerous.
I wonder just how much the increases in the maintenance budgets are simply due to the increase in the number of the airframes with operational squadrons? You would think that there was some attempt to control for that, statistically.
The B’s were first. Then A’s. Then C’s.
Hanger queens made by committee never had a good readiness rate.
I spent about a decade as a Reliability Engineer on Honeywell flight systems. Each bit of technology you add to a design carries a failure rate. Get enough bits and pieces, which make for an awesome design with loads of capabilities, and it may work for only two or three hours on any given mission.
Having said that, your cellphone has more complexity than many of the military systems I worked on. Basically, they’re bulletproof. Why? Because if you’re selling lots of something it makes sense to invest in automation. Automation, along with automatic testing means once you perfect the process the need for human intervention is minimal. But the way military projects are funded means, one year at a time, means nobody will invest in automation because it takes years to pay for itself. Every item I worked on, with the exception of the SINCGARS radio, was essentially a hand built, meaning high failure rate, boutique item. If we suddenly needed a hundred HIMARS systems, they couldn’t be built. You’d have to hire people who know how to solder and build and test and that takes years. (I helped several companies set up operations of whole facilities and/or departments. Finding qualified people is nearly impossible. If they have those qualifications they’re employed already.) We need to revamp every part of how systems are spec’d, funded and built. It won’t happen. Too many empires. Too much money in doing it the bad war.
In the Age of Drones, manned fighter planes are quickly going the way of the Dreadnought.
Agreed, you can buy hundreds of drones for the price of a fifth generation fighter.
“ Hmmmm. Same/similar plane”
No.
The B is the vertical takeoff version (extra engine)
The C is the carrier version (more rugged gear for carrier landing)
3 planes that superficially look alike.
The B model was the first to be developed, but it had to go through about a 2 or3 year re-design (delay) to shave off some weight.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.