Last September, the General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a damning report on the current capabilities of the F-35 aircraft in the U.S. Armed Forces. In the report, the GAO concluded that only 55 percent of the more than 600 aircraft in use by the military were 'mission capable.' The media had a field day with those numbers, but it turns out, it may be FAR worse than we even already knew.
This morning, the anonymous news site Zerohedge released an analysis of the GAO report and found that only 15-30 percent of the aircraft may be fully combat-capable.
70% Or More Of F-35s May Not Be Combat-Capable https://t.co/haLfPTNW9f
— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 17, 2024
The discrepancy between the numbers is related to the definition of the term 'mission capable.' In its analysis, Zerohedge clarifies that 'mission-capable' does not actually mean 'combat-capable.' There are several levels of mission capability, so an aircraft that is deemed 'mission-capable' may only be suited for training or testing missions. To be 'combat-capable,' the aircraft must be deemed by the military to be 'full mission-capable.'
(It's a bit confusing, but that's military bureaucracy and terminology for you.)
What Zerohedge found in the GAO report is pretty 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. 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.
Yikes. Fifteen to thirty percent of full mission capability. That is ... not good. We looked at the charts mentioned above in the GAO report, and they do seem to match with Zerohedge's analysis here, with the F-35A (used by the U.S. Air Force) generally performing much better than the F-35B (Marines) or F-35C (Navy).
Zerohedge's conclusion is equally ominous:
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.
Concerning
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 17, 2024
Elon does have a knack for stating the obvious very succinctly, doesn't he?
You know what would fix that? Applying some hardcore DEI to the maintenance crews. If its good for the country, its gotta be good for the F 35's.
— SaltyAlaskan (@salty_alaskan) March 17, 2024
While it would be easy to pass this off to the Biden administration's woke push in the military (and that certainly isn't helping matters), the truth is that this is a much larger issue than any one President or policy. The F-35 has been a problem for years, ever since Lockheed Martin won the Joint Strike Fighter program over Boeing.
So, no. We can't make any Boeing jokes here, folks. Sorry about that. They have enough of their own problems anyway.
https://t.co/4qRqvJDZhz pic.twitter.com/XOELBO1l6G
— Battle Beagle (@HarmlessYardDog) March 17, 2024
But we can make twerking jokes. We're not even sure what that means, but it made us laugh.
Perhaps they ought to consider purchasing the Russian one; you'd certainly get more bang for your buck/Rouble!
— 🌊C (@CNoodles918) March 17, 2024
Sukhoi Su-35 reaches a speed of Mach 2.25 compared to 1.6 for the F-35. Also is renowned for its advanced avionics, supermaneuverability, stealth capabilities & cheaper. https://t.co/ETR5FjMmnK pic.twitter.com/njJWhrRJI1
Ouch. That one hurts right in the military-industrial complex.
We're going to lose the next major war and it won't be fun at all. https://t.co/XLdD770qCh
— The Virginia Project (@ProjectVirginia) March 17, 2024
We can practically hear Jesse Kelly saying this from his nearest Red Lobster.
The plane that they sold to air forces around the world as so reliable and capable that you could reduce your total fleet size compared to legacy aircraft, is not in fact that reliable and capable.
— Fennec_Radar (@RadarFennec) March 17, 2024
Never trust the Lockheed shills. https://t.co/NKJfQpCnq4 pic.twitter.com/BqwAydft98
In addition to the United States, the F-35 is also used by many NATO countries, as well as Israel and South Korea. We're almost frightened to look at what their capability analysis might reveal.
A bunch of people are about to learn the difference between theoretical military strength on paper touted by the talking heads and combat capabilities in the real world. https://t.co/UY59J69kJN
— Carolina Lion (@CarolinaLion2) March 17, 2024
Too many Americans are still living off the memory of Operation Desert Storm.
— Adam Johnston (@ConquestTheory) March 17, 2024
Capabilities on paper do not mean combat capability. https://t.co/KPMKnEwYPV
It might be important at this point to note that China builds upwards of 100 new fourth-generation fighters for its Air Force and Navy each year, and is also replacing its older aircraft with these new fighters at a similarly rapid pace.
— Wade (@Wade_Finley) March 17, 2024
Costs certainly are a major issue. Some estimates indicate that expanding, operating, and maintaining the F-35 program over time could ring up a price tag in excess of $1.7 trillion.
Fiasco.
— Dan Collins (@DanCollins2011) March 17, 2024
noun
1a thing that is a complete failure, especially in a ludicrous or humiliating way."his plans turned into a fiasco" https://t.co/ojW6hnNXOf
That word does seem a bit fitting.
The no-duh story of the day. But when many people posted articles warning about the flaws, the lack of combat readiness and more importantly sustainability, we were told we were anti-American and pro-Russia.
— RealJohnGaltFLA (@RealJohnGaltFla) March 17, 2024
The reality is that this is what happens when Senate Staffers are…
The rest of the tweet concludes, '... this is what happens when Senate Staffers are allowed to design military ships, vehicles, and aircraft.' Hard to argue against that.
"But, what is your AR-15 going to do against an F-35?"
— Hart-Celler? They were Fart-Smellers (@S_Bleachigo) March 17, 2024
What F-35? https://t.co/7SsUdfW22f
Ooh, that one is going to sting for the people who want to take away Americans' right to bear arms.
But we can paint a rainbow flag on them so… https://t.co/d7l32wsv89
— ConditionalFormatting (@TiebetNoWager) March 17, 2024
Well, sure. That fixes everything, right?
Despite the jokes though, this is a serious issue. The F-35 was once promised by Lockheed Martin (along with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems) to be a revolutionary aircraft for combat operations and air superiority. But over its history, it has been plagued by mishaps, crashes, and MASSIVE cost overruns -- to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars.
Will the United States ever abandon the aircraft or the program? Certainly not.
But they'd better start focusing on fixing the problems.
***
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 50% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member