By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter’s readiness rates have continued to decline, with its full mission capable rate falling to 25% by fiscal 2025, a significant drop from previous years. This decline is attributed to software delays, scarce parts, and corrosion issues, leading to the program costing more to sustain than anticipated. In response, the F-35 Joint Program Office launched the Global Support Solution Reset strategy, aiming for improved readiness by 2030, though this requires substantial additional funding and faces risks related to industry capacity and cost overruns. The Government Accountability Office also identified issues with incentive fee payments to contractors, noting that these payments have not consistently translated into improved readiness.
Read the original article here
The latest report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) paints a concerning picture for one of America’s most advanced and expensive military assets: the F-35 fighter jet. It seems that only a quarter of these sophisticated aircraft are currently fully mission capable, meaning they can perform all their assigned tasks. This rate has actually declined, slipping from 38% to a stark 25% over a recent period.
Air Force officials themselves have pointed to several reasons for this drop in readiness for fiscal year 2025. They’ve cited issues with new jets that are unable to perform their missions due to software delays, alongside significant problems with obtaining scarce parts and dealing with corrosion. It’s a complex web of challenges, and it’s not an entirely new story for advanced aircraft.
The underlying reality for high-tech military hardware like the F-35 is that it requires an immense amount of maintenance time per flight hour, even under ideal conditions. The current situation, however, marks a notable and concerning decline from what was already a challenging operational tempo. This drop is particularly significant.
A major culprit appears to be the availability of parts. This is a widespread issue across the military, affecting thousands of different scenarios. Parts can go missing in transit, require extensive depot maintenance, or face lengthy repair times due to problems with vendors who might be struggling with their own staffing, supply chains, or equipment. We might even be waiting for consumable parts that are sitting in an unreported stockpile somewhere. It’s also possible that parts are being failed after all repair attempts have been exhausted or due to issues with maintenance crews. The reasons for a lack of inventory are almost endless, and it often points to broader systemic inefficiencies.
To combat such issues, the Navy, for instance, engages in daily calls by aircraft type, bringing together subject matter experts from all relevant fields to help keep aircraft operational. These discussions involve troubleshooting specific component failures, sharing innovative workarounds, and often lead to rapid solutions that get aircraft back in the air. While this sounds like a reactive measure, it highlights the constant, high-level effort required to maintain a modern fleet.
When we consider this 25% mission capability rate, it’s worth asking how our adversaries fare. It’s probable that nations like Russia and China face similar, if not worse, challenges in keeping their advanced aircraft operational. In this context, a 25% rate might not be as dire as it first appears, though it is certainly not ideal.
This isn’t entirely unprecedented. I recall a time when the F-15 fighter jet had similar serviceability rates, but through concerted effort, those rates improved significantly, reaching into the 80% range. There’s no inherent reason to expect the F-35 program to be fundamentally different in its potential for improvement.
There’s a notion being floated that perhaps the F-35’s operational requirements are excessively demanding, with suggestions that some aircraft might need extensive reapplication of coatings after every mission. This kind of thinking is sometimes attributed to a different approach to defense procurement, leading some to question why countries like Canada might opt for aircraft like the Gripen, which are perceived as having better uptime and simpler maintenance.
Some argue that the principles of capitalism, and perhaps a phenomenon sometimes described as “enshittification,” have finally caught up to the U.S. military. In this view, the focus on cost and efficiency, or a lack thereof, is impacting readiness. The concept of “full mission capability” is even being questioned by some, who express a preference for “partial mission capability.”
The current situation also leads to questions about the ongoing relevance of manned fighter jets in an era of rapid advancements in drone technology. The cost of a single F-35 raises eyebrows, prompting comparisons to the number of drones that could be acquired for the same price, and their potential to counter a lone F-35. Given these considerations, the decision by some nations to explore alternatives like the Gripen seems more understandable, especially when considering the F-35’s reputation as an “overpriced hanger queen,” even when not engaged in active combat.
A weapon system that cannot perform its intended functions when needed is tactically useless. Whether it’s a jammed gun, a malfunctioning component, or a grounded jet, the inability to operate undermines its strategic value. The significant investment in these aircraft raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the defense procurement and management processes.
The cost associated with the F-35 program is astronomical, with reports of billions of dollars yielding such low mission capability rates, sparking considerable debate. There are also concerns that the F-35’s vaunted stealth capabilities might not be as impenetrable as believed, with claims that adversaries like Iran can track them with radar. If this is true for Iran, it’s a reasonable assumption that Russia and China could also possess similar capabilities, potentially negating a key selling point of the F-35.
This has led some to advocate for acquiring less expensive alternatives like the Gripen, which are said to offer better uptime and simpler maintenance. The ongoing debate about increasing the defense budget, even as current assets struggle with readiness, is met with skepticism by some who view it as excessive. There are even comparisons drawn to past military parades in the Soviet Union, where aging equipment was paraded to project an image of strength.
The success of drones in conflicts like the one in Ukraine has further fueled the discussion about whether these advanced, costly jets are the most effective use of defense resources. Some are concerned that the current situation reflects a level of inefficiency or even corruption within the defense establishment, with speculation about equipment being cannibalized for parts.
The idea of a simple, low-cost solution to an extremely complex problem is often raised, highlighting the perceived disconnect between the high-tech aspirations and the practical realities of maintaining these aircraft. While there are those who staunchly defend the F-35’s capabilities, suggesting it outperforms any other aircraft in the sky, the persistent issues with readiness cannot be ignored.
The complexity of keeping a cutting-edge, low-production aircraft operational in wartime conditions is a significant challenge. Building a state-of-the-art supply chain for highly classified components for a limited number of aircraft presents a vastly different logistical puzzle compared to maintaining older, more widely produced aircraft.
The notion that the F-35 is an expensive mistake is a strong sentiment for some, particularly when juxtaposed with the potential of more affordable and potentially more operationally capable alternatives. The idea of appeasing the United States by purchasing F-35s while relying on other nations for core air defense capabilities, such as Sweden with its Gripen, is an interesting strategic consideration.
The claim that Iran can lock onto F-35s with radar is a significant concern, though it’s important to note that reports of a specific F-35 being hit by Iran indicate it was an infrared or electro-optical guided missile, and the aircraft reportedly survived and returned to base. Nonetheless, the implication that even some of the F-35’s advanced capabilities might be compromised is a serious issue that warrants careful consideration.