F-35 fiasco: Zero capable goals achieved over the last six years
In a damning assessment, the Government Accountability Office [GAO] has painted a bleak picture of the U.S. Air Force’s F-35 fighter jet program, which encompasses three variants: the F-35A, F-35B, and F-35C.
Over the past six years, from 2018 to 2023, none of the F-35s achieved their designated “capable goals,” earning an alarming rating of “0 out of 6.” This stark evaluation raises serious questions about the effectiveness and viability of one of the most expensive military projects in American history, which has cost taxpayers over $1.5 trillion.
The F-35’s struggles are not isolated. Other aircraft, including the F-15E, F-22 Raptor, and naval variants like the EA-18G and F/A-18 series, have similarly failed to meet operational objectives during this timeframe.
The A-10 managed to fulfill its goals in just one of the six years, while the F-15C met requirements once, the F-15D twice, the F-16C three times, and the F-16D once. Such widespread underperformance casts doubt on the military’s investment strategies and operational planning.
The implications of these findings extend far beyond budgetary concerns. Originally envisioned to deliver a technological edge in aerial combat, the F-35 has been plagued by a myriad of critical deficiencies. From persistent software issues to mechanical failures and challenges in integrating advanced technologies, the aircraft’s operational capabilities remain unfulfilled.
Radar systems and data management technologies, which are supposed to enhance the F-35’s stealth and maneuverability, often fail to function as intended. The GAO report emphasizes significant problems with the software systems designed for data exchange among jets, undermining the F-35’s ability to operate effectively in network-centric warfare environments where information sharing is crucial.
As global tensions rise, particularly with Russia and China, both of which are rapidly advancing their military capabilities, the inadequacies of the F-35 could hinder the U.S.’s strategic positioning in air superiority. The rising costs associated with maintaining the F-35 are equally troubling.
The program has seen continuous budget increases, and per-unit maintenance costs are escalating instead of declining over time. Current operational expenses for the F-35 hover around $36,000 per hour—significantly higher than earlier fighter models. This surge in costs strains the Pentagon’s budget, diverting funds from other essential military initiatives.
The financial burden of the F-35 program not only jeopardizes its sustainability but also limits investment in emerging technologies and modernization efforts. Rather than channeling resources toward innovative solutions that adapt to the changing nature of warfare, substantial funds are being funneled into maintaining an aging system. This misallocation raises urgent questions about the long-term viability of the U.S. military’s strategy.
Furthermore, the growing focus on hybrid conflicts and asymmetric threats demands a more flexible and adaptive approach to military equipment. Despite the immense investment in the F-35, the Pentagon risks becoming ensnared in a cycle where the costs of maintaining outdated systems restrict the development of new platforms.
In recent years, there has been a noticeable shift toward drones and other technologies that offer more effective solutions for modern combat conditions. The mounting expenses associated with the F-35 program, coupled with its persistent shortcomings, underscore the need to reassess strategic priorities and budgetary planning.
The dismal rating of “0 out of 6” may seem like just another statistic, but it reflects a systemic failure that could have severe consequences for national security. To illustrate the gravity of this situation, we can examine the annual operational requirements that have, for various reasons, not been met. The F-35 program, developed by Lockheed Martin, was launched with ambitious goals aimed at providing the U.S. and its allies with a new generation of air power.
These operational objectives, referred to as “capable goals,” encompass crucial areas such as operational readiness, combat capability, mission support, and the integration of new technologies. The U.S. Department of Defense sets these fundamental requirements, which serve as benchmarks for assessing the program’s progress.
The core aim of the F-35 is to deliver a substantial advantage in combat scenarios, featuring capabilities such as stealth, high maneuverability, advanced fire control systems, and integrated information processing.
Each year, the “capable goals” for the F-35 typically include benchmarks for mission execution, successful task completion rates, operational readiness, and interoperability with other platforms. For instance, these goals might stipulate a minimum aircraft availability rate of around 70% for active operational units and a specified number of successful combat exercises.
In terms of combat effectiveness, these objectives also require the integration of new weapons and technologies. For the F-35, this involves ensuring compatibility with various munitions and systems, as well as maintaining accuracy and effectiveness standards for ordnance used during missions. Furthermore, mission support capabilities must address the logistical demands of ground operations, including response times and the availability of spare parts to sustain operational readiness.
The F-35 must also demonstrate the ability to operate within a networked environment, integrating data and intelligence from multiple platforms. This capability is critical, as modern military operations increasingly rely on seamless coordination among diverse combat units. Goals in this area include successful communication with allied forces and the ability to share data in real-time.
The capacity of the F-35 to meet these operational standards is under constant scrutiny from military leaders and experts alike. Failure to achieve these objectives could lead to a reevaluation of the program’s support strategy and investment framework, which is vital for the future of American military power.
In conclusion, the F-35’s inability to meet its operational capability goals serves as a serious warning for the Pentagon. The GAO’s critical analysis highlights the pressing need for greater transparency and accountability in public spending.
With escalating global threats, the United States cannot afford to falter in its pursuit of military superiority. Realizing successful investments in new technologies and adaptive military solutions is essential for the future of the U.S. armed forces. If not addressed, the country risks falling behind its competitors in crucial aspects of military capability.
www.twz.com
ukdefencejournal.org.uk
www.airandspaceforces.com
aviationweek.com
www.rtx.com
theaviationist.com
