Well, here’s a tidbit of information about the initial F-35C carrier deployment that you likely won’t see publicly acknowledged again. Referring to the F-35C’s deployment aboard the USS Vinson, VAdm. Whitesell had this to say about the aircraft’s availability (readiness) rates.
“For that generation five fighter [ed. the F-35] to be fully full-mission capable, what was the percentage rate – which right now looks on paper starkly low, but now, what systems were not up? And how did it really affect – if we had to go into conflict, what would that be? And then what do we have to do to fix it?” Whitesell [Vice Adm. Kenneth Whitesell, Commander, U.S. Naval Air Forces] said.[1] [emphasis added]
As you recall, the F-35C just completed its first deployment aboard the USS Vinson. Apparently, to no one’s surprise but the Navy’s, the F-35 had ‘starkly low’ availability. The admiral did not offer a numerical percentage but given that the target full mission capable percentage is horrifyingly low (around 50%), ‘starkly low’ must be in the 20-30% realm. That’s putrid and means the aircraft were barely operational.
What is the admiral going to do about the ‘starkly low’ availability rates? Well, for one thing, he’s going to check on how spare parts impacted the situation. Read this carefully,
“With our international coalition partners flying the platform too, when we ask for a part, did we lose out to another country when we were on deployment? Where were we on the pecking order? Right now, it looks like we fared well, but I need to talk to Lockheed Martin since they run the ASP [ed. Afloat Spares Package] and the global spares program – [Hybrid Product Support Integration],” he said.[1]
Did you catch the part about having to talk to Lockheed Martin ‘since they run the ASP and global spares program’? So, it’s not the Navy that controls spare parts allocation for its aircraft … it’s Lockheed Martin.
… GAO claims that “the government still has very limited control over the F-35 supply chain, including ordering, part procurement, and inventory,” with defense officials telling the GAO that Lockheed still maintains “substantial control” over areas like parts storage and transport, and maintainers describing constraints that keep them from repairing parts that are proprietary.[3]
How did we get ourselves into a situation where a civilian contractor controls whether or not a deployed carrier aircraft gets spare parts? Having near monopolistic control over parts availability, Lockheed would never manipulate and restrict F-35 parts availability to subtly influence future production prices in their favor, right? Right? Still, does this sound like the way to run a war … hoping that Lockheed favors our deployed aircraft with parts? On a related note, what if China cyber-hacks Lockheed and messes up the parts distribution system? They could put our carriers out of action just by hacking the parts distribution computer program! Is having Lockheed run the parts program really a good idea?
We’ve given up onboard maintenance ability to contractors and now we’ve given up spare parts management to a contractor?
In addition to spare parts shortages, here’s another one of the problems the F-35 encountered:
During the recent deployment, the F-35C squadron found that some seals on the aircraft did not function as planned in the at-sea environment.
“There’s already [a] new design coming out of Lockheed Martin for the new seals,” he said. “So there’s some learning that’s been done.[1]
The Navy declared IOC (Initial Operating Capability) for the F-35C on 28-Feb-2019. That’s three years ago and we’re just now finding out that basic seals for a carrier deployed aircraft are a problem? I guess that IOC wasn’t really operational, was it?
On a related note, the seals issue once again highlights the difficulty in adapting a land based aircraft (which is what the F-35 is) to maritime use. So many people want to point to some land weapon system and say, just bolt it to the deck of a ship. Well, it’s a lot harder than that and this is yet another example of why most such efforts fail.
From the Navy’s announcement about the F-35C IOC,
The Navy added in its statement that “in order to declare IOC, the first operational squadron must be properly manned, trained and equipped to conduct assigned missions in support of fleet operations. This includes having 10 Block 3F, F-35C aircraft, requisite spare parts, support equipment, tools, technical publications, training programs and a functional Autonomic Logistic Information System (ALIS).[2]
I guess proper seals weren’t a requirement. We also know that ALIS has never functioned properly. Apparently, spare parts availability isn’t an assured thing. So … how could the Navy have declared IOC?
The F-35C first flight was Jun-2010. In the intervening 12 years, no one thought to test a carrier aircraft at sea or in a simulated saltwater environment to check things like seals? They could have simply parked an F-35C on the deck of a deployed carrier, exposed to the elements, and then checked the condition at the end of deployment.
I know the Navy has never met a test they didn’t want to bypass but sometimes tests are good and necessary.
So, ‘starkly low’ F-35C aircraft availability persists and yet the Navy wants to get more F-35s into the air wings? I think we need to back the availability truck up (and hopefully run over some F-35s!) and work on the readiness rates before we commit to placing the F-35 into the air wings and wind up further reducing our already hollow carrier force even more.
Do we really want carriers going to war with aircraft that have ‘starkly low’ availability rates?
__________________________________
[1]USNI News website, “A Generational Change in Naval Aviation Has Begun Amidst Tight Budgets, Fighter Gaps”, Mallory Shellbourne, 24-Mar-2022,
[2]USNI News website, “Navy Declares Initial Operational Capability for F-35C Joint Strike Fighter”, Megan Eckstein, 28-Feb-2019,
[3]Breaking Defense website, “Pentagon wants $500M to get data to manage F-35 parts”, Valerie Insinna, 29-Apr-2022,
https://breakingdefense.com/2022/04/pentagon-wants-500m-to-get-data-to-manage-f-35-parts/
When you outsource things, it is true that you get an instant scapegoat that is not you when things go wrong. However, when your demise is the result of things going wrong, well do the dead care who can claim to be at fault or blameless?
ReplyDeletePoliticians, even those wearing uniforms, only care about how they are perceived and how it affects their advancement. This is regrettably how far down the rabbit hole we have gone.
Outsourcing does something even better than create an instant scapegoat. It muddies the waters so much that there is no real transparency or accountability. It's all too complex to untangle especially once you start reading the contracts.
DeleteI work in government (healthcare management) and this obfuscation is exactly why governments here in Australia has pursued privatisation. There's no efficiency to be gained especially as even not-for-profits actually run for profits and those profits get paid either as dividends or executive packages and not reinvested in service delivery.
I have no doubt it's similar in defence.
At this point, what does the Navy actually do in this project, besides lying and "we'll ask LockMart"?
ReplyDeleteDisgraceful.
F-35C’s Radar-Absorbent Skin Is Looking Pretty Rough After Months At Sea
ReplyDeleteF-35Cs have become covered in rusty-looking deposits on their first operational carrier cruise.
by Thomas Newdick and Tyler Rogoway
Jan 29, 2022 5:59 PM
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44067/the-f-35cs-radar-absorbent-skin-is-looking-pretty-rough-after-months-at-sea
Remember those 1942 photos of B-25s crammed aboard a carrier for the Doolittle Raid? The F-35C is twice as heavy as those bombers, and has less range.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_B-25_Mitchell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II
The B-25s also had ten times more strafing firepower.
Im anything but an F-35 fanboy, but that comparison is awfully "apples to oranges". But, certain specs could be cherry picked to look at. I found it interesting that the B-25 could carry 75% of its base weight in fuel and ordnance, but the F-35 can carry 233% of its base weight!!! Also, if you look at unencumbered range, the B-25 again comes up second best. So while I agree with just about every anti-F-35 ( or LCS, OR Ford etc ad nauseum...) comment, I dont think the B-25 is a worthy conversational opponent...
DeleteI have two questions about the F35C.
ReplyDelete1) What does it actually do?
2) What war does it help us win?
It wins in simulations and wargames where conditions are set up for it to prevail.
DeleteGosh, what'll it be next?
ReplyDeleteWill they find structural issues that require them to put a big near-thousand-pound steel 'staple' in the center of the fuselage of existing airframes (with future production blocks being hundreds of pounds heavier to avoid the need for the 'staple')? I guess those videos the vendor put out showing how they slammed the airframes down with more-than-max-GTOW loadings at higher-than-max-sink-rate-for-a-trap speeds thousands of times to catch these sort of problems were a complete sham. So much for there being a benefit to choosing a vendor with decades of experience building carrier aircraft!
And goodness, will the engines, supposedly trusty because they're derived from another model already in service for a few years, start throwing turbine blades in a way that requires a steel casing to be installed around them? Will they also have problems with terrible stall margin through portions of the flight envelope leading to the loss of a bunch of airframes and aviators? And here I thought Pratt & Whitney knew what they were doing! I suppose to add insult to injury we could spec in something much better from GE about fifteen years down the road and then cancel the upgrade program after less than a quarter of the airframes get it.
Will the radar, also derived from a model that was in development fifteen years before the plane was adopted and which underwent a lot of testing on other airframes, have mechanical and electrical problems that result in a substantial number of aircraft declaring themselves 'lead-nose' after the cat shot (since the system can't fully be tested until the weight-on-wheels sensor says the plane's airborne)? I suppose we could wait for the Air Force to sponsor development of a drastically better (albeit less powerful) radar, contract with Hughes to make analogous improvements to the naval fighter's more powerful radar increasing capabilities for pennies, then cancel that too.
Will money needed for maintenance and spares be reallocated to procuring new ships (we do want to increase fleet levels!) leading to poor MC and awful FMC rates even when the airframes are less than ten years old? It seems we're already on track for this one.
All sarcasm about teething issues aside, it's disheartening that the Navy remains committed to repeating old mistakes rather than merely making new ones.
Given the budget and procurement system reality, the military has two choices: 1. accept that the maker also controls the maintenance and parts totally, and at least it is done right and fairly safe, or 2. allow the officers to run the system, at even higher cost per flight hour and much worse safety.
ReplyDeleteThat is why the air force now staffs their bases overseas, including bases at risk of attack in Africa, with so many contractors and passes so many repair costs on a different budget.
Then you have the Corps, treating their maintainer enlisted worse than prisoners sentenced to hard labor and accepting the cost in lives.
"the military has two choices:"
DeleteNo, there is a third choice and that is to handle the maintenance and parts supply on their own and do it right, as we've done throughout our history.
"treating their maintainer enlisted worse than prisoners sentenced to hard labor"
Please supply some examples.
Here is one for you that you may not be aware of...they just deployed the USS Tripoli (LHA7) loaded with a full compliment of F-35B's. "Independent Ops" they are calling it. I wonder if they deployed with escorts? I mean, in all reality, they should have at least a couple of DDG's escorting them right?
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2022/05/02/uss-tripoli-quietly-leaves-on-maiden-deployment?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=dfn-ebb
You know it had to be pretty bad when leadership talks more about the bad news than the "good" news of how well F35 did.....the "good" stuff was all platitudes from what I could find around. The bad news was all in detail so it was really bad!
ReplyDeleteCan't find the article now, think it was in BD, US and allies have bought close to 1000 F35s, still no block 4, that has been pushed back another few years and still no block buy....how do you buy so many and still doesn't work right?!?!? Pretty much everything before BLOCK 4 will be rendered old obsolete and super expensive to keep around and we've bought 1000 of them!!!! Just plain outrageous!
Land Based?, the F-35C & A designs were compromised
ReplyDeleteto make the B version, so you have a fat fighterette
with sub-par pilot visibility & power to weight ratio.
The Marines do operate in salt, yes?, or the used to
back when the F-35B was specified.
Uncle Boyd would have chucked the design in the skip.
If the Marines wanted to replace the Harrier they should
have built the P-1154.
When you are out of F-8s, you are out of fighters.
CNO look at this. Think you should create a post https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2022/may/antiship-missile-lessons-sinking-moskva
ReplyDeleteI already did a post on this:
DeleteSlava/Moskva Sinking Lessons
There is one more lesson you should review. Sure much more information has appeared in last weeks.
DeleteWhat really is the utility of the F35C? It's basically just a too-short-ranged fighter/attack aircraft, like an F/A18 with somewhat enhanced stealth and electronics. It's not what the USN really needs--a fighter/interceptor with long enough legs to protect the carrier group out at some distance--a modernized F14.
ReplyDeleteI can see at least a perceived need for the F35B--an improvement over the Harrier for allied navies with jump-jet carriers, and an airplane that Marines can fly from small carriers and take ashore and operate off short or unimproved runways (heat may be a problem for the latter).
Instead of more F35C's shouldn't the USN be building a true long-legs replacement for the F14? And maybe revive and update a limited number of McD A12 Avengers for the attack role.
If so, what of the F35C? How about the newest EW platform? Put a second seat where the fan goes on the B for someone to operate all the EW suite while the pilot flies the airplane. Put extra electronics in the bomb bay, along with extra fuel to give it more range. I suppose the range v. electronics debate will guide which one gets more of the old bomb bay.
Older post. But looks like Lockheed lost its shot at the Japan's next fighter because they wanted to do the same we control the logistics/parts/IP thing (as with the F-35). It seem the Japanese decided rather on not doing that.
ReplyDelete