The following is testimony provided June 23, 2026, on the
F-35 aircraft program presented to the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee’s
Subcommittee on Airland. Testimony
provided by U.S. Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Gregory Masiello, Program Executive
Officer F-35 Lightning II Joint Program Office.[1]
Here are some illuminating quotes from the transcript.[1]
As you know, the readiness rates are abysmal. Here’s a major reason why.
So, the military has sized the sustainment effort for only half the existing aircraft?????! How are people not being fired on a daily basis?
As a result of the sustainment issues, readiness is in the
toilet and the toilet is at the bottom of a deep pit. Rather than acknowledge the problem, firing
people, and then fixing the problem, the military is still engaged in
accounting games trying to make it look less bad than it is.
It’s 25% and even that is overestimated!
As a reminder, there are two sets of mission capable
measurements:
One of the problems is low expectations.
So, general, you’ve set a pathetically low MC standard (only 80% are even rated to be able to get off the ground) that you can’t meet and have no idea how to even achieve that low standard. Wow. How are people not being fired on a daily basis?
Gen. Masiello: In this session, I think I can say one of our challenges, and you talked about it, is if I have over 1,300 operational aircraft out there. I believe we have set and enabled a sustainment system for about 700 to 800. So, there is our challenge in readiness. [p.10]
So, the military has sized the sustainment effort for only half the existing aircraft?????! How are people not being fired on a daily basis?
Senator Kelly: Thank you. So, the GAO [ed. Government Accountability Office] FMC [ed. Full Mission Capable] rate is they said 25 percent.· Your office claims it's 56 percent. [p.18]
It’s 25% and even that is overestimated!
- Mission Capable (MC) – The aircraft can perform at least one task. Basically, this means the aircraft can get off the ground.
- Full Mission Capable (FMC) – The aircraft can perform any of its combat mission tasks. This is what every aircraft should be.
Gen. Masiello: We have a North Star for 80 percent MC across the entirety of the fleet, and we need to figure out how to do that. [p.11]
So, general, you’ve set a pathetically low MC standard (only 80% are even rated to be able to get off the ground) that you can’t meet and have no idea how to even achieve that low standard. Wow. How are people not being fired on a daily basis?
 |
| That's about as ready as it gets. |
To be fair, how can Congress hear this and not fire people?
_____________________________
https://news.usni.org/2026/07/01/testimony-on-the-f-35-aircraft-program
A major issue is maintainer turnover. Commands are focused on high readiness levels and the solution is to make maintainers work 60 hours a week. These are skilled personnel who can make more money outside the military, so they leave. Replacements must have top ASVAB scores and require a year of initial training.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if it's true or not, so take with a grain of salt but everything I hear about the US military through the grape vine is that moral is in the toilet right now...it's beyond no spare parts, pilot training being curtailed, crap leadership, Ive been hearing everyone in leadership is running for cover, lots of CYA, no end in sight deployments, etc etc....It's really bad. I don't see any of this helping with retention.....
DeleteI wonder if something like the Military Expert scheme that Singapore has would work better for maintainers? You come in as an ME, you're still subject to military law and the chain of command, but you're explicitly removed from the enlisted NCO progression ladder and you stay in that one role focusing on that one thing. They use the ME system for maintainers and other specialist roles where you would want to have people working in this specific role doing the hands-on thing, and not lose them to NCO staff work.
ReplyDeleteWant to just fix planes for your whole career? Sign on as ME. Want to do small unit leadership, be a crew chief, run the maintennance squad? Sign on as a Regular NCO.
Just as the US high schools have made every student feel like a failure if they don't go to college (ruining our trades training), the military has made it an unforgivable sin if someone wants to be a mechanic or engineer as the epitome of their career instead of being a general. How many great people have forced out of service because they had no interest in being a general or admiral? 'Up or out' should be replaced by 'find your niche and be good at it'.
DeleteI think a fast-track career to E-8 would work. If performing well, E-4 at two years, E-5 at four years, reenlist so E-6 at six years, E-7 at eight years, and E-8 at ten years, then they will probably stay to 20 years at least. Right now, they are treated like all the low skill career fields that have no retention problems. We want mostly E-8s fixing $100 million F-35s not E-4s with two years of experience.
ReplyDeleteI recall when the Marines realized that forcing E-6 maintainers to retire after 20 years just because... was crazy. I'm not sure how this works in all the services, but if they finish their initial five years as an E-5 with no rapid promotion prospects most leave or try for a break by going to recruiting command or other "B" billets so they are "well rounded" for the traditional promotion ladder.
Bigger fish to fry:
ReplyDeletehttps://news.usni.org/2026/08/05/first-trump-class-battleship-could-cost-23-4b-says-cbo
““The 2027 shipbuilding plan would substantially increase the number of large surface combatants the Navy would purchase. Under that plan, the Navy would purchase 72 such ships between 2027 and 2056: 15 BBGNs and 57 DDG-51 Flight IIIs,” reads the report.”
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/62550
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2025-01/60732-data.xlsx
https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2026-08/62550-data.xlsx
https://media.defense.gov/2026/May/11/2003928909/-1/-1/1/NAVY%20SHIPBUILDING%20PLAN%20MAY%202026.PDF
These are the relevant USNI article, CBO report and underlying tables and figures linked.
Beyond the cost. The figure 4 inventory for 2025 shows 42 DDG 51 III ships by 2042 with DDGX then taking over with 19 commissioned by 2054. With table 1 showing 23 III purchased under 2025 plan but in figure five shows 38 purchased from 2019- 2037. But now with DDGXout of the picture. 57 are to be procured from 2027-2054. That would mean from 2038-2054 another 34 IIIs procured. For a total of 76 procured overall. Thats crazy according to table A1-2 from the May 2026 pdf linked.
For 2025 report two unique links:
Deletehttps://www.cbo.gov/publication/60732
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61155
Its amazing how much changed from then to now. See above links.
I really wish when providing links you could just click on them and go there like other comment sites around the web.
DeleteWas stuck on 2054 but procurement of IIIs actually runs through 2056. So add 4 for a total of 80 IIIs. I dont see either the BBGN or 80 IIIs being purchased through 2056. And therefore being delivered to 2061 ir beyond. But stranger things have happened.
Delete"I really wish when providing links you could just click on them and go there like other comment sites around the web."
DeleteYou can if you know how to enter the link. I do it frequently.
It's the HTML "a" link with "href". Look it up and you can get the exact syntax.
Thanks. But at most sites all you have to do is copy and paste the link and it automatically becomes a hyperlink without doing what you suggest.
DeleteThis site is free. It doesn't cost me or the reader anything. The downside is that it has limited capability. You get what you pay for!
DeleteGot it
DeleteThe free nature of the site means that I am beholden to neither advertisers nor donor readers. Anything I write is uninfluenced by any "debt" to anyone.
DeleteGot it.
Deletehttps://cbo.gov</
ReplyDeleteF-35 is a strategic blunder from day one, even apart from its many technical failures today.
ReplyDeleteRumfield had done a "great" job on F-35. It was designed on assumption no equal pal in air. It was designed mainly for ground and sea attacks with some air to air abilities. It started with advanced avionics in mind (good point) but these newly added stuff are electricity monsters. Furthermore, its old mission computer has difficult to handle them thus you see F-35 TR-2 mission computer frequently crash in flight which need reboot. TR-3 changed mission computer but ... still a mess.
So you see limited F-35 sorties during current war with Iran. Most attacks done by F-15E and F-16. Why Israelis F-35i have been used extensively? Because Israel uses its own electronic suites such as EW system which generally have their own CPU onboard. It is quite difficult to integrate thus Israel placed CPU on board.
I'm pretty certain you do not have the slightest idea how many sorties F-35s flew or why they were, or were not, used. If you do, please provide a link to the data.
Deletehttps://www.cbo.gov/publication/60732
ReplyDeletehttps://www.armyrecognition.com/news/aerospace-news/2026/israel-indigenous-stealth-fighter-f35-drone-us-aid
ReplyDeleteThink i got it now. See how this works. Come here on my phone. Keyboard doesnt have the symbols needed. So had AI make me some templates. See if this works. What a pain. LOL