"USAF General - current F-35s offer no capability" Topic

Well this is interesting.

link

Air Force Lieutenant General Clint Hinote, the service's Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements, stated that there is no point using current standard F-35s in any wargames because "Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn't even bother putting into these scenarios."

So a key USAF general has admitted current production F-35s are nigh worthless in a peer conflict.

Note 500th F-35 was delivered in March 2021 and the fighter is currently the second most numerous in USAF after the F-16. So all 500 are essentially worthless in a peer level conflict.

Apparently the F-35A model he would use in Taiwan is the Block 4 but that is still in development which has been protracted and problematic and won't finish development until 2027-28!

Oh and more hilarity – Government Accounting Office doesn't even think the 2027 date for Block 4 is realistic, even though that date was delayed by 3 years!

Seems a quarter of the software is defective.

link

What a waste of debt!

Very sad, but not surprising that "The Coot" is still not up to snuff after so many years of "development".

Sadly, it appears that overburdened taxpayers and our pilots are not getting the bang for their buck that they need to fight adversaries effectively should that be necessary.

Last I saw, the F-35 had about a 30% – 40% serviceability readiness rate too, in peacetime. No doubt, when conducting war sorties in far-flung areas, they'd be hard-pressed to maintain that, and I suspect it might drop even further, especially given the issues they are having with their integral, logistics software.

It is amazing that there are at least 10 Tier 1 gripes, many of which haven't even been shared with the public, since they are secret.

Makes me wonder if the cannon/software/HUD integration problem is still an issue, and what other things are of concern.

I do hope they can get some of these fixed soon, but even if they do, as mentioned in the article, the general wouldn't even bother to field these in defense of Taiwan.

I suppose that makes sense, since unless we are going to attack mainland China with F-35s performing in its stealthy attack-jet role, it is ill-suited to air defense against more maneuverable Chinese fighters, in a congested air environment. The latter will negate "The Coot's" stealthiness, since in many cases, air battles may be conducted within visual range.

These articles always make me laugh because you really have no idea what this general has said previously or in the context it was delivered. My guess is that he's pushing for additional funds to move the 6th gen fighters to the forefront and get started on those immediately. Also, what were the war-games about? Were they set up so that no current USAF aircraft could perform well in them so that they could ask for funding for something that would? Too many questions.

I live right outside Hill AFB, so there's F-35s flying overhead all day and night. There's been no complaints around here about their capabilities and by all accounts when they get teamed up with F-22s and drones, it's an unbeatable combination.

aegiscg47 bingo. I live near Langley AFB and the F-22s fly regularly. Jet noise never bothers me.

Getting 6th Gens soon makes a lot of sense, since we have so few F-22s, and all of our other jets are 50+ year old designs.

…that's what happens when your national defense policy becomes more focused on steering contracts to get corporate board seats and political payoffs than, well, defense…

Some rebuttals by folks who know what they are talking about…

link

YouTube link

link

If you talk to any pilot who has flown the F35, they will talk about the F35 being the jet they want to go to war with. It's not even close.

always remember -- Mattis included, -- all highb ranking military are after funding, usually to a arms supplier they are somehow in with -- even if hidden.
Like my Dad always said --- "always follow the money !!"

Regards
Russ Dunaway

TGerritsen, given USAF has gone off the bpil on F-35s by buying new F-15s, contemplating new F-16s and conisdering a bew lower tech fighter, there is clearly something rotten with F-35.

And that something could be cost and disnal serviceability rates. There are also numerous major defects that are unresolved

Also note in this article, the general was talking about F-35A Block 3s or earlier and not the future "final" standard Block 4s due in 2027-28.

Finally renember the Tiger tank? Could bene the F-35 is indeed the modern equivalent of a Tiger- great capabilities but too expensive and too unreliable.

The F-35 is ultimately just a tool. It's a very expensive and very capable tool when used for the right job.

If you talk to any pilot who has flown the F35

I've asked two F-35 pilots that we've met socially (married to daughters of friends) and they were both highly complementary about the F-35.

The pilots' opinions are largely irrelevant as to how an aircraft fits in a concept of operations or its sustainability. They don't take into account key elements such as logistics or maintenance and procurement. Often they don't take into account tactical or strategic ramifications.

Hence General Hinote's and other USAF gemnerals comments hold much more weight IMO.

Stealth aircraft are hangar queens and have far more maintenance requirements than conventional aircraft.

E.g F-22 availability has at times been as low as 50% or less and F-35s have been 60% or lower compared to 80+% for A-10, F-15, F-16D and 70%+ for F-16C. These are peace time stats that don't take into account higher wear and tear during high tempo ops.

This is also contrary to usual logic whereby older aircraft require far more maintenance due to age related problems.

IMO the F-35 also has five major Achilles heels in a peer level war:

1. It's production is global and parts production are spread across multiple countries (albeit assembled in only three locations – US, Italy and Japan). This has already caused major issues when Turkey was removed from the program and alternative parts manufacturers had to be found which cause some production delays.

F-15 and F-16 production is contained within the USA and thus secure.

2. It's short range (a problem common to nearly all American fighters). Asia Pacific requires long range capability. Aerial refuelling tankers can be used but being large non-stealthy modified airliners (KC-135 = B717, KC-10 = DC-10, new useless KC-46 = B767) they are essentially large radar beacons and increasingly vulnerable.

RAND did a study whereby F-22s engaged with older Chinese Su-27 variants (J-11/Su-27SK). The F-22s were outnumbered but managed to defeat larger groups of Chinese aircraft. But the Chinese could swarm the tankers and shoot them down which resulted in F-22s running out of fuel and ditching in the East China Sea.

3. Speed – speed is still critical for performing interceptions. And F-35 is slower the F-15/-16/-22 Mach 1.6 compared to between Mach 2-2.5 or even F/A-18 at Mach 1.8.

Speed is also key for getting out of bad situations.

To make matters worse, F-35 can only perform supersonic speed for extremely short bursts as sustained supersonic speed can structurally damage the aircraft (literally melting it). The Navy and Marine Corp variants are especially affected by this and the Navy version may not be able to perform supersonic intercepts at all.

Then the other issue – flying at full afterburner removes stealthiness (doesn't affect F-22 because its stealthiness is far more sophisticated which also contributes to poor availability).

4. Limitations in Within Visual Range combat –
The issue with structural damage means there are extreme limitations on afterburner usage which hampers any close combat which is problematic especially as Chinese and Russian aircraft are super manoeuvrable.

So whereas the F-35 might be great at setting up hit and run ambushes, it's not really capable of rapid response nor of fighting a sustained battle.

It's not an interceptor or air dominance/superiority fighter or a dog fighter. The F-22 and F-15 do these things much better and the faster extremely manoeuvrable F-16 is a far better dog fighter (even with its development bloat) and interceptor.

5. Maintenance hog/hangar queen – it's a very complicated stealth aircraft and as such requires more maintenance than older jets. Like F-22, it's availability is poorer than 4th generation non-stealth jets.

This makes it less reliable at generating sorties.

There have been deployments where F-35 had resounding availability rates. But it turns out that it wasn't just the wing/squadron maintenance crew that was deployed but also a small army of private contractors! In essence the maintenance crew is much bigger which means more mouths to feed, house etc.

In a peer level war, that matters a lot.

The F-35 ALIS automated logistics system (parts ordering system) is a complete and utter failure and is being replaced by the Operational Data Integrated Network, or ODIN which might start coming on line in 2022 (and whether it works is anyone's guess).

I've asked two F-35 pilots that we've met socially (married to daughters of friends) and they were both highly complementary about the F-35.

That's good feedback, and I think what pilots think about the aircraft they are flying is important. With that said, I also think most pilots will speak highly of whatever aircraft they fly. A flight school classmate of mine ended up flying the B-52 (antiquated to me) and loved it. Most flight school trainees wanted to fly the newest bright and shiny aircraft, but ended up loving whatever aircraft they were assigned. Think Han Solo and the Millenium Falcon.

@arealdeadone, did you even read the links that are in Tgerritsen's post? It's clear that what has been reported in the press isn't accurate (shocker) in regards to what Gen. Brown actual was saying.

Yes what the pilots are saying is relevant since they are the ones who will have to go to war in the plane and have actual experience with the system and it's capabilities. Claiming that the pilots experience is irrelevant is the kind of thing some deskbound officer in the depths of the Pentagon who has never flown a fighter would say.

[qute]@arealdeadone, did you even read the links that are in Tgerritsen's post? It's clear that what has been reported in the press isn't accurate (shocker) in regards to what Gen. Brown actual was saying.

Those articles are editorials and I'd read them before.

The truth is that the air force is changing its policy from an all 5th generation F-22/-35 fleet to acquiring 4.5th generation aircraft ala F-15EX and potentially either more F-16s (Block 70) or a new clean sheet 4.5th generation fighter.

Yes what the pilots are saying is relevant since they are the ones who will have to go to war in the plane and have actual experience with the system and it's capabilities. Claiming that the pilots experience is irrelevant is the kind of thing some deskbound officer in the depths of the Pentagon who has never flown a fighter would say.

So the frontline pilots:

1. Manage logistics
2. Manage maintenance
3. Plan wars and develop relevant strategy and tactics
4. Manage budgets and work on financial sustainability (key in peacetime).
5. Develop concepts of operations
6. Focus on sortie generation etc
7. Focus on integration between systems to create a coherent combined arms approach capable of defeating threats.

No, this is the role of the generals such as General Brown (Chief of Staff) or General Hinote in strategy development. Oh and Brown and Hinote are both ex-F16 pilots who have flown combat sorties. Not exactly desk bound officers but still they have reservations about the F-35.

And its in some of these areas where the F-35 is failing (sortie generation, maintenance requirements, logistical issues, operational costs and financial sustainability).

And as I mentioned range and speed are problematic from an Asia Pacific perspective (and effective range is as much a problem for an F-16 or F-15 or F/A-18 as an F-35).

Even if the pilots thought a plane was a total dud, they'd still have to go to war and fight in it much like American tankers had to fight in Shermans as late as the early 1950s despite the general perception of the Sherman as an undergunned Ronson (truth is different of course). And just like several USMC/USN squadrons had to fight in B2A Buffalos and TBD Devastators despite both aircraft being regarded as poor by all. And USMC frontline troops might appreciate their M1 Abrams but hey the brass don't want those tanks so they're gone.

Military isn't a democracy. You fight with what you have regardless of your opinion on it..

Yea, they have to fly what they are ordered to.

I imagine most don't want to diss their aircraft, squadron, so will tow the party line, at least officially.

Clearly, the jet still has a lot of major issues, and appears not to be ready for prime time.

The slow, Mach 1.8 limit is further limited, since as mentioned above, even that relatively "slow" speed compared to other Mach 2/Mach 2.2+ jets was causing damage to the aircraft's stealth skin/coating.

I can't recall the exact number, but think the new maximum is is on the order of Mach 1.4 – 1.5, and I think even that is limited to 5 – 6 minutes of use.

Not sure how big a deal that is in many situations, other than when trying to flee, or to intercept enemy aircraft. Aircraft gulp an awful lot of fuel when flying at Mach 1+ speeds, so that is only used when really necessary.