some F35 info

[Thumpalumpacus]

President Donald Trump's comments Thursday in Qatar about future fighter jets planned for the U.S. military have baffled observers and been met with silence from the Pentagon.

During a roundtable discussion in Doha, Qatar, flanked by the heads of Boeing and GE Aerospace, Trump surprised many in the military aviation world by asserting a twin-engined F-35 successor, which he dubbed the F-55, was in the works.

Pentagon silent, aviation experts baffled by Trump’s fighter comments

“President Trump appears to have been speculating out loud about future airplanes that, as far as I know, don’t exist," said former SECAF Frank Kendall.

www.airforcetimes.com

 

[GrauGeist]

Notice in this article, what is NOT being said about the planned F-35 and F-22 upgrades.

There is also cryptic mentions about the F-47, which has almost zero information available:
Trump Touts 'F-55' Fighter: Is There a Twin-Engined F-35 Coming?

As a side note, in 1964, President Johnson referred to the RS-71 as the SR-71 due to miscommunication when he revealed the project.

In regards to the F-55, since we're not privvy to SecMeets, all we can do is wait and see.

 

[Glider]

Going back a little to the main topic there are some concerns within the RAF regarding some key weapons that the F35 was due to use namely the long range Spear air to ground missiles and the Meteor long range air to air missile.

Both these missiles are by MBDA and the Spear has been tested successfully on the Typhoon within the RAF and the Meteor is operational in a number of airforces within Europe. But it is understood that the issue is related to long-delayed upgrades of the F-35 hardware and software by Lockheed Martin.

I find this more than a little disconcerting as the UK paid a lot of money to be given access to the code for this very situation but it looks as if there is a problem in this area and there is a reliance on Lockheed Martin.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Notice in this article, what is NOT being said about the planned F-35 and F-22 upgrades.

There is also cryptic mentions about the F-47, which has almost zero information available:
Trump Touts 'F-55' Fighter: Is There a Twin-Engined F-35 Coming?

As a side note, in 1964, President Johnson referred to the RS-71 as the SR-71 due to miscommunication when he revealed the project.

In regards to the F-55, since we're not privvy to SecMeets, all we can do is wait and see.

It's crap. Sticking a second engine on the F-35 is a major redesign bordering on a new design, we all know that here. And what is "NOT" being said about F-22 and F-35 upgrades, well, that's not surprising. Not like we tell folks what we're up to much. If there is to be an F-55, it will be competing with the F-47 for development resources, anyway.

The NGAD/F-47 is prospective and has been dancing on the razor's edge for the last six months or so due to budget considerations and projected development expenses. If the F-55 is actually in consideration, it will certainly be a rival for funding as it will be a major redesign if not clean-sheet proposal. Given that the USAF already is funding 100 B-21s and a new nuclear ICBM that is already deep into cost overruns, the idea that it can fund not only one but two major fighter programs seems questionable at best.

Johnson misspoke about the plane's designation -- but the plane existed and his military/CIA leadership were in the loop. Trump is blathering about stuff that his own military leaders say aren't in the pipeline. That's two entirely different levels of error.

 

[Greyman]

'Six former Air Force Chiefs of Staff and nine other retired 4-star generals joined Air & Space Forces Association leadership in calling on Congress to triple the number of F-35A fighters the Air Force buys in fiscal 2026 ...'

Don't these guys read twitter and watch youtube? The F-35 is a failure!

16 Retired 4-Stars Urge Congress to Fund E-7 and More F-35s

Six former Air Force Chiefs of Staff and seven retired 4-star generals joined AFA leaders in calling on Congress to boost the E-7 and F-35A.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[ThomasP]

A bit of info re upgrades and delays.

"US Armed Forces Receive 72 F-35 Fighters Upgraded with TR3 Digital Power to Challenge Air Defenses"

 

[Admiral Beez]

As noted elsewhere, the first Canadian F-35 Squadron (let alone the entire fleet) isn't expected to be operational until 2029. For some strange reason -- which may or may not involve the phrase 'Term Limits', I expect the current level of chaos to be drastically reduced by then.

Agreed. As a Canuck I'd like to see the RCAF carry on with the F-35 purchase. It's been a decade plus in the works, the industrial offsets are good for Canada, and we can't run the Hornets into the mid-2030s. We're the 9th largest global economy by gdp, and should buy the best kit available, and the F-35 is becoming the standard NATO non-European made fighter. But, going forward I'd like Ottawa to look beyond the US for most future defense procurement, provided NATO compatibility and cost are taken into consideration. As our PM Carney recently said, "Canada's old relationship with the United States, based on deepening integration of our economies and tight security and military cooperation, is over".

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

FRESNO COUNTY, Calif. (KSEE/KGPE) – An F-35C "Rough Raiders" jet crashed into a field in Fresno County, California, on Wednesday.

Naval Air Station Lemoore said the pilot is safe after successfully ejecting before the crash.

Toni Botti, a public information officer for the Fresno County Sheriff's Office, said the pilot was located and transported to a hospital where he was "doing OK" as of Wednesday night.

"The little that we know about the pilot is that he is a veteran pilot with lots of experience," Botti told reporters.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5429761-f-35-goes-down-in-fiery-crash-in-california-pilot-safely-ejects/?tbref=hp

 

[ThomasP]

Interesting , and a bit disturbing if accurate:

"https://militarnyi.com/en/news/u-s-...eadiness-of-f-35a-half-of-jets-unable-to-fly/"

 

[GTX]

Interesting , and a bit disturbing if accurate:

"https://militarnyi.com/en/news/u-s-...eadiness-of-f-35a-half-of-jets-unable-to-fly/"

To put it in context the GAO report they are basing this article on was referencing the readiness of jets between 2019 and 2023. Also, unless one also has the equivalent numbers for other jets it is not really viable to tell how this is good/bad for the F-35.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Aircraft readiness declined across the Air Force fleet in 2024, dropping to its lowest level in at least a decade and perhaps 20 years, according to data provided to Air & Space Forces Magazine.

The average mission capable rate for all USAF fleets was 67.15 percent in fiscal 2024, down from 69.92 percent in fiscal 2023 and 71.24 percent in fiscal 2022. Compared to 2004-2006 and 2012-2024, years for which data was available, the 2024 rates were the lowest.

These rates represent a non-weighted average of all the fleets. A weighted average could be somewhat better, as the most challenged fleets are among the smallest in USAF's inventory.

[...]

Bombers

All three Air Force bomber fleets were mission capable less than half the time. The B-1B's rate improved slightly, but the B-2 and B-52 rates declined slightly, all within 1.5 percent of last year's values.

Fighters

Rates for the aging F-15C and D fleets rose from 33 and 55 percent, respectively, to 52.9 and 63.7 percent as the oldest, worst-performing aircraft were retired. The new F-15EX, with just eight aircraft, managed an 83.13 percent rate.
F-22 readiness fell from 52 percent to just 40.19 percent; it had been at 57.4 percent two years ago. The Air Force sought to divest its 32 least-capable F-22s in recent years, but Congress has blocked that move until at least 2028.
The mission capable rate for the F-35A held steady, inching up a half percentage point to 51.5 percent., possibly benefitting from increased spare parts availability as delivery was held up for scores of new aircraft throughout fiscal 2024.

Mobility

The mobility fleet had some of the highest rates overall—with most types in the 75-100 percent range. The C-5M Galaxy managed to improve on its '23 rate of 46 percent, raising it to 48.6 percent, but still lower than 2022. The Galaxy recently completed a 10-year, $10 billion upgrade program for its engine, structures, and avionics, but its mission capable rate has remained stubbornly low. Program managers have said the C-5 suffers from parts shortages owing to "vanishing vendor" syndrome, and they are in a push to improve its readiness to 55 percent, called "Drive to 55."
The Air Force's fleet of aerial refueling aircraft all turned in rates in the 60-70 percent range. The rate for the KC-46 declined to 61.05 percent, down from 65 percent the previous year.
The MC-130H registered a zero percent rate, while the trainer TC-130H turned in 13.72 percent, as those aircraft are being divested.

Air Force Mission Capability Rates Reach Lowest Levels in Years

The Air Force fleet's mission capable rates declined again in fiscal 2024, suggesting more readiness funding is needed.

www.airandspaceforces.com

 

[ThomasP]

re statement in bold text

To put it in context the GAO report they are basing this article on was referencing the readiness of jets between 2019 and 2023. Also, unless one also has the equivalent numbers for other jets it is not really viable to tell how this is good/bad for the F-35.

The absolute readiness rate of a platform always matters, regardless of what the readiness rates are for other platforms. The low readiness rates for other platforms is just indicative of a systematic problem, which is as or more disturbing.

Having said the above, the F-35 is a complex aircraft, so one could expect lower readiness rates than for a simpler platform. The problem is that there really is no valid excuse (blame whomever you wish for the root cause) for a ~50% readiness rate. A reduced mission capability, maybe, due to one onboard system or another being unreliable, but not due to a lack of spares or maintenance personnel - 8 years after entering service and in a non-combat environment.

IMO the F-35 is a worthwhile platform to pursue. If it works in combat as expected it will be extraordinarily effective. But if it is not being properly supported in the needed numbers then some heads need to be lopped off very publicly.

 

[GTX]

Numbers are getting there:

 

[GTX]

To put it in context the GAO report they are basing this article on was referencing the readiness of jets between 2019 and 2023. Also, unless one also has the equivalent numbers for other jets it is not really viable to tell how this is good/bad for the F-35.

Here's some broader info showing all platforms:

 

[GTX]

Belgium introduced a 4th model of the F-35 …. The F-35 CH(ocolate)