Attrition: Bad Decisions Cripple F-35s

Archives

March 29, 2022: The American F-35 stealth fighter is very popular with pilots, both American and foreign, who fly it. Despite that the aircraft continues to have readiness problems because of unexpected problems with the F135 engine that powers each aircraft. These problems were predicted after the air force decided to save money by only having one source for the engine. Early on the air force was urged to heed past experience and spend the extra money to have two engines available. The second engine, the F136, was developed by General Electric and Britain’s Rolls-Royce. Britain was a major export customer for the F-35 and contributed over $2 billion to F-35 development partly because of the Rolls-Royce involvement with the F136. The air force was facing larger problems with the escalating F-35 development costs and in 2007 decided to drop the F136 to help deal with that.

The air force made two other mistakes; introducing the new ALIS (Autonomic Logistics Information System), a spare parts management system that did not work as expected, and underestimating the difficulty of updating the complex F-35 software in a timely manner. These three bad decisions are now combining to keep F-35 readiness (mission capable) rates low while those for older aircraft, including the F-22 stealth fighter, increase.

The F135 engine is currently having problems with the turbine rotor blades wearing out faster than expected. Nearly seven percent of the 665 F-35s delivered as of mid-2021 were out of service because of an engine shortage caused by so many engines needing repairs. There was a fix for the problem; a special coating for the rotor blades that was being applied to engines that came through the maintenance depots for checkups and fixes to any problems found, as well as dealing with rotor blade failure. The engine shortage and some other problems with an inadequate supply of spare parts were a key reason the F-35 readiness fell from 74 percent in 2019 to 52 percent in 2021. The other reasons had to do with continuing problems with ALIS and managing the software update.

There was no simple solution for problems arising from defects in the only engine model available for the F-35. With two suppliers of engines, problems like the current one are usually spotted by one of the engine suppliers early and the other engine supplier alerted. The Department of Defense, acting on U.S. Air Force advice, believed that such problems were not going to arise because engine technology had advanced to the point that this was no longer an issue. The air force was wrong.

Additional costs of fixing the readiness problems produced a cost per flight hour of over $35,000, which is substantially more than for the older F-16s and F-15. The F-35 manufacturer earlier said it was possible to reduce F-35 cost per flight hour to about $25,000 by the end of the decade. That is not very convincing because it will cost a lot to achieve that goal, which was supposed to be available early on at much less development cost.

The Department of Defense acceptance of the air force cancellation of the F136 alternative engine program turned out to be a perfect example of "penny wise and pound foolish". By trying to save money needed to develop and field the F136 it could cost our country billions down the road because of the lack of competition, and shrinking the knowledge and manufacturing base required to design and build military jet engines. By 2021 that proved to be correct.

There was another factor at work here; heavy wartime use of all American jet fighters, except the new F-35, between 2001 and 2018. This was revealed because of a 2018 order from the Defense Department that demanded the air force and navy raise the readiness rate to 80 percent for several key combat aircraft and get it done during fiscal 2019 (which ended September 30, 2019). The aircraft involved were the air force F-16, F-22 and F-35 as well as the late model navy F-18s (F-18E/F and EA-18G). Only the navy made it, hitting 80 percent in September 2019. The navy had the hardest job because when the order was given, these F-18s had a readiness rate of 50 percent. Even though they came up short, some of the air force aircraft made remarkable progress, The F-16 went from 70 to 75 percent while the F-22 went from 52 percent to 68 percent and the F-35 went from 50 percent to 74 percent.

Overall, the “80 percent challenge” had a positive effect because when the Secretary of Defense ordered the effort, readiness rates had been falling for over a decade. There were reasons for that. Since 2001 air force and navy aircraft have been largely operating under wartime conditions. American military aircraft readiness rates have traditionally been high compared to all other major air forces. But age and two decades of heavy use has taken its toll. The workload for maintenance personnel is higher, while budgets for maintenance were not keeping up. This has reduced readiness rates noticeably by 2018, but compared to ten years earlier the air force was doing rather well. Readiness rates or the percentage of your aircraft that are “mission-capable” varies by aircraft type and technology an aircraft is based on. Age is important but has less to do with it than you might think.

The F-22 rate was higher in 2010, partly because it had overcome the problems of being a new aircraft. But the problem of high maintenance costs and lack of durability led to a slide from a high of 65 percent readiness in 2014 to 52 percent in 2018.

The many stealth features of the F-22 required special, time consuming and expensive attention, and provided more items that could break. The F-35 did not start entering service until 2015 so this new stealth fighter is where the F-22 was back then. The F-35 was designed to overcome the readiness problems of the F-22 but failed, mainly because of more engine problems plus the introduction of a new parts supply management system and inexperience managing aircraft software as extensive as found in the F-35.

 


Article Archive

Attrition: Current 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 


X

ad
0
20

Help Keep Us Soaring

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling. We need your help in reversing that trend. We would like to add 20 new subscribers this month.

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close