Today's F-35As Not Worth Including In High-End War Games According To Air Force General

A senior U.S. Air Force officer has said that there is no value in including the service's current fleet ofF-35A Joint Strike Fightersin tabletop wargames simulating future high-end conflicts, such as one covering an American military response toa Chinese invasion of Taiwan. That same individual also called into question how relevant any of the service's existing examples of these fighter jets would be for conducting combat operations near or over the territory of a near-peer adversary, including China. This all comes at a time when the F-35 program, as a whole,is facinganew surge of scrutiny, including from members of Congress.

Air Force Lieutenant General Clint Hinote, the service's Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategy, Integration, and Requirements, made his remarks regarding the F-35A in an interview thatDefense Newspublished todayfocusing on a wargame last year that simulated an attempted Chinese invasion of Taiwan.Defense Newsdescribed the outcome of that wargame as a "pyrrhic" victory for the U.S. military and one that was only achieved by the employment of capabilities that are not yet actually in service.

Those capabilities include F-35As equipped with the full suite of upgrades enabled by the still-in-development Block 4 software package. Block 4 F-35As are set to featureenhanced radarand电子战capabilities, as well as the ability tocarry new weapons. This particular wargame also featured notional stealth combat aircraft developed through the Next Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) program, a multi-faceted project that you can read about in more detailhere, as well as non-stealthyF-15EX fightersable tocarry long-range hypersonic weapons, cargo aircraftreconfigured as flying arsenal planes, and aswarm of low-cost dronesprovidinga distributed sensor networkacross a broad area of the battlespace, among other things.

The entireDefense Newspiece on this wargame isworth reading in full, especially given growing concerns within the U.S. military, as well as among experts and observers, that a Chinese military intervention against Taiwan may beincreasingly inevitablein the near term. The outcome of the scenario, whichYahoo Newspreviously reportedalso involved a Chinesebiological weapon attackagainst American forces across the Indo-Pacific region, is also notable in contrast to a similar 2018 tabletop simulation.

“After the 2018 war game I distinctly remember one of our gurus of war gaming standing in front of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, and telling them that we should never play this war game scenario [of a Chinese attack on Taiwan] again, because we know what is going to happen," Lieutenant General Hinote had toldYahoo Newsearlier this year. "The definitive answer if the U.S. military doesn’t change course is that we’re going to lose fast. In that case, an American president would likely be presented with almost a fait accompli."

At the same time, Hinote's comments about the F-35A are notable in their own right. “We wouldn’t even play the current version of the F-35," Hinote toldDefense News.

“It wouldn’t be worth it," he continued. "Every fighter that rolls off the line today is a fighter that we wouldn’t even bother putting into these scenarios."

Hinote further explained that survivability was only one factor in his assessment, though he did not name any particular existing or emerging threats that would limit the combat utility of current generation F-35As. China is notably developing and fielding an increasing number ofadvanced mannedandunmanned aircraft,包括越来越多的J-20 stealth fighters,连同new weaponsto go with them, as well as new ground-basedair and missile defensesandassociated sensors. Russia, another potential high-end adversary,is doing the same, albeitto a more limited degree.

The Lieutenant General also cited the F-35As limited range in the context of an Indo-Pacific scenario as an issue, something we here atThe War Zonehavehighlighted in the past. There have been discussions over the years about developingdrop tanks or conformal fuel tanksthat could work with all three F-35 variants to help extend their ranges. The Air Force, in particular, is exploringvarious future aerial refueling conceptsthat mighthelp provide more survivable ways到extend the reach of American combat aircraft, especially stealthy types, in future conflicts, as well.

Regardless of the specifics, the Lieutenant General's comments are the latest in a string of what can be characterized, at best, as mixed-messaging from the Air Force about its plans for the F-35A going forward, as well as its view of the program, as a whole. The projected costs to operate and maintain F-35s of all variants across the U.S. military throughout their planned life cycles, which have only grown in recent years, are the core of these discussions. At present, the Air Force still publicly plans to buy 1,763 F-35As, in total, primarily to replace itsF-16 Viper fighter jets.

2019年,五gon said the estimated price tag for sustaining F-35A, B, and C operations across the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navywas $1.196trillionthrough 2070. This figure had been relayed to Congress in part to inform them that this figure had increased by $22 billion specifically due to growing costs associated with the Block 4 upgrades that Lieutenant General Hinote has now said are absolutely essential to ensuring the relevance of the Joint Strike Fighter in future high-end conflicts.

As of February, the average cost-per-flight-hour to operate any of the three F-35 variants is $36,000,according to Lockheed Martin. The company says its goal remains to get that figure down to $25,000, which would put it closer to the cost-per-flight-hourof operating an F-16C/D.

The unit costs to purchase new Joint Strike Fightershad been decliningin recent years, as well, but those price figures look set to plateau,or even rise again, as new capabilities are added to future jets.

In January, Will Roper, in an interview withAviation Weekthat was published after he had left his post as Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, had said "I think it’s [the F-35A] a long way from being an affordable fighter that we can buy in bulk." He also suggested that the Air Force's planned purchasescould be scaled backin favor of a revised mixture of capabilities that might include new, lower-end manned combat jets, such asadvanced F-16 Viper variants, and greater numbers of lower-cost"loyal wingman" typeunmanned aircraft.

Then, in February, Air Force Chief of Staff General Charles Brown confirmed that the Air Force had initiated a new study into possible changes to the composition of its future manned and unmanned combat aircraft fleets. At that time,he specifically mentionedthe possibility of acquiring a new, "clean-sheet design" separate from the F-35 that could replace a portion of the service's existing F-16s and cited F-35 operations and maintenance costs as a factor.

“I want to moderate how much we’re using those aircraft,” Brown said, referring to the F-35A fleet. "You don’t drive your Ferrari to work every day, you only drive it on Sundays. This is our ‘high end’ [fighter], we want to make sure we don’t use it all for the low-end fight."

Those comments from Roper and Brown prompted a burst of criticism about the F-35 program, which hasbeen a long-troubled sagathatcontinues to facesignificanthurdles. Brown, the Air Force's top uniformed official, did subsequently respond to the reporting surrounding his February remarksby sayingthat the F-35 was the "cornerstone of the U.S. Air Force fighter fleet."

Regardless, all of those comments were thenfollowed by unusually critical remarksfrom Representative Adam Smith, a Democrat from Washington State who is the present chair of the House Armed Services Committee, at an event that the Brookings Institution hosted on March 5. “[I want to] stop throwing money down that particular rathole," Smith said, referring to the F-35 program.

"What does the F-35 give us? And is there a way to cut our losses? Is there a way to not keep spending that much money for such a low capability because, as you know, the sustainment costs are brutal," he continued. "What I’m going to try to do is figure out how we can get a mix of fighter-attack aircraft that’s the most cost-effective. And I am telling you right now a big part of that is finding something that doesn’t make us have to rely on the F-35 for the next 35 years."

Chairman Smith's comments could point to a looming budget battle between the Pentagon and lawmakers over the F-35, broadly, beyond any reexamination of the program that the Air Force might be working through now. Though the servicehas repeatedly insistedthat the NGAD program, as well as its acquisition of new F-15EXs, will not impact funding related to its F-35A fleet, it is Congress thatultimately decideshow the defense budget shakes out. The potential for rising unit costs, in addition to how expensive the aircraft will be to operate and maintain for the foreseeable future, could have further impacts on discussions regarding the opportunity costs associated with continuing to buy more of any F-35 variant.

Lieutenant General Hinote's new comments about the F-35 in the context of last year's wargame can only now call into question the utility of the service's current F-35As in any potential major conflict, at least in the very near term. It's not clear when the Air Force expects to complete the rollout of the full Block 4 upgrade package across its F-35A fleet, or when those updates might similarly make their way into the Marine Corps and Navy'sF-35BandF-35C fleets.

"The current development process used by the F-35 JPO [Joint Program Office] and Lockheed Martin, that is supposed to provide new capabilities and updates in 6-month increments, is not working," the Pentagon's Office of the Director of Test and Evaluation, or DOT&E,reported bluntlyat the close of the 2020 Fiscal Year, which came to an end on Sept. 30, 2020. "It is causing significant delays to planned schedules and results in poor software quality containing deficiencies."

A number of older F-35As will never be broughtup to the Block 4 standard, either, relegating those jets to training and other non-combat duties.

In addition, the F-35 program is still working to resolve a laundry list of deficiencies across all three Joint Strike Fighter Variants, 10 of which are Category 1 issues, the most severe type. These are things that couldimpact the operational effectivenessof the jets,or worse. This is the same number of Category 1 problems DOT&E said were still open by the close of the 2020 Fiscal Year. DOT&E said there were another 861 unresolved, but less severe deficiencies. Just this month, the F-35 Joint Program Office declined to elaborate on the exact nature of the 10 Category 1 deficiencies, six of which are classified, according toDefense News' Valerie Insinna.

It is also important to note that the U.S. military's existing Joint Strike Fighter Fleets have seenimprovements in their readiness ratesin recent years, but thosemetrics continue to bea重要的问题点. Major problems persist with the cloud-based computer backend, known as the Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS), which is critical to the day-to-day operation of all F-35 variants and that you can read about morehere. ALIS has been directly linked to poor readiness rates in the past. The U.S. military is already in process of replacing ALIS with a new system, called theOperational Data Integrated Network(ODIN).

Beyond that, any scaling back of the American end of the F-35 program could influence decisions that existing or potential foreign Joint Strike Fighter operators make, as well. There is already discussion in the United Kingdom about whether or not that country will upgrade its F-35Bsto the Block 4 standard, with the potential cost of doing so being a major factor.

All told, the Air Force's F-35 plans are very much in a new state of flux, which could also point to possible shakeups in Joint Strike Fighter plans elsewhere across the U.S. military. Lieutenant General Hinote's position that it makes no sense to include the current generation of jets in high-end wargames can only add additional fuel to what is already a fiery debate among proponents and critics of this aircraft.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com