I'm not going to try to explain mission readiness, this is low, but the target is closer to 70%, so while it isn't great, it's not like it's half of what's expected.

Jets are complicated, they spend a lot of time in maintenance and inspection for each out of flight, its because they're optimized for performance while passenger jets are optimized for endurance, safety and cost.

F35s are terrible jets for peacetime, as are most fighter jets. For combat they're probably a lot better, they're basically f16s with worse maneuverability, but better range, sensors, weapons and of course stealth, 1 f35 is worth at least 3 f16s.

But even this doesn't matter, the next generation will be 80% drones, drones have phenomenal mission readiness ratings, often 90% or higher.

I like it when it's bad news they call it a 1.7 trillion jet, but when it's good news they call it an 80 million one.

Let's leave accurate military reporting to outlets specializing on military and aviation.

When something breaks on the F-35, it takes the Pentagon an average of 141 days to repair it.

That sounds bad, but it's also completely out of context. Commercial jets probably stay grounded less than a day, but I have no frame of reference for fighter aircraft.

Vice should do better reporting

If only it was the jets that are affected!

I don't understand why anyone sends manned aircraft into battle when missiles, UAVs and satellite surveillance exists. Aircraft carriers were invented because those technologies didn't exist at the time and then they just kept making them and filling them with insanely expensive aircraft.

this is going to become more and more common across all industries