It turns out the Marine Corps` new F-35B joint strike fighter jet isn`t as battle-ready as officials claim, according to a report published by a government watchdog group.

Despite Marine officials declaring in July that the F-35B Lightning II had reached "initial operational capability," a recent internal Pentagon report obtained by the Project On Government Oversight details critical shortfalls during May sea testing aboard the amphibious assault ship Wasp.

"The [test] did not — and could not — demonstrate that the ... F-35B is operationally effective or suitable for use in any type of limited combat operation, or that it is ready for real-world operational deployments," J. Michael Gilmore, director of the Pentagon`s Operational Test and Evaluation Office, wrote in the scathing memo, dated July 22, which POGO received through the Freedom of Information Act.

In order to qualify for operational combat readiness, Gilmore claims the Marine Corps` fleet of joint strike fighters needed to meet a readiness rate of 80 percent. But mechanical and electronic problems meant the planes barely met a 50 percent readiness level during the demonstration, he said.

In a thorough review, Gilmore found that over the 10 days of flight tests:

The strenuous demands of an operational combat environment weren`t sufficiently replicated.
Key combat mission systems, including one that provides missile launch warnings, were absent from the aircraft tested aboard the Wasp.
Crews constantly struggled to keep six aircraft flying.
The Marine Corps was only able to complete 70 percent of planned flight hours.
Those findings glaringly contradict Marine Commandant Gen. Joseph Dunford`s July 31 pronouncement that the testing completed by Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 121 demonstrated initial operational capability.

At the time, Dunford wrote in a statement that the F-35B was "capable of conducting close air support, offensive and defensive counter air, air interdiction, assault support escort and armed reconnaissance as part of a Marine Air Ground Task Force, or in support of the Joint Force."

In a written rebuttal provided to Marine Corps Times by Marine public affairs officer 1st Lt. Sarah Burns, the Corps acknowledges the factual accuracy of some of the report, but disagrees with its conclusions.

For example, Gilmore`s report calls for the full participation of 20 aircraft in order for a Marine air combat element to be combat ready. But the Marine Corps has never done that during operational testing with other aircraft, Burns said.

Integrating a full air combat element with 20 aircraft would be fiscally impractical, she said. During this testing, the Marine Corps wanted to prove that the non-test version of the F-35B "could be operated and sustained aboard an L-class ship," she said.

"We successfully did that," Burns wrote. "The extensive testing we have done verified expected F-35B capabilities: successful missile shots; successful steel-on-steel, air-to-ground deliveries; and three successful sea-trials."

The Marine Corps is on track to fully test a completely integrated aviation combat element when VMFA-121 begins predeployment training ahead of its planned move to Iwakuni Japan, slated to take place in 2017.

Gilmore`s report isn`t the first to criticize the F-35B project. Racking up $400 billion of taxpayer money, the controversial program has been beset by delays and cost overruns since Lockheed Martin was awarded its development contract in October 2001.

The Marine Corps is on target to purchase 340 F-35Bs.

Staff writer Aaron Mehta contributed to this report.

СМИ: ВВС США признали, что F-35 непригоден для воздушного боя