I saw a vine* about that on F***book just recently. It also made the point that "will" and "shall" don't always mean the future either. Or you can do without them entirely: "I'm going as soon as I've had lunch" is future tense.
PS I'm no linguist and I don't pick a side on whether a tense is only a tense if it's morphological/inflected. I just happened to have read that page before.
Sounds a bit like when people say Japanese doesn't have plurals despite having lots of ways to indicate more than 1 of something. It is one of those things that is simultaneously true, false, and so wrong it's not even wrong, their nouns are all mass nouns which don't have plurals in english either.
"paper" is a mass noun, for example. If I had 5 sheets of paper I wouldn't say "I have 5 papers". Bizarrely, in Japanese, all nouns are like this, "inu" means dog but not in the same way it doesn't in english. It refers to dogness, dog concept, so plurals aren't relevant.
It's a very Latin-oriented way of looking at things: that if we aren't conjugating or declining something, then the language doesn't really *actually* have "tense" or "case." (Where conjugating and declining only includes directly modifying the verb or noun word.)
Comments
* reel, short, whatever - I call 'em all vines.
Also, the northern people in Canada, the Inuit, are the People with Dogs. Clever.