4 ms·
Is 15% bad? Good? What is the expected number?
by thecopy 5y ago
Is 15% bad? Good? What is the expected number?
- redis_mlc 5y agoThe time to fix one engine is 122 days. That's absurd. 2018 Readiness Rates https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/07/26/aircraft-mission-capable-rates-hit-new-low-in-air-force-despite-efforts-to-improve/ https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/07/26... Note the F-5 in Vietnam had MC readiness of more than 99% because it was designed for that. All the new technology fighters are around 50% today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-5
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- icegreentea2 5y agoIt's concerning because the 15% is primarily driven by an unexpected flaw in the engine. As estimated in the article, the hoped for engine-less rate (driven purely by maintenance cycles) would be ~5%. Also as noted in linked to articles, the mission capable rates (MCR) had increased from 62 percent in FY2019 to 76% in FY20202, and that was a big deal. At 76%, the F-35 had the highest MCR in the USAF fleet (the legacy airfames were all sitting around 70%). With the engine problems, we can estimate that it's could be knocked back down to ~60-65% (though obviously there are probably ways to shuffle engines around to reduce the impact somewhat), bringing it back to the bottom of the pack (well, F-22 is below it at like 50%... but whatever).