4 ms·

Air Force Confirms Its F-35As Were Mission Capable About Half the Time in 2023

24 points by belter 2y ago

talldayo 2y ago
That's pretty much on-par for a stealth platform. B2 and F-22 also have notoriously poor combat readiness statistics, even with their relatively old supply chains. Surprising nobody, sourcing and refurbishing radar-absorbent material is a time consuming process that isn't easily accelerated. News at 11.
- ungreased0675 2y ago
  The article says spare parts are the issue, not the paint job. That’s kinda weird for a plane with a hot production line, no?
  - talldayo 2y ago
    Spare parts in airplanes is a funny business. It's already hard enough trying to source the replacement part for your mass-produced 2008 Toyota Corrola; getting a replacement canopy for your F-35 is an ordeal. Usually, a spare part does exist. But it's probably located on an airfield in Australia, a confidential testing plant in Arkansas, an aircraft carrier in Cyprus or a warehouse in Illinois. Finding that part, getting that part to the plane, and then bringing the plane up to flight-ready standards is a hellish process, and it's unsurprising that it's grounding planes even with supply chain databases to help. In wartime, desperate (or thrifty) countries will cannibalize the less-fit models of their newer aircraft to serve as parts for the rest of their fleet. That way you can accelerate deployment by fielding less planes that have a higher ratio of on-site replacement parts. But the US isn't very pressed at the moment, and it makes sense that they're willing to accept a low readiness rating to iron out the kinks without turning an F-35 into a hangar queen.
  - eightysixfour 2y ago
    Not when they’re selling like hot cakes. Too busy making new ones instead of spare parts.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Aerospace supply chains have been treated as jobs and/or kickbacks programs versus practical/product need. The aircraft with parts made in every congressmen's constituencies and our partner allies versus the aircraft with a sane supply chain designed to best serve the aircraft needs. So now you are dependant on hundreds of small suppliers/subcontractors. Small businesses can't exactly scale up and down like Lockheed could, especially when you consider the large investment in say and addition upright mill that needs a lot more demand than a few extra spares being made to justify. In software the saying I've heard/used is 'everything can't be everything'. You can have a jobs program. You can have kickbacks to local economies that aren't required to make financial/availability sense. You can have a reactive/responsive supply chain. Or you can have an efficient least expensive supply chain.
- CapitalistCartr 2y ago
  When I wss in USAF, I deeply disliked the radar-absorbent material. The maintenance sucked. Every repair was a tricky, tedious process, that often had to be done twice. OTOH, spare parts were never a problem. But that was during the Cold War.
- dragontamer 2y ago
  I believe the F35 was supposed to be far less maintenance than B2 and F22. My understanding is that B2 and F22 have far superior stealth, but far higher maintenance costs and headaches. F35 is a better balance (or supposed to be).
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    It's a new jet though. I could imagine maintenance teams still getting their heads around it while the F-22 is much more mature
    - dragontamer 2y ago
      B2 and F22 also *require* a hangar. You literally cannot expose F22 stealth paint to the sun, as it degenerates over time. F35 is put into more harsh conditions (ex: allowed to be stored outside in the sun / rain). This could be the reason why they have stealth maintenance issues. So maybe they've "spent" the F35's easier maintenance on easier storage? Hangars / covered bases would reduce maintenance costs, but that might not be reasonable for every deployment.
      - wkat4242 2y ago
        Ah I see. But does every deployment really require stealth? I could imagine that treatment could be skipped for a while if it's the only thing.
        dragontamer 2y ago
        The point of the F35 is stealth though. If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. EDIT: I guess your point is that if maintenance becomes a hassle, it could be skipped? I guess that's true, but... in which case you'd rather be flying cheaper and simpler airplanes.
        talldayo 2y ago
        > If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. Not necessarily? An up-to-date F-16 block is still pretty expensive to field and needs external pods to do a lot of the stuff the F-35 can do internally (laser designation, IRST, advanced datalink, the works). It has a far smaller combat radius (295 nmi versus 669 nmi) and isn't outfitted with modern A/G weaponry outside SEAD missiles like the HARM. There are a whole number of reasons why you'd want to field an F-35 in the F-16's place, even without stealth on the table. Low radar response is the cherry on top of the strike package.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hindsightbias 2y ago
Not a problem. The fighter-mafia part of the AF has no interest in the next war and have no use for NGAD. An A2A platform with the legs to get from Guam is a complete non-starter.
- dralley 2y ago
  As far as I can tell (as someone completely outside the military / related industry, but with interest in the topic), opposition to NGAD isn't coming from the "fighter mafia" but from people who think that A) we don't have the luxury of waiting that long to start deploying new equipment like e.g. directed energy weapons, or B) that the nature of air combat is going to change so radically in the next 10-20 years that NGAD might end up obsolete much earlier than we expect. Or both. The fighter mafia were dismissive of the new and shiny, this is kind of the opposite. Like, they want the new and shiny, but they want it so badly that they don't want to wait around for the perfect system that seamlessly integrates dozens of new and shiny systems (and is constantly delayed with massive budget overruns when any single one of them has issues). I get the impression they want to just strap a bunch of shit onto the B-21 or some unmanned platform and refine the technology a bit before they spend (tens, hundreds of) billions of dollars on development and procurement of a brand new fighter that tries to integrate it all, while at the same time dealing with a bunch of other projects that are behind schedule and overbudget. But I could be missing something.
electricdreams 2y ago
[dead]

24 points by belter 2y ago

That's pretty much on-par for a stealth platform. B2 and F-22 also have notoriously poor combat readiness statistics, even with their relatively old supply chains. Surprising nobody, sourcing and refurbishing radar-absorbent material is a time consuming process that isn't easily accelerated. News at 11.

ungreased0675 2y ago
The article says spare parts are the issue, not the paint job. That’s kinda weird for a plane with a hot production line, no?
- talldayo 2y ago
  Spare parts in airplanes is a funny business. It's already hard enough trying to source the replacement part for your mass-produced 2008 Toyota Corrola; getting a replacement canopy for your F-35 is an ordeal. Usually, a spare part does exist. But it's probably located on an airfield in Australia, a confidential testing plant in Arkansas, an aircraft carrier in Cyprus or a warehouse in Illinois. Finding that part, getting that part to the plane, and then bringing the plane up to flight-ready standards is a hellish process, and it's unsurprising that it's grounding planes even with supply chain databases to help. In wartime, desperate (or thrifty) countries will cannibalize the less-fit models of their newer aircraft to serve as parts for the rest of their fleet. That way you can accelerate deployment by fielding less planes that have a higher ratio of on-site replacement parts. But the US isn't very pressed at the moment, and it makes sense that they're willing to accept a low readiness rating to iron out the kinks without turning an F-35 into a hangar queen.
- eightysixfour 2y ago
  Not when they’re selling like hot cakes. Too busy making new ones instead of spare parts.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Aerospace supply chains have been treated as jobs and/or kickbacks programs versus practical/product need. The aircraft with parts made in every congressmen's constituencies and our partner allies versus the aircraft with a sane supply chain designed to best serve the aircraft needs. So now you are dependant on hundreds of small suppliers/subcontractors. Small businesses can't exactly scale up and down like Lockheed could, especially when you consider the large investment in say and addition upright mill that needs a lot more demand than a few extra spares being made to justify. In software the saying I've heard/used is 'everything can't be everything'. You can have a jobs program. You can have kickbacks to local economies that aren't required to make financial/availability sense. You can have a reactive/responsive supply chain. Or you can have an efficient least expensive supply chain.
CapitalistCartr 2y ago
When I wss in USAF, I deeply disliked the radar-absorbent material. The maintenance sucked. Every repair was a tricky, tedious process, that often had to be done twice. OTOH, spare parts were never a problem. But that was during the Cold War.
dragontamer 2y ago
I believe the F35 was supposed to be far less maintenance than B2 and F22. My understanding is that B2 and F22 have far superior stealth, but far higher maintenance costs and headaches. F35 is a better balance (or supposed to be).
- wkat4242 2y ago
  It's a new jet though. I could imagine maintenance teams still getting their heads around it while the F-22 is much more mature
  - dragontamer 2y ago
    B2 and F22 also *require* a hangar. You literally cannot expose F22 stealth paint to the sun, as it degenerates over time. F35 is put into more harsh conditions (ex: allowed to be stored outside in the sun / rain). This could be the reason why they have stealth maintenance issues. So maybe they've "spent" the F35's easier maintenance on easier storage? Hangars / covered bases would reduce maintenance costs, but that might not be reasonable for every deployment.
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Ah I see. But does every deployment really require stealth? I could imagine that treatment could be skipped for a while if it's the only thing.
      - dragontamer 2y ago
        The point of the F35 is stealth though. If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. EDIT: I guess your point is that if maintenance becomes a hassle, it could be skipped? I guess that's true, but... in which case you'd rather be flying cheaper and simpler airplanes.
        talldayo 2y ago
        > If you don't need stealth, you can send an F16 instead. Not necessarily? An up-to-date F-16 block is still pretty expensive to field and needs external pods to do a lot of the stuff the F-35 can do internally (laser designation, IRST, advanced datalink, the works). It has a far smaller combat radius (295 nmi versus 669 nmi) and isn't outfitted with modern A/G weaponry outside SEAD missiles like the HARM. There are a whole number of reasons why you'd want to field an F-35 in the F-16's place, even without stealth on the table. Low radar response is the cherry on top of the strike package.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hindsightbias 2y ago

Not a problem. The fighter-mafia part of the AF has no interest in the next war and have no use for NGAD. An A2A platform with the legs to get from Guam is a complete non-starter.

dralley 2y ago
As far as I can tell (as someone completely outside the military / related industry, but with interest in the topic), opposition to NGAD isn't coming from the "fighter mafia" but from people who think that A) we don't have the luxury of waiting that long to start deploying new equipment like e.g. directed energy weapons, or B) that the nature of air combat is going to change so radically in the next 10-20 years that NGAD might end up obsolete much earlier than we expect. Or both. The fighter mafia were dismissive of the new and shiny, this is kind of the opposite. Like, they want the new and shiny, but they want it so badly that they don't want to wait around for the perfect system that seamlessly integrates dozens of new and shiny systems (and is constantly delayed with massive budget overruns when any single one of them has issues). I get the impression they want to just strap a bunch of shit onto the B-21 or some unmanned platform and refine the technology a bit before they spend (tens, hundreds of) billions of dollars on development and procurement of a brand new fighter that tries to integrate it all, while at the same time dealing with a bunch of other projects that are behind schedule and overbudget. But I could be missing something.

electricdreams 2y ago

[dead]