14 ms·

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 chai

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.

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.