8 ms·

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.

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.