USAF abandons 80% mission capability rate goal after F-22, F-35 and F-16 fail to hit target

[Miloch]

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/usaf-abandons-80-mission-capability-goal-after-three-fighters-miss-target/138318.article

The US Air Force (USAF) has abandoned mission capability rate goals for its
Lockheed Martin F-22s, F-35s and F-16s, after none of the fighters hit the
target.

In September 2018, former US secretary of defense James Mattis ordered the USAF
and US Navy (USN) to increase mission capable rates for those aircraft and
Boeing F/A-18s to more than 80% by the end of September 2019. The mission
capability rate is the percentage of aircraft that are able to perform at least
one mission over a period of time.

USAF chief of staff nominee General Charles Brown says the service has dropped
that readiness goal.

“The Office of the Secretary of Defense determined the fiscal year 2019 80%
mission capable rate initiative is not an FY2020 requirement,” he said in
written testimony sent to the US Armed Services Committee and released on 7 May.
“As a result, the air force returned to allowing lead commands to determine the
required [mission capability] rates to meet readiness objectives.”

After initially making rosy projections about the F-35 reaching 80% mission
capability, the Department of Defense (DoD) gradually walked back its forecast.
In July 2019, it said F-35s and F-22s would fail to meet the goal. Nevertheless,
F-16s were supposed to hit 80% mission capability by September 2019. In the end,
not one of the USAF’s fighters achieved the mark.

The F-16’s mission capable reached a high of 75% in June 2019, F-22s reached a
high of 68% in April 2019 and F-35s hit a high of 74% in September 2019, says
Brown in his testimony. The USN reported in September 2019 that its fleet of
F/A-18s surpassed the 80% mark.

“From April 2018 to February 2020, overall readiness increased 16%, and
pacing-unit readiness – those units required in the first 30 days of Combatant
Command war plans – increased 35%,” he adds.

Despite improvements, the end goal was not reached for a variety of reasons,
says Brown.

“Maintaining ageing aircraft is an extremely difficult and expensive task, while
new, technologically advanced weapons systems present their own challenges,” he
says. “We developed and are now implementing a Strategic Sustainment Framework
that will both improve materiel readiness and set the conditions for long-term
cost reduction by developing multiple sources of supply, enhancing our repair
network capabilities and capitalising on conditions-based maintenance, plus
other commercial best practices.”

Details of the new Strategic Sustainment Framework were not disclosed.

F-35s and F-22s are notoriously difficult to maintain because of complex designs
and stealth body coatings, which must be periodically preserved by hand. In
particular, the relatively new F-35 remains plagued with design and production
problems resulting in some 873 deficiencies, according to the DoD’s most-recent
Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report, released to the
US Congress on 30 January.




*

[Mitchell Holman[_9_]]

Miloch > wrote in
:

> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/usaf-abandons-80-mission-capabi
> lity-goal-after-three-fighters-miss-target/138318.article
>
> The US Air Force (USAF) has abandoned mission capability rate goals
> for its Lockheed Martin F-22s, F-35s and F-16s, after none of the
> fighters hit the target.
>
> In September 2018, former US secretary of defense James Mattis ordered
> the USAF and US Navy (USN) to increase mission capable rates for those
> aircraft and Boeing F/A-18s to more than 80% by the end of September
> 2019. The mission capability rate is the percentage of aircraft that
> are able to perform at least one mission over a period of time.
>
> USAF chief of staff nominee General Charles Brown says the service has
> dropped that readiness goal.
>
> “The Office of the Secretary of Defense determined the fiscal year
> 2019 80% mission capable rate initiative is not an FY2020
> requirement,” he said in written testimony sent to the US Armed
> Services Committee and released on 7 May. “As a result, the air force
> returned to allowing lead commands to determine the required [mission
> capability] rates to meet readiness objectives.”
>
> After initially making rosy projections about the F-35 reaching 80%
> mission capability, the Department of Defense (DoD) gradually walked
> back its forecast. In July 2019, it said F-35s and F-22s would fail to
> meet the goal. Nevertheless, F-16s were supposed to hit 80% mission
> capability by September 2019. In the end, not one of the USAF’s
> fighters achieved the mark.
>
> The F-16’s mission capable reached a high of 75% in June 2019, F-22s
> reached a high of 68% in April 2019 and F-35s hit a high of 74% in
> September 2019, says Brown in his testimony. The USN reported in
> September 2019 that its fleet of F/A-18s surpassed the 80% mark.
>
> “From April 2018 to February 2020, overall readiness increased 16%,
> and pacing-unit readiness – those units required in the first 30 days
> of Combatant Command war plans – increased 35%,” he adds.
>
> Despite improvements, the end goal was not reached for a variety of
> reasons, says Brown.
>
> “Maintaining ageing aircraft is an extremely difficult and expensive
> task, while new, technologically advanced weapons systems present
> their own challenges,” he says. “We developed and are now implementing
> a Strategic Sustainment Framework that will both improve materiel
> readiness and set the conditions for long-term cost reduction by
> developing multiple sources of supply, enhancing our repair network
> capabilities and capitalising on conditions-based maintenance, plus
> other commercial best practices.”
>
> Details of the new Strategic Sustainment Framework were not disclosed.
>
> F-35s and F-22s are notoriously difficult to maintain because of
> complex designs and stealth body coatings, which must be periodically
> preserved by hand. In particular, the relatively new F-35 remains
> plagued with design and production problems resulting in some 873
> deficiencies, according to the DoD’s most-recent Office of the
> Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report, released to the US
> Congress on 30 January.


Enquiring minds want to know what is the
role of fighter aircraft anyone. Plane vs plane
combat is over, ground attack is done by drones
with missles, the days of bomber escort are over.

What is a fighter supposed to fight?

[Miloch]

In article >, Mitchell Holman
says...
>
>Miloch > wrote in
:
>
>> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/usaf-abandons-80-mission-capabi
2019 that its fleet of F/A-18s surpassed the 80% mark.
>>
>> “From April 2018 to February 2020, overall readiness increased 16%,
>> and pacing-unit readiness – those units required in the first 30 days
>> of Combatant Command war plans – increased 35%,” he adds.
>>
>> Despite improvements, the end goal was not reached for a variety of
>> reasons, says Brown.
>>
>> “Maintaining ageing aircraft is an extremely difficult and expensive
>> task, while new, technologically advanced weapons systems present
>> their own challenges,” he says. “We developed and are now implementing
>> a Strategic Sustainment Framework that will both improve materiel
>> readiness and set the conditions for long-term cost reduction by
>> developing multiple sources of supply, enhancing our repair network
>> capabilities and capitalising on conditions-based maintenance, plus
>> other commercial best practices.”
>>
>> Details of the new Strategic Sustainment Framework were not disclosed.
>>
>> F-35s and F-22s are notoriously difficult to maintain because of
>> complex designs and stealth body coatings, which must be periodically
>> preserved by hand. In particular, the relatively new F-35 remains
>> plagued with design and production problems resulting in some 873
>> deficiencies, according to the DoD’s most-recent Office of the
>> Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report, released to the US
>> Congress on 30 January.
>
>
> Enquiring minds want to know what is the
>role of fighter aircraft anyone. Plane vs plane
>combat is over, ground attack is done by drones
>with missles, the days of bomber escort are over.
>
> What is a fighter supposed to fight?
>
>

You never really know until some situation arises that calls for it...

The F-4 Phantom was sent to VietNam with rockets instead of machine guns because
no one thought aerial dog fights needed guns...they found out quickly how wrong
they were and the F-4s rearmed with guns.

https://www.pearlharboraviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-phantom-ii/

"The Navy saw no need for a gun in interceptors, so the F-4 became a gunless
fighter. Even in early models, a gun pod could be added, but Phantom IIs did not
have the predictive gun sights needed to use these pods effectively. Even the
F-105 fighter bomber had an internal 20 mm cannon, and these lumbering attack
aircraft managed to kill 23 MiGs with gun fire. Not until the F-4E late in the
war did the Air Force get an internal gun and good sights. Fortunately, Phantoms
had few limits in the close air support, attack, and interdiction missions.



*

[Mitchell Holman[_9_]]

Miloch > wrote in
:

> In article >, Mitchell
> Holman says...
>>
>>Miloch > wrote in
:
>>
>>> https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/usaf-abandons-80-mission-capa
>>> bi
> 2019 that its fleet of F/A-18s surpassed the 80% mark.
>>>
>>> “From April 2018 to February 2020, overall readiness increased 16%,
>>> and pacing-unit readiness – those units required in the first 30
>>> days of Combatant Command war plans – increased 35%,” he adds.
>>>
>>> Despite improvements, the end goal was not reached for a variety of
>>> reasons, says Brown.
>>>
>>> “Maintaining ageing aircraft is an extremely difficult and expensive
>>> task, while new, technologically advanced weapons systems present
>>> their own challenges,” he says. “We developed and are now
>>> implementing a Strategic Sustainment Framework that will both
>>> improve materiel readiness and set the conditions for long-term cost
>>> reduction by developing multiple sources of supply, enhancing our
>>> repair network capabilities and capitalising on conditions-based
>>> maintenance, plus other commercial best practices.”
>>>
>>> Details of the new Strategic Sustainment Framework were not
>>> disclosed.
>>>
>>> F-35s and F-22s are notoriously difficult to maintain because of
>>> complex designs and stealth body coatings, which must be
>>> periodically preserved by hand. In particular, the relatively new
>>> F-35 remains plagued with design and production problems resulting
>>> in some 873 deficiencies, according to the DoD’s most-recent Office
>>> of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation report, released to
>>> the US Congress on 30 January.
>>
>>
>> Enquiring minds want to know what is the
>>role of fighter aircraft anyone. Plane vs plane
>>combat is over, ground attack is done by drones
>>with missles, the days of bomber escort are over.
>>
>> What is a fighter supposed to fight?
>>
>>
>
> You never really know until some situation arises that calls for it...
>
> The F-4 Phantom was sent to VietNam with rockets instead of machine
> guns because no one thought aerial dog fights needed guns...they found
> out quickly how wrong they were and the F-4s rearmed with guns.
>
> https://www.pearlharboraviationmuseum.org/pearl-harbor-blog/the-f-4c-ph
> antom-ii/
>
> "The Navy saw no need for a gun in interceptors, so the F-4 became a
> gunless fighter. Even in early models, a gun pod could be added, but
> Phantom IIs did not have the predictive gun sights needed to use these
> pods effectively. Even the F-105 fighter bomber had an internal 20 mm
> cannon, and these lumbering attack aircraft managed to kill 23 MiGs
> with gun fire. Not until the F-4E late in the war did the Air Force
> get an internal gun and good sights. Fortunately, Phantoms had few
> limits in the close air support, attack, and interdiction missions.


For what it is worth I have the same issue
with bombers..........