America’s Fighter Fleets Are in Terrible Shape but Mattis Wants Them Ready to Fight in One Year

more at
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/am...att-1829684952

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has ordered this of the armed services:
get your fighter jets ready for action. Mattis has instructed the services he
wants four out of five fighter jets ready for combat within one year—which is a
far cry from current levels.

The number would go a long way toward restoring America’s aging and somewhat
dilapidated fighter fleet, but it is also an audacious, possibly even hopeless
goal that will require more time, attention, money and resources than the
services can currently spare.

For years, the Pentagon’s fleet of aircraft have been in a slow but steady
spiral to declining readiness. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have dealt
with a nonstop series of crises, starting in 9/11, then the invasion of Iraq,
operations in Libya and Somalia, and the Islamic State. Joining that list are
new emerging tensions with Russia in Europe and China in the western Pacific.
The services have pushed their fleets of ever-aging planes harder to keep up
with the demand, while replacement jets were late in coming.

At the same time, budgetary issues—including overruns—have plagued the armed
services. The military has struggled to operate within the confines of the 2011
Budget Control Act that trimmed federal spending. Even in relatively stable
years bickering over the federal budget often resulted in the passage of
so-called “continuing resolutions.”

These resolutions, which doled out just enough money to keep the government
going while the political fighting carried on, were an inefficient means of
spending money and played havoc with the Pentagon’s budgetary planning.

As a result, fighter fleets are in poor shape. In 2017, only 70.22 percent of
the Air Force’s F-16C fighter jets were considered ready for action. Just under
half of F-22A Raptors, or 49.01 percent, are ready. In the Navy and Marine
Corps, 44 percent of F/A-18 Hornets are ready for action, although those older
aircraft are relegated to the Navy Reserve and Marine Corps. The Navy’s Super
Hornet force stands at 53 percent.

The F-35 program is, of course, no exception. In March, the office that manages
the F-35 program reported readiness stood at 51 percent across all three
versions and all three services. Drilling down a bit readiness levels varied
wildly depending on the age of the plane: earlier production F-35s averaged only
40 to 50 percent readiness while newer planes averaged 70 to 75 percent.

(By the way, just today, the Pentagon grounded all F-35s. At issue is “suspect
fuel tubes” believed to be the cause of last month’s crash. Great.)

Eighty-five percent readiness is considered “good” in peacetime. Typically
readiness levels jump during wartime, as maintainers push to get aircraft ready
for combat and Congress and the Pentagon open the funding floodgates. In 1990
Air Force fighter jet readiness levels averaged 85-90 percent—numbers that
surged an average of six percent during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

And so yesterday, Defense News broke the story that Mattis has ordered the
services to reach 80 percent readiness across the F-16, F-22, F/A-18, and F-35
fleets within one year. In a memo to the Pentagon leadership, Mattis stated,
“For change to be effective and efficient, we must focus on meeting our most
critical priorities first. These include achieving a minimum of 80 percent
mission capability rates for our FY 2019 Navy and Air Force inventories—assets
that form the backbone of our tactical air power—and reducing these platforms
operational and maintenance costs every year starting FY 2019.”



more at
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/am...att-1829684952



*

"Miloch" wrote in message news

more at
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/am...att-1829684952

A year from now our military could be a shell of its former self. This is
going to backfire, badly:

https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazo...1518714002.pdf

Earlier this year, the Department of Defense issued a statement saying that
in order to ensure our military remains at its strongest, any troop that's
been listed as non-deployable for 12 months or more will be removed from
service. The policy was officially enacted on October 1.

On one hand, it's reasonable to assume that the primary mission of troops is
to deploy and engage the enemies of the United States. If a troop isn't
physically up to the task, then it's time to let them go. And the policy
isn't coming down like an iron fist; there are a number of exceptions in
play, including some for those on temporary non-deployable status for
reasons like pregnancy or injury.

Now that the policy is in place, however, we're starting to see how it's
affecting the overall combat readiness of troops. On paper, everything seems
fine, but many unintended consequences are now hampering the troops.

-- More troops will skip medical exams

-- Many wounded troops will be unceremoniously given the boot

-- The already overburdened VA will become even more backlogged

-- Under the new policy, a huge chunk of Rear Detachment troops are facing
separation. Before the policy, it would have been easy to find a handful of
troops and an E-7 with a bad back to take charge and keep the gears turning.

-- The total number of troops affected will be far greater if the military
keeps its path. An estimated 126,000 troops are currently on the chopping
block. While we may never cut that many in a given year, there will be many
more that are removed in the coming years. The Army is planning on
implementing a new PT test, one that features three events capable of
causing injury if done incorrectly. A massive overhaul of Basic Training and
Boot Camp is expected, making the experience far more intense, which will
result in more injuries. An increased military presence overseas will result
in more intense pre-deployment training, which is already resulting in more
injuries with each passing year. Combine all of these factors with a
civilian population that's becoming less and less eligible to enlist, and
the military is going to be shrinking way too fast.

This isn't a problem that can be easily fixed. This is the fundamental
problem with the "Deploy or Get Out" policy. Our military is going to shrink
beyond its already record-low personnel numbers...

https://tinyurl.com/yd3m2eod

In article ,
Stormin' Norman wrote:

On 11 Oct 2018 17:19:17 -0700, Miloch
wrote:

more at
https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/am...in-terrible-sh
ape-but-matt-1829684952

U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis has ordered this of the armed
services:
get your fighter jets ready for action. Mattis has instructed the services
he
wants four out of five fighter jets ready for combat within one year—which
is a
far cry from current levels.

There is a lot to be said for the philosophy of reliable, plentiful
and flyable aircraft vs. super sophisticated, but unreliable and
unflyable aircraft.

Remind me of the Hellcat-Corsair The Corsair was a better aircraft 3
days a week and spend the remainder in maintenance.
For the F-22 the solution is to regroup the aircrafts so more mainteners
by aircraft.
In any case there will be a need for more spare parts