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

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...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.




*

Miloch wrote in
:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...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?

In article , Mitchell Holman
says...

Miloch wrote in
:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...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.pearlharboraviationmuseu...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.



*

Miloch wrote in
:

In article , Mitchell
Holman says...

Miloch wrote in
:

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-w...0-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.pearlharboraviationmuseu...og/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..........