Navy Admiral sends warning to Congress

originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Zaphod58

I was shocked to hear several years ago from a B-2 mechanic how many planes were actually operational versus how many were used for parts

Zaph had a really good picture/chart of air force inventory and it's readiness over the years it's worth a look at.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is nothing new. In the 80's a squadron was doing well if they had 75% of their aircraft Full Mission Capable (FMC). I was in a helicopter squadron that consisted of six aircraft. We were on station in the Indian Ocean with a long supply line. One of our helos was down for a bad fuel cell. That lasted three months before we got a replacement cell and the parts to go with it.

That left us with five aircraft. We would usually have one in Corrosion Inspection. These ran in cycles of 7, 14 & 28 day cycles. The 28 day was the worst. It usually took 2 or 3 days to cycle one through that. Then there were Phase Inspections. These usually ran on 100 flight hour cycles and took 3 to 5 days to complete. So at any one time we would have between two and four aircraft available. Of these maybe two were FMC. During this deployment we had to change the engines in one of our helicopters. We got replacement engines, installed them and found out that they had issues. So we got two more engines and they had the same issues. It turned out that the test cell where they ran up the engines and calibrated them was broken. So when we put an aircraft into 28 Day inspection, we took the engines out of it and put them into the aircraft that was coming out of 28 Day.

We had the cleanest engine bays of any squadron and we got real good at engine changes. Not bad for 24 guys total in all of the shops. I'm not griping, compared to the Tomcat guys we had it good.

a reply to: dashen

There was an article about 10 years ago about the status of the Air Force that was largely ignored, but shocked a few people.

Under one of the agreements about the Air Force, they're required to maintain a set number of aircraft, and need congressional approval to retire any. There are probably a couple hundred Cann Birds thru can't retire. Of the KC-135s, there were 40 or 50 that can't fly because of corrosion, or some major problem that isn't cost effective to fix. So, on the ones that are in decent shape, they go out every couple months, start their engines, and taxi them to a new parking spot. The ones that they can't do that, they tow to a new spot.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Compared to the Tomcat guys, the Niagara Falls unit that had to work on their tankers on the ramp in winter because they didn't have big enough hangars had it good.

These are in some part ripples from that disastrous budget sequester that delayed alot of MRO
These are in some part because the USN has botched many projects and untill a -35C is finally done has craped the bed on multiple aviation projects
These are in some part because we have basically put our military on 24/7 and thus there is almost no downtime to conduct the most basic preventative maintenance and its stretched beyond the breaking point

originally posted by: SR1TX
If Pearl Harbor happened today there would be no Japan 15 minutes later, or Germany, or Italy, or Russia.

It could be you stuck in a past era--that is exactly what happened, at least to two of Japan's cities, after Pearl Harbor.

Nowadays, we'd send in only 1/3 of the troops necessary to win a war, fight small, extended battles city by city, try and win their hearts and minds, and by the time we got 8 cities into it, the first city would be taken over by hostiles again and we'd have to start over.

Fifteen years later, we'd be lamenting the fact that there are soon to be people enlisting in the military who have no known a time when the U.S. was not at war.

I WISH that we knew how to win wars (sans nuclear weapons) these days, but the truth is, we're afraid to do what's necessary, so we just let the war faucet trickle when we should be opening the hot and cold full blast for a short period.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Try changing a main gearbox in a helo in the Bahamas. Eight 100+ degree days in a row and our hangar was sheet metal. The number of panels that the tomcat guys had to remove just to do inspections was nuts. That was when they had the POS TF30 engines.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

We absolutely know how to win wars hands down. Rebuilding? not so much. Its like we forgot the lessons of the Marshall Plan

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Vice Admiral Mike Shoemaker has sent a warning to Congress about the current state of Naval aviation. To keep aircraft operational on the carriers, they've been cannibalizing aircraft that weren't deployed. As a result, of a total of 542 Super Hornets, only half are listed as Mission Capable, meaning they can fly some sort of mission. There are 170 that are considered Fully Mission Capable, meaning they could launch tonight on combat missions, with no maintenance required.

www.flightglobal.com...

That is still I am going to bet here....100 more superior aircraft then the next largest countries Navy...

Who are we using 170 milti-role fighters against anway? These are WAR weapons not skirmish or peace keepers

a reply to: abeverage

There's still that little issue of Isis, and supporting our allies, by assisting their security as requested by them. It doesn't do a lot of good to say that we're going to support them if we don't have the aircraft to do it.

Yes, it's more than other Navies, but then we have more commitments for our Navy, and more carriers to put them on than other navies do.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I read a few months ago they were even taking parts off old WW2 models in museums like landing gear bay hatches or whatever.
(Edit - Scratch that, my report was wrong due to my poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills, I have corrected this passage on page 4 in response to a skeptical poster below)

I told a lot of people about the F-18 maintenance issues and how they need parts and also keep losing good mechanics to private sector.

Didn't we talk about this already? I forgot.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Man that's crazy. I can't believe it... Well yeah I can but still, it's unacceptable.

We need to put a lil more funding into repairs.

originally posted by: SR1TX
Why do we need that many to be ready or any at all?

Who are we at war with?

It's the US.

Perpetual war is an economic necessity.

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: SR1TX
a reply to: Woody510

plane that lost its effectiveness 10 years ago and needs only be used in Football stadium flyovers and training missions.

We have other means of attacking and defense.

Is this a joke? We don't fly a single ineffective plane today.

Absolutely true. Our 20 something yr old planes, with upgrade packages, are cutting edge compared to the Russian or Chinese planes.

Add in our smart bomb, and drone capabilities, we are top dog in aerial warfare.

a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't believe anyone, anywhere, at any point, took any part, of any kind off a WWII plane to use on any airframe in use by the military today.

A couple of "how long is a piece of string" questions I guess.

But if major hostilities looked likely, how quickly could those aircraft be made ready for combat ? Are normal maintenance schedules abandoned in wartime ? Wouldn't the Navy/Air Force just try their damnedest to get anything and everything up in the air, ignoring some of the faults/issues which grounded their aircraft in peacetime ?

a reply to: Zaphod58


Having read the posts and the stories of just how bad it is, it raises the question just how bad are in comparison to other Navies, readiness-wise? Frankly, the overall military in comparison to potential adversaries?

a reply to: Zaphod58

Warning, you need to spend billions more on weapons, our enormous budget just ain't enough.

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Zaphod58

Warning, you need to spend billions more on weapons, our enormous budget just ain't enough.

You're exactly right.
We don't have a big enough military budget to do the mission that the military is being required to do.
If you don't give them more money you need to reduce the missions.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Isn't reducing the missions the exact thing the current and the last POTUS promised during the election seasons? Isn't reducing the missions the one thing the large majority of US citizens agree with? So lets reduce the missions. Oh wait, POTUS and the citizens don't run this country, I forgot.