USAF Woes

[tomahawk6]

This is a common mistake the USAF makes in prematurely shutting down production of transports. It was done with the Galaxy IMO.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's odd when you think that you can't find enough people to fly fighter jets, you really need to think about what you are doing wrong when that happens. As for the Transports, they should be looking at a long term rebuild program followed by a new replacement, a replacement that is a evolutionary improvement of the C-17 that can go into slow production and produce X number of aircraft a year that nations can slowly upgrade with.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Colin P: Perhaps KC-390 now that Boeing (which Pentagon seems to like, as opposed to LockMart these days, with three recent contracts--MQ-25 drone for USN, MH-139 helos for Army and T-X trainer for USAF https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/09/28/boeings-big-month-capped-off-with-hat-trick-of-new-contracts/) is teamed up with Embraer. Plane might over time have substantial international market as alternative to C-130J:

Boeing, Embraer reportedly in talks to bring KC-390 production to US

Boeing and Brazilian aerospace company Embraer are reportedly discussing the prospect of building an assembly line for Embraer’s KC-390 cargo planes in the United States.

According to Brazilian newspaper Valor Economico, which first reported the talks on Oct. 1, and a subsequent Reuters story, the two companies see a U.S. KC-390 plant as part of a larger defense-related joint venture.

The discussions on KC-390 follow a July agreement that gave Boeing an 80 percent stake in Embraer’s commercial business, and it was widely speculated that a similar deal on the companies’ defense business hammered out in the coming months would involve greater cooperation with Boeing on KC-390.

Jackson Schneider, president and CEO of Embraer Defense & Security, told Defense News this July that more information about a Boeing-Embraer tie up on KC-390 could be revealed later this year.

Boeing and Embraer established agreements in 2012 and 2014 that allow the U.S. firm to have a hand in global marketing and logistics support of the KC-390, but a defense-related joint venture would allow for “much broader collaboration,” he said.

“Boeing has fantastic experience, [and] the KC-390 is a fantastic plane; it is a game-changer,” he said at Farnborough Airshow. “But I understand that we don’t have a substantial number of clients yet because we are in the certification phase. For sure I think that the Boeing presence in the market is very complementary of what we have. It will enlarge significantly our opportunities in terms of sales.”

The KC-390 is a multi-mission aircraft built to haul cargo, transport passengers, insert special operators and refuel other aircraft, among other uses. However, Embraer has struggled to draw serious interest from international buyers and Brazil currently remains its only customer — although the aircraft has prospects in Portugal and New Zealand and with a commercial aviation services company.

“A decision to build the aircraft in the U.S. would likely only be undertaken if Boeing/Embraer could sell KC-390 to the [U.S.] Air Force, Navy, or Marine Corps,” wrote Byron Callan of Capital Alpha Partners in an email.

That could be a tall order, as the U.S. services historically have operated Lockheed Martin’s C-130 Hercules for the same purpose and are either in the process of replacing old variants with new ones, or lack the money to replace old C-130s and plan to recapitalize them instead.

The U.S. Air Force is upgrading active units’ older C-130 models to the newest C-130J Super Hercules, but the service does not have the funding to expand the current C-130J program of record and will have to upgrade some C-130H models, said Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris, the services deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and requirements, during a Sept. 28 hearing in front of a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

Meanwhile, the Navy plans to replace its C-130T fleet with 25 new KC-130Js in the early 2020s, Rear Adm. Scott Conn, the service’s director of air warfare, said in the hearing.
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/04/boeing-embraer-reportedly-in-talks-on-bringing-kc-390-production-to-us/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[dimsum]

Those are the same hot cups that the Aurora (and Herc?) have for boiling water.  I don't think anyone has used them in a while, prob b/c we can't afford to replace them at almost $1700 CAD per cup   

Grassley asks Air Force why squadron bought $1,280 coffee cups

Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, wants the Air Force to explain why a squadron at California's Travis Air Force Base is buying metal coffee cups that cost $1,280 each.

Grassley cited a recent Fox News report that found the 60th Ariel Port Squadron had spent a total of nearly $56,000 in the past three years, because the cups' handles break easily when dropped.

In a letter addressed to Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Grassley called the report an example of "reckless spending of taxpayer dollars" within the Defense Department, and said he doubts the Air Force is taking  "real steps" to reduce wasteful spending.

[snip]

Earlier this year, Grassley demanded the Air Force explain why it was spending $14,000 on individual toilet seat covers. He said he has yet to receive "satisfactory answers" to his questions about the expensive covers.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senator-chuck-grassley-wants-air-force-explain-squadron-buys-expensive-1280-coffee-cups/

 

[blacktriangle]

Those are the same hot cups that the Aurora (and Herc?) have for boiling water.  I don't think anyone has used them in a while, prob b/c we can't afford to replace them at almost $1700 CAD per cup   

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senator-chuck-grassley-wants-air-force-explain-squadron-buys-expensive-1280-coffee-cups/

You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?

 

[tomahawk6]

A crew chief once showed me how to heat coffee in a C130 by putting it in a certain spot in the cockpit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Mark
Ottawa

The KC-390 is more a competitor to the 130J as I see it, the C-17 payload is significantly bigger, both in volume and weight.

 

[PuckChaser]

You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdmH47VNiS4

 

[MarkOttawa]

Ambitious:

Mattis orders fighter jet readiness to jump to 80 percent — in one year

Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis has ordered the Air Force and Navy to get mission capable rates for four key tactical aircraft up above 80 percent by the end of next September, a daunting challenge given the current readiness rates of America’s fighter fleets.

In a memo issued Sept. 17 to the secretaries of the Army, Air Force and Navy, along with acquisition head Ellen Lord and acting Undersecretary for Personnel and Readiness Stephanie Barna, Mattis acknowledges “budget constraints and shortfalls in aviation squadrons across the force” have led to “systemic underperformance, overcapitalization and unrealized capacity” in the fighter fleets.

“For change to be effective and efficient, we must focus on meeting our most critical priorities first,” Mattis wrote in the memo, obtained exclusively by Defense News.

Specifically, that means achieving a minimum of 80 percent mission capability rates for the Pentagon’s F-35, F-22, F-16 and F-18 inventories — a number well above the mission capability rates those aircraft now achieve. In addition, Mattis wants to see reduced operating and maintenance costs on the platforms, starting in FY19.

The Air Force updates its public readiness figures annually, with the most recent numbers, released in March, covering fiscal year 2017. According to those numbers, 71.3 percent of the Air Force’s aircraft were flyable, or mission-capable, at any given time in FY17. That represented a drop from the 72.1 percent mission-capable rate in FY16, and is part of a bigger picture of decline across the fleet.

Specific to tactical aircraft, the F-16C fleet reported a mission capable rate of 70.22 percent, the just-standing-up F-35A a 54.67 percent mission capable rate, and the F-22 Raptor a shocking 49.01 mission capable rate. While not covered by Mattis’ memo, the F-15C (71.24 percent) and F-15E (75.26 percent) were also below the threshold now sought by the secretary.

The Raptor’s rates stand out as the most alarming. When the F-22 was first used in combat towards the end of 2014, its mission capable rate was over 70 percent; as use has increased, its rates have dropped dramatically.

Navy figures are released less regularly, but in an Aug. 7 media roundtable, Navy Secretary Richard Spencer told reporters that the service started 2018 with 241 fully mission capable aircraft, and he said had increased to 270 by the time he met with the press. And almost half of the Navy’s 546 Super Hornets are now mission capable, he said — well below Mattis’ target...
https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/10/09/mattis-orders-fighter-jet-readiness-to-jump-to-80-percent-in-one-year/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CBH99]

Is the solution potentially newer airframes that require less maintenance and/or break less often?  Or simply limiting flying operations to an extent, so you don't keep breaking the airplanes?

I don't know how you increase availability to 80% if your continuing to fly the same airframes for the same number of hours each month/year.  Extra spare parts may help, but constantly "flying the wings off" of them & the shortage of maintenance personnel is only going to continue to exasperate the situation if the fundamentals don't change. 


**Kind of ironic that the A-10 isn't included in what Mattis, I'm assuming, is counting as his primary fighting forces in a near peer conflict.  The A-10 could be doing a vast majority of the work currently being done in the ME by F-16 & F-15 crews, easing the pressure on those fleets.  Too bad they want to retire it so bad, and keep circumventing Congress in Congress' efforts to keep the fleet active PRECISELY to take the strain off of the primary A2A fleets.


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20019/life-on-the-flight-line-confessions-of-a-u-s-marine-f-a-18-hornet-maintainer

 

[tomahawk6]

Somehow the B52 still flies.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Is the solution potentially newer airframes that require less maintenance and/or break less often?  Or simply limiting flying operations to an extent, so you don't keep breaking the airplanes?

We need a modern day Le May, of course

"In a discussion of a report into high abort rates in bomber missions during World War II, which Robert McNamara suspected was because of pilot fear of death, Robert McNamara described LeMay's character: One of the commanders was Curtis LeMay—Colonel in command of a B-24 group. He was the finest combat commander of any service I came across in war. But he was extraordinarily belligerent, many thought brutal. He got the report. He issued an order. He said, 'I will be in the lead plane on every mission. Any plane that takes off will go over the target, or the crew will be court-martialed.' The abort rate dropped overnight. Now that's the kind of commander he was."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_LeMay

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't the Mattis list reflect the need to gain air superiority first?

Once, as always, air superiority is gained and the US owns the skies, then they can support the air-land battle with any air frame - 100 year old bombers, converted transports, turbo-prop trainers, helicopters and UAVs.

Can the US gain air superiority - taking out the enemies air defences and its attack fleet?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Cf. the RCAF's personel problems, amongst other things:

GAO Report on U.S. Air Force Readiness
October 11, 2018 6:32 AM

The following is the Oct. 10, 2018 Government Accountability Office report [follows at end of quote], Air Force Readiness: Actions Needed to Rebuild Readiness and Prepare for the Future.
From the Report

GAO’s prior work has highlighted that the Air Force faces management and readiness challenges in four interrelated areas:

    Personnel: The Air Force has reported that pilot and aircraft maintainer shortfalls are a key challenge to rebuilding readiness. GAO found in April 2018 that the Air Force had fewer fighter pilots than authorizations for 11 of 12 years, from fiscal years 2006 through 2017. Even as unmanned aerial systems had become more prevalent and fighter pilot workloads had increased, the Air Force had not reevaluated fighter squadron requirements. GAO recommended that the Air Force reevaluate fighter pilot squadron requirements to ensure it has the pilots necessary for all missions.
    Equipment: Air Force aircraft availability has been limited by challenges associated with aging aircraft, maintenance, and supply support. GAO reported in September 2018 that, from fiscal year 2011 through 2016, the Air Force generally did not meet availability goals for key aircraft. Further, in October 2017 GAO found F-35 availability was below service expectations and sustainment plans did not include key requirements. GAO recommended that DOD revise F-35 sustainment plans to include requirements and decision points needed to implement the F-35 sustainment strategy.
    Training: The Air Force has identified the need to ensure its forces can successfully achieve missions to address a broad range of current and emerging threats. However, GAO reported in September 2016 that Air Force combat fighter squadrons did not complete annual training requirements due to aircraft availability and training range limitations, and had used the same underlying assumptions for its annual training requirements from 2012 to 2016. GAO recommended that the Air Force reassess its annual training requirements to ensure its forces can accomplish a full range of missions.
    Organization and Utilization: Air Force management of its force structure can also exacerbate readiness challenges. GAO found in July 2018 that the Air Force’s organization of its small F-22 fleet had not maximized aircraft availability, and that its utilization of F-22s reduced opportunities for pilots to train for missions in high-threat environments. GAO found that unless the Air Force assesses the organization and use of its F-22s, F-22 units are likely to continue to experience aircraft availability and pilot training rates that are below what they could be. GAO recommended that the Air Force reassess its F-22 organizational structure to reduce risk to future operations.

Looking to the future, the Air Force will have to balance the rebuilding of its existing force with its desire to grow and modernize. To meet current and future demands, the Air Force has stated that it needs to have more squadrons. However, the costs of such growth are as yet unknown, and will have to compete with other military services looking to increase their force structure and recapitalize their forces. Even with growth, the Air Force would be dependent on the force of today for decades to come and will need to stay focused on rebuilding the readiness of existing forces. Addressing GAO’s recommendations are necessary steps to meet current and future needs and can assist the Air Force moving forward...
https://news.usni.org/2018/10/11/gao-report-u-s-air-force-readiness

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Cloud Cover]

Way out of my lane, but I find it interesting that Mattis, of all people, thinks that writing a memo demanding a certain percentage availability rate will actually result in that number. Did he provide the corresponding budget and miracle wand? Would it not have been a better metric to hold the air force to X number of concentrations of aircraft available and ready to be deployed (together with parts, weapons etc). Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the RCAF aspiration to have a 6 Pack ready to go on a warning order and X number ready to scramble for NORAD air intercept, rather than percentages? 

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Way out of my lane, but I find it interesting that Mattis, of all people, thinks that writing a memo demanding a certain percentage availability rate will actually result in that number. Did he provide the corresponding budget and miracle wand? Would it not have been a better metric to hold the air force to X number of concentrations of aircraft available and ready to be deployed (together with parts, weapons etc). Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the RCAF aspiration to have a 6 Pack ready to go on a warning order and X number ready to scramble for NORAD air intercept, rather than percentages?

I'm on the same lane as you, however, I highly doubt that this is something Mattis decided over morning coffee. Most everyone here knows what goes on behind an order from the top. There are briefs, back briefs, progress reports, analysis reports and many other things that are taken into account. Mattis didn't get where he is by telling people to do things he knows nothing about. Perhaps it might not be possible to reach 80%, but, guaranteed, they'll be a lot better off, platform wise, than they are now. It will also expose the hold ups to the light of day where they can be dealt with. Again, I doubt that this whole thing was launched on an idea and a hastily prepared memo. I've seen lots of goofy command requests from floppers, but Mattis isn't one of those guys, IMO.

 

[Old Sweat]

To add to FJ's comment, I doubt that it came as a surprise to any of the recipients.

 

[CBH99]

I'm on the same lane as you, however, I highly doubt that this is something Mattis decided over morning coffee. Most everyone here knows what goes on behind an order from the top. There are briefs, back briefs, progress reports, analysis reports and many other things that are taken into account. Mattis didn't get where he is by telling people to do things he knows nothing about. Perhaps it might not be possible to reach 80%, but, guaranteed, they'll be a lot better off, platform wise, than they are now. It will also expose the hold ups to the light of day where they can be dealt with. Again, I doubt that this whole thing was launched on an idea and a hastily prepared memo. I've seen lots of goofy command requests from floppers, but Mattis isn't one of those guys, IMO.

Agreed FJ.

I'm wondering if this order isn't almost a "reviewing" the system to find out where the weak points really are, so the weak points can be addressed & held accountable.  Is it the front line maintenance personnel?  Lack of spare parts?  Lack of certain support from contractors/suppliers? 

If the focus is 80%, but they can't get there because of "Problem A and Problem B" - that really helps iron out where the problems lay.

And while I don't mean to sound "skeptical" in a cynical way...I wonder if this isn't part of the same strategy for the 355 ship navy, and an extra 70 squadrons for the USAF?  As in - announce a very ambitious goal, knowing full well it might not be achieved - but they'll be far better off afterwards even if the goal isn't achieved.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps it is as simple as this?

Situation:

Mission: You will have 80% of the following aircraft ready to fly on July 31 2019

Execution:

Support:

Command and Control:


The statement needs to be short, clear and to the point.
You will soon be told why it can't be done.... and then you can figure out how to get what you need to make it happen.

The alternative is that you get lost in bafflegab and nobody understands what it is you are trying to accomplish.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its like saying your unit will have 100% of your assigned vehicles road ready. Its embarrassing when your unit pulls out and trucks begin breaking down. For aircraft spare parts are an issue specially if you are dumping old aircraft and your new ones haven't arrived.