this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2023
184 points (89.0% liked)

Technology

59666 readers
2672 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
184
America's Military Can’t Repair Its Own $1.7 Trillion Jet | Only about half of the U.S.’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets is operational at any time due to difficulties with repairs, which must go throu... (www.vice.com)
submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
24 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

America's Military Can’t Repair Its Own $1.7 Trillion Jet | Only about half of the U.S.’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets is operational at any time due to difficulties with repairs, which must go throu...::Only about half of the U.S.’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets is operational at any time due to difficulties with repairs, which must go through contractors.

all 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 128 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not going to try to explain mission readiness, this is low, but the target is closer to 70%, so while it isn't great, it's not like it's half of what's expected.

Jets are complicated, they spend a lot of time in maintenance and inspection for each out of flight, its because they're optimized for performance while passenger jets are optimized for endurance, safety and cost.

F35s are terrible jets for peacetime, as are most fighter jets. For combat they're probably a lot better, they're basically f16s with worse maneuverability, but better range, sensors, weapons and of course stealth, 1 f35 is worth at least 3 f16s.

But even this doesn't matter, the next generation will be 80% drones, drones have phenomenal mission readiness ratings, often 90% or higher.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 64 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'll chime in as well and agree with you. The author of that article doesn't seem know what he is writing about. Sure, he is kind of quoting the GAO article (it didn't link correctly for me from the article) but he doesn't quite know the insane amount of maintenance any aircraft go through.

I think my old squadron (HH-60's) only had about 50% of its birds ready at any given time. That was about normal since saltwater is absolute hell on just about anything made of metal. Also Jr. pilots are generally idiots and break things, so that is a thing.

Honestly, I read the GAO report and thought it was fairly normal for a newer piece of equipment.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

That was about normal since saltwater is absolute hell on just about anything made of metal.

OMG, salt in the moisture in air around and inside light and precise metal parts, year round, my brain just connected these dots and felt pain. 🤯😬

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Military helicopters are very resilient, I'll give 'em that.

Aside from hydraulic struts being mostly exposed, most of the other bits are OK. The electronics are in solid metal boxes with really beefy connectors, so that is not too much of an issue either.

It's the engines and the airframe that are the biggest issues. Engines have their own set of issues by themselves and misted saltwater amplifies those issues. The airframe is the worst though. Not only are they subject to normal stresses that cause micro-cracks like every aircraft, corrosion is accelerated due to bad operating conditions. An airframe is not something you would want to fail.

In short, almost all aircraft, military or not, should go through a phased inspection and repair cycle. As you move through the different phases (of which there are usually 4), the inspection gets deeper and more intense. The last phase usually involves tearing down the entire aircraft to its frame to conduct hyper-detailed inspections for cracks and corrosion. (My experience is limited to just private civilian fixed wing and naval military helicopters)

[–] sartalon 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I came in to quote my own squadrons' SH-60 readiness was typically 3 out of 6-7 birds. (SH-60F, so I'm old).

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sounds like we were in about the same time. I was stationed in Jax with HS-5, back in the day.

If I remember correctly, our squadron had both HH-60s and SH-60s? Somewhere, the MH designation got thrown in there and I am also too old to really keep track.

(I probably could still do an inspection with my eyes closed though.)

[–] sartalon 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I was left coast and Japan.

HS was a mix of SH-60F's and HH-60H's. But around 2010-2012, the F/B's went away and the HS squadrons' transitioned to MH-60's, and the HSL squadrons' went to the H-60R's.

The HH-60H's got their own squadrons' that were specifically NSW support. East coast already had one, in VA, and they stood one up in SD.

HSC-84/85, I think. I also got out in 2012.

[–] remotelove@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Ok, I remember hearing a little about those transitions when I was getting out in 2005. What you say makes sense since our role was SAR and anti-sub. (The SAR guys were responsible for dropping off and picking up SEALs as well.)

Thanks for validating my memories. Cheers, shippy.

[–] Scrof@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 year ago

I like it when it's bad news they call it a 1.7 trillion jet, but when it's good news they call it an 80 million one.

[–] lemmeout@lemm.ee 30 points 1 year ago

Let's leave accurate military reporting to outlets specializing on military and aviation.

[–] treadful@lemmy.zip 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When something breaks on the F-35, it takes the Pentagon an average of 141 days to repair it.

That sounds bad, but it's also completely out of context. Commercial jets probably stay grounded less than a day, but I have no frame of reference for fighter aircraft.

[–] Bassman1805@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I watched a video about maintenence for commercial passenger jets recently. Light engine maintenence takes on the order of a week, heavy maintenence takes several months. For heavy maintenence, they literally disassemble every component of the engine, so even if everything goes perfectly, it still takes forever.

That said, I imagine they just swap a new engine into the plane while the old one is under maintenence.

[–] benwubbleyou@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Do you have a link to said video? Not because I disagree but because that sounds super interesting to watch.

[–] JoMomma@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Vice should do better reporting

[–] bookmeat@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

If only it was the jets that are affected!

[–] BilboBargains@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago

I don't understand why anyone sends manned aircraft into battle when missiles, UAVs and satellite surveillance exists. Aircraft carriers were invented because those technologies didn't exist at the time and then they just kept making them and filling them with insanely expensive aircraft.

[–] applejacks@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago

this is going to become more and more common across all industries