Hundreds of U.S. combat aircraft not available to use.

[Dayton3]

One of the things that needs to be improved on is the maintenance costs of our weapons systems.

That's been addressed many times. But it has blowback effects. For example, the F-18s were designed to be much more reliable and less maintenance intensive.

The problem. Because they were much less maintenance intensive the Hornets get much more flying time than other aircraft so they wear out faster.

 

[okfine]

One of the things that needs to be improved on is the maintenance costs of our weapons systems.

And vendors overcharging then blaming the Govt. for not paying for training. What a mess.

 

[whitehall]

About 75 years ago MSN would be charged with treason for posting stuff like this. It proves that there are no secrets left and we might as well disband the CIA.

 

[Mushroom]

And people here and elsewhere wonder why I continue to advocate for increased defense spending despite having no stake in it whatsoever.

This is largely aimed at those that do not know.

Simple fact, at most times 50% or less of US military equipment is "combat ready". And that is on purpose.

It takes a lot of time and money to keep equipment combat ready. And that money is only put in shortly before it is needed. And in the event that something breaks, the units on deployment or about to go on deployment get the highest priority for repairs and parts.

I actually did this for years, being the Battalion Maintenance Chief for my Infantry Battalion. And there are several levels of priority, depending on the equipment, what is wrong with it, and where a unit is in the activity status. But in general, there are 3. Top, for units in combat or deployed. Second, for those about to deploy. And last, those who are not deployed or expected to deploy any time soon.

For example, stateside after a summer of usual training, a unit is at the next to lowest levels (the lowest being the reserve units). So something like a hand guard or butt stock for an M-16 is priority 13. But the bolt for an M-2 heavy machine gun would be a 3, as it is considered to be combat essential.

If a unit is preparing to go overseas, that goes up by 1. So the M-2 bolt would be a priority 2. A unit that is deployed or in a combat zone would have a priority of 1. And the M-16 parts would be priority 11.

Units that are in an active status get the top priority. And those that are largely "in garrison" are towards the bottom. That is simply how things are. That is why there is a system in place to allow units to scrounge from one piece of broken equipment to keep another one functioning. Hence, most motor pools will have a vehicle with almost everything broken. Because it sometimes is a long wait to get parts if you are simply in a garrison status in the US.

In the Infantry, I saw the priority change depending on our operating tempo. If a unit had just finished a 6 month deployment, they are going to be home for at least a year. So there is no rush to get their stuff fixed. Plenty of time to get all the broken stuff fixed, and after the year as they prepare to deploy again, their priority is moved up to help make sure that everything is fixed and ready again before they go.

And if something can't be fixed, then it is replaced from ready to use war stocks.

When I was in PATRIOT, it was the exact same thing. We often times had launchers or a RADAR system down for months in the US, as the priority of the repair system was getting the parts sent overseas where they were actually on a mission. Those in the US, not so much. And that readiness level is also adjustable depending on the US alert status as a whole. If we were to have to go to a wartime footing, then everybody would ramp up their priorities, and get parts a lot faster.

The only large exception is the Reserve and Guard. For the most part, they are not expected to have to fight with their current equipment anymore. That is largely for training purposes, if they were to go to combat they would largely fly out and meet up with staged and pre-deployed equipment that is constantly maintained. When I was in a Reserve medical unit, not a single piece of our equipment other than weapons worked. It did not need to, it was only for training. If we had to go to say Germany or Kuwait, we would arrive there and all working equipment would be waiting for us to use. We have entire warehouses that is literally full of broken equipment, only used for training.

That is why if somebody in a medical reserve unit is injured in field training, they are sent to the base hospital. Their equipment is real world and actually works.

 

[Mushroom]

The same thing that is going on now happened under Carter when the US was incapable of making a raid to rescue the Iranian hostages.

Actually, that was a SNAFU that went way beyond anything discussed here. That was a case where every branch of the military demanded to be involved, so each got to stick their finger in the pie. And in the end, in an effort to have all of the 4 major branches involved, they had an overly complex plan, and were trying to use equipment that was not suited for the conditions. And not all of the players were experienced in working with each other.

The earliest plan involved the Navy and Marine Corps, operating with assets in the area. Then the Air Force got involved, hence they were used for the refueling with the C-130 instead of the C-2 as originally planned. And Army Delta Force instead of the Marines. Each step of the way, more and more units were involved, none of which had ever worked together before.

For example, at that time the CH-53 series helicopter had not been adapted for in-air refueling. The model in use was the CH-53D. The in-flight refueling was not a universal part of the series until the CH-53E in 1981 (in fact, the failure of Eagle Claw was a major reason for the inclusion of that in every future Sea Stallion model). This required them to set up an air base so they could land and refuel. That was a key problem, and ultimately why the mission failed. In the modern era, they would likely use the OV-22. But even if they used the CH-53 it can now be refueled in flight, so no desert air base needed.

And the OV-22 modification to convert them for refueling is being designed by Boeing for both the Marines and Navy. Both branches really want this, as it would mean that less F-18s and other aircraft need to be dedicated for that purpose.

One thing the military learned over the last 30 years, is that not every branch needs to be involved in every operation. Operation Eagle Claw, Operation Urgent Fury, and Operation Just Cause had a lot of units involved simply because each branch wanted a piece of it. But after Desert Storm, that largely ended and the Pentagon was much more likely to just select the specific units that could best do the mission, and ignore all the inter-service nonsense.

 

[Mushroom]

One of the things that needs to be improved on is the maintenance costs of our weapons systems.

Actually, in many cases this is impossible to correct.

And no, it has nothing to do with greed or anything else. A lot our equipment is simply getting to be well past the "shelf life" that they were ever expected to operate. And as anybody should know, the older a piece of equipment is, the more it costs to keep it going.

A hell of a lot of our equipment from tanks and ships, or aircraft, air defense systems, vehicles, and everything else is literally Reagan era equipment. That means it is 40 years old, and getting older each year. And the companies that originally made it have long ago moved on to other projects, so simply no longer makes large numbers of the replacement parts anymore.

Think of it like this, good luck calling Ford and saying the radio in your 1964½ Mustang died. Not their problem, they long ago stopped making them, and no longer have any more in inventory. Fix it yourself, or go out and try to find a new one somewhere else.

None of this equipment was expected to be the "front line" equipment to be used 40+ years later. The idea for most was it would be in use for 20 or so years, then replaced by something newer and the older stuff moved to Reserve units, allies, or things like that. Just as PATRIOT replaced the HAWK, the PATRIOT should have been replaced well over a decade ago. There have actually not been any "new" PATRIOT launchers built in well over a decade, just as there have been no "new" M1 tanks. They just take the main part of an old one and build a new one around it. Basically most is new, but the frame is old.

And many that are built for nations overseas are not really compatible with US models. Many countries demand their own modifications, so parts from a US model will not work with theirs. The ordinance is compatible, but almost nothing else is.

But it should really be obvious, it will continue to become more and more expensive to maintain our equipment. It is getting older and older every year, and how many of you are on a daily basis driving 40+ year old cars? How many trucking or transportation companies use 40 year old equipment? On average, most of them replace a vehicle after 6 years or so, they simply find that at around that point the maintenance starts to cost more than the vehicle is worth. I actually laughed when I would look at the data plate of the M-998 I was assigned in my last unit, and it dated to the Bush Administration.

And no, not Bush 43, Bush 41. In 2019, our newest HMMWV dated to 1989. When I was in PATRIOT, I was the only operator in the Battalion that was older than his launcher. I have even seen things like trailers that no kidding, date back to the Johnson administration (in 2008). And tractors to pull them to the Nixon administration.

 

[Vrenn]

One of the things that needs to be improved on is the maintenance costs of our weapons systems.

The F-35A is running almost a 70% ready rate. The B and C are much lower. 70% is acceptable. Meanwhile, the F-22 is well below 50%. You fly it and it's down for 1 to 2 days afterwards. The worst is the B-2. But you dance with the fat dude that brung ya.