"USAF gives up on 80% readiness rates for stealth fighters" Topic

USAF has given up on 80% readiness rate for F-22 and F-35 as well as non stealth ageing F-16s. This refers to aircraft available on a squadron on a given day and doesn't include aircraft on reserve or scheduled maintenance.

Readiness peaked at following rates:
F-16 – 75%
F-22 – 68%
F-35 – 74%

F-15 & A-10 had met thetarget previously and had sustained it.

link

F-35 number is poor given jets are new and the few squadrons equipped with it have had lions share of maintenance resources.

F-22 rate is terrible. And note given it is a peak it means rates probably dropped off.

I wonder what the rate is for the F/A -18?

SuperHornets met the 80% goal.

link

While these rates are acceptable, they're far better than many air forces around the world. Germany for example, only has a 40% readiness for it's MRCA Tornados and depending upon the source, most of their Eurofighters are not combat operational. China is aiming for 80%, but it's hard to tell since they don't publish any figures.

Though my USAF days were long ago to me that sounds right.

Not surprising, given current issues with the F-35, of which there are many.

60% – 67% seems to be about the usual serviceability rate, from WWII to the present day.

Frequent ops quickly diminish that to 50% or less, during times of tension and war.

Mission capable rates for 2017 and 2018 were about 50% each for both the F-22 and the F-35. This is from a USAF chart I ran across, so doesn't list the F/A-18. The F-22 improved about 3%, year over year, while the F-35 fell 5% during that same period, e.g. from 49% – 52%, and from 55% – 50%, respectively.

I seem to recall reading about, and hearing that USN and USMC aircraft readiness was even worse, according to anecdotal reports.

It was about 53% for USN/USMC F/A-18s a couple of years ago. However given massive maintenance backlogs only 26% of the USMC fleet and 32% of the US Navy fleet were actually available which is terrible. Note USMC only used legacy F/A-18C/D and not F/A-18E/F Super Hornets like the navy. Lots of F/A-18s were crashing at this time too and not at see either.

Obviously they got their house on order though whether it is sustainable on the long term is an unknown.

Another comment regarding availability in the past – you expect lower availability back in the 1960s and 70s. Systems and engines were less reliable, aircraft needed more overhauls more frequently due to shorter component lives and they were flown more (more pilots per squadron whereas today there are endemic shortages) and often harder than today (e.g. low level training was far more common).

It should be noted that both F-15 & A-10 did not have availability issues and were above 80%.

I use to joke that if the Air Force was an airline we would be bankrupt and out of business the way we ran the operation. Of course most Military aircraft are much more capable and complicated than a civilian airliner, so therefore harder to maintain.

I remember if a plane went down because a part was needed and wasn't going to get it for some time it because cannibalize real fast.

Oh and just remembered this article – it's from 2019 but Navy/Marine F35B/C full mission capability was 2% for Navy jets and 15% for USMC jets over a 2 year period (2016-18) and that peaks availability was 25%.

Noteworthy was that is was getting worse over time especially for F-35C.

link

Article discusses other issues with naval aviation in terms of availability.

The Military always has an answer Low maintenance buy more planes Figure how how many you actually need as to nice to have and buy buy buy. Don't need them put them in storage. Manufacturers happy to keep on making as long as someone keeps on buying. Get in trouble classify some hanger queens as worn out.