Planes unable to fly

| November 18, 2022

Might be sure to reread Mason’s recent column about the Air Force trying to shift more training from planes to simulators. They may not have much choice.

The GAO surveys our air fleets to make sure the planes are able to do their jobs. The applicable metric is:

“mission-capable rate,” or how often a type of aircraft can fly and perform at least one of its combat missions, like close air support or target tracking. Those targets can vary by airframe and by year.

The Government Accountability Office studied 49 types of airframes across the Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps for its Nov. 10 report.

GAO found that 26, or about half, of the aircraft studied never reached their annual readiness goal between fiscal 2011 and 2021, despite the Pentagon spending tens of billions of dollars on aircraft maintenance each year.

“Never reached their annual readiness goal” for a decade. Think about that a minute.

That includes all three Army and nine Marine Corps aircraft in the report, six of 22 Air Force platforms, and eight of 15 Navy airframes. They span 10 types of rotorcraft, eight kinds of fighter jets, three tanker aircraft, three cargo planes and two command-and-control platforms.

Just five airframes met their mission-capable goals in at least half of the years studied, and only one — the Air Force’s Vietnam War-era UH-1N Huey helicopter — hit the mark every year.

Two of the fleets hit their goals for 2021. Thirty of the rest failed by more than 10 points. And the best of the lot is a chopper older than most of our readers.

For example, Air Force Times reported in February that, on average, seven out of every 10 planes were available as needed for combat missions, training or other routine operations last year. That number has barely budged in recent years despite concerted efforts to ready aircraft for war.

Military Times – all

Reading the article, some dispute the metrics’ real-world applicability. But it does seem clear that if all the money being spent is only keeping 7 out of 10 planes mission-capable, that there is a lot of room for improvement. I am no expert on this, but I believe there are many of our readers who are knowledgeable and capable of weighing in?

Category: Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, Navy

22 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AW1 Rod

“GAO found that 26, or about half, of the aircraft studied never reached their annual readiness goal between fiscal 2011 and 2021.”

The solution is simple. Just lower annual readiness goals. Isn’t that what we do in the Xiden Era military?

Graybeard

WTH(eck)?

I’ve got too many of my “kids” (by other parents) in the various branches to feel good about them depending on substandard junk.

Mick

For those on Team TAH who may be interested, here’s how Naval Aviation (Navy and Marine Corps) runs its Naval Aviation Maintenance Program (NAMP):

COMNAVFORINST 4790.2D NAMP.pdf (navy.mil)

Material condition/readiness of Navy and Marine Corps aircraft and associated reporting is discussed in (excruciating) detail in that document.

  • FMC = Full Mission Capable
  • PMC = Partial Mission Capable
  • NMC = Not Mission Capable

Bottom line (in my experience as a career Marine Aviator):

sustained high operational tempo + reduced logistical/financial support + reduced manpower at all echelons of aviation maintenance = low FMC aircraft readiness rates

Not “rocket science”, is it?

This poor aircraft readiness rate bullshit occurs every time the Demotards are in charge and DOD funding is cut (please see the mid to late 1990s during the Clinton years).

* Disclaimer: I don’t have a clue as to how the Army and USAF run their aviation maintenance and aircraft readiness reporting.

Robert Szrama

My brother-in-law was happy when Clinton got elected and said, I believe was not ironically, he hoped he would do what Carter did for the military. In one of those I should’ve said moments I realized I should’ve said to him you mean like where the Navy couldn’t do training exercises cause there was no ammunition, things like that right?

SFC D

11TH Sig Bde had to cancel a 3 week BDE FTX under Clinton because we only had enough fuel for about 36 hours of operations.

Mick

I was retired before Trump took office, so I don’t have any first-hand aviation experience during his administration.

All I know is that the Clinton years were the worst that I ever experienced during my entire aviation career.

Mick

* entire Marine Corps aviation career

RGR 4-78

I’m just happy that someone finally posted a picture of AW1 Ed’s first carrier launch. 😆 

On a serious note, that is some terrible numbers. I wonder if having to go to the bone yard for used parts on older airframes in recent years has contributed to this lack of readyness?

Roh-Dog

Buhahahahahaha! Are you saying his hydrophone was a can on a string and his flights routinely dodged pterodactyls?

RGR 4-78

Depth Charge was homemade black powder and fuse. 🤔 

AW1Ed

Should’a seen the landing.

RGR 4-78

According to the photo, that would have been some Wright good flying. 😉 

AW1Ed

Eugene Ely has the distinction of being first to launch and land an aircraft on a ship. They must have his giant brass balls down in the powder magazine for safety.

Mick

Ely waiting for the Air Boss to clear him to launch:

comment image

Mick

Saved round:

Note the inflated rubber innertubes that he has wrapped around himself as a Personal Flotation Device (PFD).

And I thought that the old SV-2s were a pain in the ass…

AW1Ed

Heh. If we had ever met professionally, you in an LR-1 and me in my swim fins, I would have agreed with you!

The Brits had a much better rig, from my perspective.

Mick

Ha!

RGR 4-78

My bad. That is not a Wright flyer.

That is a Curtiss Model D biplane.

KoB

Damn shame when muddling along at slightly better than half-assed is considered good enough. DaHell we gonna do when a “peer enemy” decides to kick off a war? We certainly can’t gear up like we did in the months after Pearl Harbor to produce working machines of war. And even if we could produce them in vacant factories, whose gonna work on/fix them when they break? Lot of difference in being able to do underwater basket weaving and repairing a broken aircraft. But, hey, we close to 100% on SHARP and CRT Training norms, so there is that.

Charles

Yet, remember during DS/DS when Fully Mission Capable percentages climbed, in some cases, to 100%? It was because the wrench benders of the 101st Airborne Division refused to leave the flight line until everything that needed fixing or adjusting on the helicopters was done. Back stateside, there is leave time, schooling, and of course woke and SAFE classes.