• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

US Navy Aviation Fleet Broken

P

piasabird

Lifer
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/a25094/over-half-of-navy-fighters-cant-fly/

According to DefenseNews, 62 percent of U.S. Navy fighters are down for maintenance. Meanwhile 27 percent need major depot work, while 35 percent are waiting for spare parts. Of the Navy's 1,700 total aircraft (not all of which are fighters) 53 percent are unable to fly. While it is perfectly normal for a portion of aircraft to be out of service at any given time, this is the worst readiness problem the Navy has faced in years.

What good are new aircraft carriers without planes?

Title edited to reflect reality.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fuck off with your military.

Sincerely,

Vietnam, Nicaragua, Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kuwait, The Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Cambodia, Indonesia, etc. etc.

Drain the swamp! Drain the military!
 
Pretty piss poor ROI for the vast sums we spend on this.

I'm sure the "conservative" answer will be to just spend even more.
 
This is an ongoing issue in all branches as there will always be deadlined equipment in need of repair. PM should've edited it better to catch the grammatical errors before releasing it.
 
The armed forces has ~800k less bodies than during the end of the cold war, and the amount of front-line service folks has dropped much more, as the amount bureaucratic bloat has exploded in the recent years. It doesn't really matter the percentage of flying jets or functional tanks or ships, we don't exactly have the frontline troops to crew these at capacity these days anyway.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
The liberals are ecstatic that our military is left fvcked up and broken after 8 war years of the fvckhole Obama.
Click to expand...

No.

Us liberals want a functioning, up to date military. We just don't want the constant, needless expansion that many Republicans fetishize. Fixing and modernizing aircraft? Good. Expanding the size of the overall force to tackle a threat that isn't all that big (if it exists at all)? Bad.

Also, I might remind you that Republicans had control of the House under Obama, and so had a large say in military spending...
 
Commodus said:
No.

Us liberals want a functioning, up to date military. We just don't want the constant, needless expansion that many Republicans fetishize. Fixing and modernizing aircraft? Good. Expanding the size of the overall force to tackle a threat that isn't all that big (if it exists at all)? Bad.

Also, I might remind you that Republicans had control of the House under Obama, and so had a large say in military spending...
Click to expand...
Can you say sequester?
 
Commodus said:
No.

Us liberals want a functioning, up to date military. We just don't want the constant, needless expansion that many Republicans fetishize. Fixing and modernizing aircraft? Good. Expanding the size of the overall force to tackle a threat that isn't all that big (if it exists at all)? Bad.

Also, I might remind you that Republicans had control of the House under Obama, and so had a large say in military spending...
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-authorization-bill-spending-fight/74371856/ VETO.
 
not terribly shocking really - naval aircraft have some of the worst operating conditions as far as corrosion and maintenance go. also keep in mind that there are a lot of aging aircraft in the fleet.
 
MongGrel said:
That is the only thing you've got 😛

Go away, even the V-22 was overpriced in the early 80's and is a waste of money, the F-35 is turning into the same thing IMHO.

Ospreys still functions badly for their role even compared to several older helos. Sea Knights or Chinooks even being slightly slower are better.
Click to expand...
I agree with all you said except "go away"
 
Fenixgoon said:
not terribly shocking really - naval aircraft have some of the worst operating conditions as far as corrosion and maintenance go. also keep in mind that there are a lot of aging aircraft in the fleet.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are referring to, hopefully not the Ospreys.

The active ones have not been in service very long really.
 
I been working as a defense contractor for over 37 years. The military are experts at wasting lots of money. These kinds of maintenance issues occur when another new system is "just a few years away". All the focus (money) is on the new toys. In the meantime we still have to use the stuff we have with no new parts.
 
MongGrel said:
I'm not sure what you are referring to, hopefully not the Ospreys.

The active ones have not been in service very long really.
Click to expand...

you have an airplane sitting on top of a carrier in the middle of the ocean. there's electrical fields, salt spray, hot temps, cold temps, and all sorts of nastiness. basically, if you want to see whether something is going to corrode, hand it to the navy.
F/A-18 A's entered service in the 80's, so some are beyond the 30-year mark (E/F/G started in mid 90's IIRC). I'm not sure about all the different helicopters.

also, the article cites a lack of funding for repairs as the driver for the low fleet readiness, as well as the aging F/A-18C as a driver for maintenance funding requirements.
 
Fenixgoon said:
you have an airplane sitting on top of a carrier in the middle of the ocean. there's electrical fields, salt spray, hot temps, cold temps, and all sorts of nastiness. basically, if you want to see whether something is going to corrode, hand it to the navy.
F/A-18 A's entered service in the 80's, so some are beyond the 30-year mark (E/F/G started in mid 90's IIRC). I'm not sure about all the different helicopters.

also, the article cites a lack of funding for repairs as the driver for the low fleet readiness.
Click to expand...

I know, I was around in the F-4 Phantom II/ A-4 Sky Hawk days.

fT8vSCG.jpg


😎
 
Last edited:
Fenixgoon said:
you have an airplane sitting on top of a carrier in the middle of the ocean. there's electrical fields, salt spray, hot temps, cold temps, and all sorts of nastiness. basically, if you want to see whether something is going to corrode, hand it to the navy.
F/A-18 A's entered service in the 80's, so some are beyond the 30-year mark (E/F/G started in mid 90's IIRC). I'm not sure about all the different helicopters.

also, the article cites a lack of funding for repairs as the driver for the low fleet readiness, as well as the aging F/A-18C as a driver for maintenance funding requirements.
Click to expand...

With a budget of more than 0.5 trillion a year, we are more than ready to bomb the crap out of more 3rd world nations. It is not like we can use this military to engage a world class military as that would devolve into a nuclear war. This entire thread is simple concern trolling.

Unfortunately a significant percent of our population is not happy unless our military is murdering people who can't fight back in causes that are contrary to our national interests. They don't want to use 1 million dollar rickety bombs though, they want to use shiny new 10 million dollar bombs..... for reasons....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top