US Air Force bails on Mattis-era fighter jet readiness goal

[spazsinbad]

Similar story here: https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-vows- ... readiness/

US Air Force bails on Mattis-era fighter jet readiness goal
07 May 2020 Valerie Insinna & Stephen Losey

"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force has officially abandoned a directive to get its F-35, F-22 and F-16 jets up to an 80 percent mission-capable rate after failing to meet that goal in fiscal 2019, the service’s presumptive chief of staff indicated Thursday. According to written responses by Air Force Gen. Charles Q. Brown ahead of his May 7 confirmation hearing, “the F-16 mission capable rate reached a high of 75% in June 2019, the F-22 mission capable rate achieved a high of 68% in April 2019 and the F-35 mission capability rate climbed to a high of 74% in September 2019.”...

...The Air Force’s newest fighter jet, the F-35A conventional-takeoff-and-landing model, showed the most improvement, increasing from a mission-capable rate of about 50 percent in FY18 to 62 percent in FY19....

...Ultimately, Pentagon leadership decided not to renew the effort in FY20, Brown told the Senate Armed Services Committee. “The Office of the Secretary of Defense determined the FY19 80-percent Mission Capable (MC) Rate initiative is not an FY20 requirement,” wrote Brown, who is currently the commander of Pacific Air Forces. Instead, the Air Force has returned to its usual practice of letting commanders set their own readiness objectives, with no definitive requirements for mission-capable rates, he said....

...Instead of driving toward an 80 percent mission-capable rate, the Air Force is implementing a new “strategic sustainment framework” that will aim to increase readiness by improving the service’s repair network and expanding the use of conditions-based maintenance, Brown wrote in his response to the SASC...." [all best read at source - really truly]

Source: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2020/05 ... ness-goal/

[mixelflick]

Hmmmm...

Not sure how to read this.. Did they determine it wasn't possible? Or alternatively, possible but only by re-arranging other priorities?

I would have thought it a good goal to have, looks kinda fishy they dropped it. Although, I've seen mission capable rates a LOT higher... when it mattered. Like during Desert Storm, major exercises etc.

[XanderCrews]

Hmmmm...

Not sure how to read this.. Did they determine it wasn't possible? Or alternatively, possible but only by re-arranging other priorities?

I would have thought it a good goal to have, looks kinda fishy they dropped it. Although, I've seen mission capable rates a LOT higher... when it mattered. Like during Desert Storm, major exercises etc.

This will discourage lying and selling everything out to achieve a magical number, or failing that lying about it.

[weasel1962]

I suspect USAF could reach Mattis' goal if required. Doesn't have to involve lying or cheating. However the effort and cost would probably be significantly more to hit that target which would violate the 80-20 rule. Its more a signal that its close enough without being tagged to an artificial target. In other words, the USAF is sufficiently combat ready. That's how I see it.

Look at it another way. The USAF did what it could with the resources it had to achieve the readiness increments.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your ... -the-rise/

Anything more would have required a larger budget.