F-35 leading USAF Fighter MCR rates.

Discuss the F-35 Lightning II
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2425
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post25 May 2021, 14:54

May 24, 2021 | By John A. Tirpak

The Air Force’s fighter fleet, led by the F-35A, turned in a better overall mission capable rate in 2020, even with limitations imposed by the pandemic, than it did in 2019, according to figures provided to Air Force Magazine. The F-35’s MC rates soared, and rates even improved for the F-15C, which the Air Force is anxious to divest because of its age. The F-15E’s MC rate declined, however.

https://www.airforcemag.com/usaf-fighte ... scal-2020/
When Obi Wan logged onto Twitter: "You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3677
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 May 2021, 16:08

Nice article basher, thanks for sharing :thumb:

So the only USAF fighter aircraft whose mission readiness declined in 2020 was the F-15E. I would like to hear know all those F-15EX proponents that it should be acquired because of all the F-35 sustainability issues! :roll:

Note that the F-15EX is an improved/updated F-15E (like the name says)


On the other hand it's great to see that the F-35 had the best mission readiness rate in 2020 of all USAF's fighter aircraft fleet!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26819
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post25 May 2021, 20:09

Attachments
USAFmisCapRate2019-20may2021.gif
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

Gums

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2524
  • Joined: 16 Dec 2003, 17:26

Unread post25 May 2021, 21:21

Salute!

Good news, even with the bogus criteria for misison capable definition.

As with any new plane, the supply line and maintenance learning curve is a huge factor. Additionally, the criteria is suspect. For we pilots, imagine being declared not mission capable because we had a cavity or ingrown toe nail!

We flew many combat missions in the A-37 and the A-7D in the first two years of them coming online with less than 100% of everything working. I was there for both planes for their combat intro, especially the Dragonfly. The funny stat was for the A-37, as sometimes we had "battle damage" from rocket attacks at our base, so having three or four planes NMC was not a big deal. Who would wanna fly the plane with big holes in the tail or ailerons?

The Viper was another one that cracked me up. As with the A-37, first year was a bear due to supply line crapola. Guess what? Our wise old chiefs got on the Sears catalog and we soon got wrenches, wagons, ladders and so forth. At Hill in 1979 we got the emergency supply purchase forms and just went downtown. At Bien Hoa, we had to wait a week or so for a shipment.

I would start getting worried with mission capable rates down in the 50's, but what mission? The Viper radar and missile control was much different than the CCIP bomb mode. I did not need radar ground map to go hunting, especially with the Lima's. The A-7D ultimate accurate bomb system needed the radar, but without it you were flying an F-100, so BFD.

Gums sends...
Gums
Viper pilot '79
"God in your guts, good men at your back, wings that stay on - and Tally Ho!"
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post25 May 2021, 22:27

Not MCR related per se, but in the good news category, me thinks, the most recent (as best I can tell) US Fedgov 2020 reimbursement rates for fixed wing aircraft show the F-35A less than the F-15C/D/E, the F-35B marginally higher than the AV-8B (and well below the F/A-18A/B/C/D), the F-35C marginally above the F/A-18E:

FY2020 Reimbursable F-35A.PNG

FY2020 Reimbursable F-35B,C.PNG


I understand these reimbursement rates are NOT CPFH rates, but as it gives the amount of money a unit will be reimbursed for use of the asset for an hour, it would seem to be a pretty fair figure covering cost of gas, oil, and general maintenance expenses just for that hour. I could be wrong. Can anyone further elaborate on this point?

In any event, these dollars are well below the $25K/hour rate the USAF brass has been bawling about. Which leads me to believe the USAF has a whole lotta other expenses wrapped up into that CPFH / $25K/hour magical rate. As an engineer I'm scratching my head. As a citizen, I'm beginning to smell RAT.

Also, as previously discussed, I am pretty sure those F-16C/D USAF rates do NOT include the cost of AN/ALQ-131/184 ECM pods, nor AN/AAQ-14 Targeting pods (LANTIRN?), nor AN/AAQ-13 Navigation pods.
Attachments
2020_b_c.pdf
(160.93 KiB) Downloaded 161 times
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post26 May 2021, 02:03

steve2267 wrote:I understand these reimbursement rates are NOT CPFH rates, but as it gives the amount of money a unit will be reimbursed for use of the asset for an hour, it would seem to be a pretty fair figure covering cost of gas, oil, and general maintenance expenses just for that hour. I could be wrong. Can anyone further elaborate on this point?

In any event, these dollars are well below the $25K/hour rate the USAF brass has been bawling about. Which leads me to believe the USAF has a whole lotta other expenses wrapped up into that CPFH / $25K/hour magical rate. As an engineer I'm scratching my head. As a citizen, I'm beginning to smell RAT.


You can see how Reimbursable CPFH compares to other figures here:

Image

The $25k/hr goal for the F-35A is the Total O&S CPFH (USAF total ownership - the blue box), and in 2012 dollars (so $29,079 in today's dollars).

Currently (as of the end of 2020) the F-35A's total ownership CPFH is $33,300/hr in 2012 dollars, so they still need to remove about 1/4 of the jet's CPFH by 2025, although even then in 2018 some odd new annual sustainment cost requirements which will be practically impossible to meet.

You can also read up on what some of those elements in the above image mean via this document, on pages 59 to 76; some of the terms are a little difference, but you should be able to make the connection (indirect costs -> indirect support, etc).
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post26 May 2021, 05:33

Dragon, appreciate those comments.

What was surprising to me, with all the USAF brass hullabaloo, is that the actual direct maintenance costs of the F-35 are already less than the F-15, and, I am surmising, are continuing to decrease as the learning curve comes down and issues with logistics / depot are ironed out. The F-35 hardware, then, does not appear to be more expensive per se than other aircraft. I also wonder how much the F-16C/D costs for the USAF might increase if there were only 3-400 in service and not the 900-1000 that there are now. (Certainly the F-16 is a less expensive platform -- not nearly the bells and whistles of the Lightning, and is a simpler platform, also lighter. Oooh -- there's an idea for a new metric -- CPFHPPAC -- CPFH per pound aircraft! Hmmm... F-35 might be less than the F-16 then, or on par.)

Which leads me to wonder how much of that $33K/hr CPFH figure is tied up in organizational bloat and, dare I say, waste. But is the waste any more than other aircraft? But it sure does seem like LM & Co have done a fantastic job of getting hardware costs down. That they can pull another $8K per hour out of the CPFH figure via a managed logistics contract sounds fantastic. BUT... if they have to pull those dollars out of the Air Force "organization/institution"... that might be a tough problem.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8187
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 May 2021, 06:10

steve2267 wrote:Dragon, appreciate those comments.

What was surprising to me, with all the USAF brass hullabaloo, is that the actual direct maintenance costs of the F-35 are already less than the F-15, and, I am surmising, are continuing to decrease as the learning curve comes down and issues with logistics / depot are ironed out. The F-35 hardware, then, does not appear to be more expensive per se than other aircraft. I also wonder how much the F-16C/D costs for the USAF might increase if there were only 3-400 in service and not the 900-1000 that there are now. (Certainly the F-16 is a less expensive platform -- not nearly the bells and whistles of the Lightning, and is a simpler platform, also lighter. Oooh -- there's an idea for a new metric -- CPFHPPAC -- CPFH per pound aircraft! Hmmm... F-35 might be less than the F-16 then, or on par.)

Which leads me to wonder how much of that $33K/hr CPFH figure is tied up in organizational bloat and, dare I say, waste. But is the waste any more than other aircraft? But it sure does seem like LM & Co have done a fantastic job of getting hardware costs down. That they can pull another $8K per hour out of the CPFH figure via a managed logistics contract sounds fantastic. BUT... if they have to pull those dollars out of the Air Force "organization/institution"... that might be a tough problem.



Well said and gets you thinking........
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3860
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post26 May 2021, 07:44

steve2267 wrote:Which leads me to wonder how much of that $33K/hr CPFH figure is tied up in organizational bloat and, dare I say, waste. But is the waste any more than other aircraft? But it sure does seem like LM & Co have done a fantastic job of getting hardware costs down. That they can pull another $8K per hour out of the CPFH figure via a managed logistics contract sounds fantastic. BUT... if they have to pull those dollars out of the Air Force "organization/institution"... that might be a tough problem.


I think it also has to do with the fact that F-35 fleet is currently being built up while all other US aircraft fleets are mature and stable or slowly declinig. So F-35 training, maintenance and support systems are likely too big for current number of aircraft as it has to keep up with dozens of new aircraft being introduced into service each year. I bet that all these supporting things have to grow ahead of the number of aircraft in service for smooth introduction to service. But then all this has bigger costs per aircraft than what it will be when the F-35 fleets are mature (not growing in number) in US services.

I bet there is also waste and what I would call intentional waste. For example maintainers are likely doing things that are unnecessary or are doing them too often to become familiar with all required procedures. They might also do things too often because there is probably not yet be enough data about long-term effects on structures and systems. So they err on the side of safety to do maintenance tasks rather too often than too infrequently. It's basically about learning and becoming familiar with everything with a particular aircraft.
Offline

magitsu

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1037
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post26 May 2021, 10:13

Finnish Reimbursement Rate for comparison:
magitsu wrote:Hornet flight hour cost for FiAF was 8200 euros (10k usd) in 2018 or 2019. BAe Hawk trainer 4700 euros for comparison.
https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/lei ... la/7439792


I think 10k vs 18k is somewhat plausible when taking into account the newer fleet and different methods of maintenance. If the difference was any higher, then they probably wouldn't be trying to describe the same function.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3860
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post26 May 2021, 12:02

magitsu wrote:Finnish Reimbursement Rate for comparison:
magitsu wrote:Hornet flight hour cost for FiAF was 8200 euros (10k usd) in 2018 or 2019. BAe Hawk trainer 4700 euros for comparison.
https://www.mtvuutiset.fi/artikkeli/lei ... la/7439792


I think 10k vs 18k is somewhat plausible when taking into account the newer fleet and different methods of maintenance. If the difference was any higher, then they probably wouldn't be trying to describe the same function.


I think remaining USN Hornets are now doing mostly adversary training and most probably the use profile is quite different, which might explain some of the difference besides those you mentioned.
Offline

herciv

Banned

  • Posts: 155
  • Joined: 04 May 2016, 08:24

Unread post27 May 2021, 09:53

I'm working everyday with several big fleets of trucks on telematics (wabco). It is not feasible in big fleets to achieve such a difference in a MC rate in only one year without drastic changes in the fleet itself. A simple change in the spare parts availability is not sufficient.

I think that USAF has already began to shoot the oldest F-35, the famous 108 until the last block3i.

Then If, and only if I'm right, 76% is the rate a fleet of F-35 under block3F only and less than 800 flight hours can achieve.
Offline
User avatar

Dragon029

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1392
  • Joined: 22 Dec 2014, 07:13

Unread post28 May 2021, 02:03

herciv wrote:I'm working everyday with several big fleets of trucks on telematics (wabco). It is not feasible in big fleets to achieve such a difference in a MC rate in only one year without drastic changes in the fleet itself. A simple change in the spare parts availability is not sufficient.

I think that USAF has already began to shoot the oldest F-35, the famous 108 until the last block3i.

Then If, and only if I'm right, 76% is the rate a fleet of F-35 under block3F only and less than 800 flight hours can achieve.

As of September last year, the last TR1 (Block 2B) F-35 was inducted into a depot for upgrading to the TR2 (Block 3F) standard (and the only strict difference between 3i and 3F is software). That said, having Block 3F doesn't necessarily mean that an airframe built in (eg) LRIP 6 has the exact same hardware across the airframe as one built in LRIP 11, so those older jets do have inferior availability rates.
Those older jets ultimately can theoretically be made identical to a newer jet (aside from the hours put into structural elements), but I'm not sure how far they'll bother going - some particularly old airframes might possibly need bulkhead replacements, or shock peening performed to bulkheads, etc, and in those cases it might possibly be easier to just retire them early rather than take up depot slots that could otherwise be used for Block 4 work.
Offline
User avatar

doge

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 799
  • Joined: 13 Jul 2015, 16:07

Unread post04 Jun 2021, 17:08

AIR FORCE FIGHTERS’ MISSION CAPABLE RATES
Fighters___2019_______2020
A-10________71.20%_______72.04%
F-15C_______70.05%_______71.93%
F-15D_______72.45%_______70.52%
F-15E_______71.29%_______69.21%
F-16C_______72.97%_______73.90%
F-16D_______70.37%_______72.11%
F-22A_______50.57%_______51.98%
F-35A_______61.6%_______76.07%

F-35 is Number One !? :shock: (!?) OH MY GOD !! :doh: (Am I dreaming?)
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26819
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post28 Jun 2021, 16:37

Context for MCR for USN Shornets for comparison over recent years of improvement and future improvement/sustained?:
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... ance-plan/ 25 Jul 2021 Diana Stancy Correll
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Next

Return to General F-35 Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pron and 67 guests