piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
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:

MajinCry

Platinum Member
Jul 28, 2015
2,495
571
136
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: bshole

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,220
136
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.
 

UberNeuman

Lifer
Nov 4, 1999
16,937
3,087
126
It's cool, man. Trump just ordered a big crate of duct tape to be sent a.s.a.p.
 

Puffnstuff

Lifer
Mar 9, 2005
16,025
4,795
136
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.
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
6,271
323
126
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.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
The liberals are ecstatic that our military is left fvcked up and broken after 8 war years of the fvckhole Obama.
 

Commodus

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2004
9,209
6,807
136
The liberals are ecstatic that our military is left fvcked up and broken after 8 war years of the fvckhole Obama.

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...
 
  • Like
Reactions: MongGrel

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,405
10,297
136
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...
Can you say sequester?
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
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...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...e-authorization-bill-spending-fight/74371856/ VETO.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,543
9,895
136
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.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
That is the only thing you've got :p

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.
I agree with all you said except "go away"
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
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.

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

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

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
23,405
10,297
136
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.
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,543
9,895
136
I'm not sure what you are referring to, hopefully not the Ospreys.

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

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.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,751
3,068
121
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.

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

fT8vSCG.jpg


:cool:
 
Last edited:

bshole

Diamond Member
Mar 12, 2013
8,313
1,214
126
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.

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....
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
9,014
568
126