US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

SlothmanAllen said:

As an aside, I read the above article and since it mentions the squadron that was deployed I went and looked up their photos on DVIDS. Totally anecdotal, but it did seem like the F-35’s on that deployment were in excellent condition when pictured throughout the deployment. Again, it’s is easy to hide problems with photos that can be cherry picked, but I thought it was an interesting experiment.

Click to expand...

The following really jumped out at me:

“Our deployed readiness was higher than it's been on the MEU for F-35 for quite some time, because the Boxer’s [Afloat Spares Packages] was built to have 10 jets, but we only had six [onboard] for most of the deployment, so we had more parts available than if we would were to have all 10 jets,” Schmidt told Defense One. “I had excess parts and I had excess manpower.”
...
It also helps to have maintainers available around the clock, as happens on shipboard deployments. In their labor-intensive fight against corrosion, Schmidt said, maintainers must pull panels from the jet, use a wire brush and abrasives to remove the corrosion, and then reapply the jet’s low-observable coating.

“We were able to combat corrosion because I had 24-hour maintenance. We are on the ship. They don't have to go home. They live on the ship,” Schmidt said. Jobs that might have taken more than a month ashore were getting done in a week, he said."

Click to expand...

So your pictures reflected reality but circumstances and hard work made them possible.

I'm grappling with why/how that interview with Lt. Col. Benjamin Schmidt was allowed to be published in a public forum. This is a serious mark against the predicted operational readiness of the F-35 using the predicted sparing and manning logistics requirements:

“Our deployed readiness was higher than it's been on the MEU for F-35 for quite some time, because ... I had excess parts and I had excess manpower.”

Click to expand...

In other words, twice the parts and twice the manpower were needed to meet predicted (specified) operational readiness. I really don't know why this interview wasn't classified but it certainly is an indictment on the JPO's inadequacy (inability) matching sparing and manning resources to the actual maintenance needs of the aircraft.

These problems aren't unique to the USMC and its F-35s. They exist across across the entire maritime domain: USN (eg, deferred maintenance killed Aegis cruiser modernization); CG (eg, leasing a Polar-class ship because its own is essentially irreparable); MM (eg, removing from service almost two dozen ships because manning isn't available).

And now the Tech Bros are waltzing in with their promises of salvation if only the rule books are rewritten or, even better, tossed out. The Trump administration will be entertaining but I doubt it will be productive.

RobertC said:

The following really jumped out at me:

So your pictures reflected reality but circumstances and hard work made them possible.

Click to expand...

This is a cherry picked image, but you can see how sharp the aircraft look. Even in the extreme environment of this photo. Again, without the context surrounding this particular aircraft it is basically impossible to really determine the usability or reliability of this aircraft. Though, if you look at the photos released from VMFA-225 on DVIDS, all of the aircraft look to be in great shape during that five month deployment.

Also, this is just a great excuse to post an awesome image!