Marine CH-53 report shows staggering results

A classified independent report on the status of the Marine CH-53 shows that if called to war today, the CH-53 fleet couldn't do it. They would have to activate almost every airframe they have, most of which are currently non flyable, and spend weeks or months both getting them in shape to fly and training crews to get their proficiency back.

From the 1970s to early 1990s the Marines bought 230 aircraft. After operational and training losses, they are down to 146, the required number was almost 200.

Due to poor decision making on the part of the service, the fleet had a 23% mission capable rate this time last year. After the drawdown in the Middle East, they spent approximately $100,000 per aircraft for contractors to spend approximately a month restoring each aircraft. By contrast, the Army spent $1.2M, and 6,000 man hours over 100 days on each aircraft doing the same thing. There are stories of pilots coming back from 6 month deployments with 30 hours, and a unit was unavailable for deployment to Nepal for earthquake relief.

Report

a reply to: Zaphod58
Is it just me?
Somehow my impression is that the marines get the last dip in the can historically......
perhaps their new F35 has strained their budget somewhat.....
It goes to show that if you don't take care of the work horses just thoroughbreds aint gonna get you far....

What is the source of your "classified" independent report? I am familiar with the issues surrounding the CH-53E program, and it's replacement, the CH-53K. Please define "most" as it applies to your comment that most of the airframes are unflyable. I think that's a rather incredible claim. In Iraq we had excellent availability rates despite the excessive wear due to the environment and extended flight operations. That also applied to operations in Afghanistan. With the drastic reduction in combat deployments, the ready rate for the aircraft has been rising across the board. Also, the Army doesn't use this aircraft. I question the validity of your information.

a reply to: bandersnatch

They do take to the extreme of..

This is what it was designed to do. But this is what it can do.

As Zaph and many here have pointed out. The defense infrastructure is old, and is in severe need of major upgrades. 💰💰💰💰💲💲💲💲💵💵💵.

Making the best of what we have.

a reply to: netminderchuck

Care to tell us what's your expert opinion newby... 😊welcome to ATS 👍

a reply to: netminderchuck

Click the link. The Deputy Commandant of Aviation disagrees with you.

“I’m not happy at all where we are with the (Super Stallion) right now, but I do believe we have a recovery strategy that will work,” said Lt. Gen. Jon M. Davis, the Marine Corps deputy commandant for aviation, in an interview with The Pilot. “I’m proud of what we’re doing to fix this, but I’m not proud of where we’re at right now. The taxpayers should be unhappy.”

“We were trying to get maximum readiness at the time, and the best way to do that was to do it in theater (in Afghanistan),” Davis said. “Frankly, we needed to do what the Army did. That would have given us less aircraft to fly then, but we’d have more aircraft to fly now. … We made a mistake. But now we’re recovering from that.”

As for other sources, the commander of the Squadron at Kaneohe was fired days before two aircraft crashed off Oahu because they weren't meeting material readiness standards and flying hours were way low. Accident rates are rising, multiple sources are talking about pilots not having enough flying time.

I also didn't say the Army flies the -53, I said they spent more time and money per aircraft doing the same thing the Marines were doing.