Navy Admiral sends warning to Congress

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: Zaphod58

Warning, you need to spend billions more on weapons, our enormous budget just ain't enough.

The USSR trying to keep up with the US military capabilities is what bankrupted them and resulted in their breakup. Now, the US trying to stay ahead and even endlessly create more and more super weapons are bankrupting us. As long as the military industrial industry continues unabated it will eventually bankrupt us....

a reply to: CharlesT

Preaching to the choir my friend.

originally posted by: SR1TX
Why do we need that many to be ready or any at all?

Who are we at war with?

you want to be ready for a war before it starts , also keeping our fleet up is a deterent to other would be tough guys .

originally posted by: Mach2
a reply to: muzzleflash

I don't believe anyone, anywhere, at any point, took any part, of any kind off a WWII plane to use on any airframe in use by the military today.

Actually you may be right and I likely read the article wrong.

Here's where I heard it originally:
Budget cuts Marine aircraft

This is what it said:

To get one Hornet flying again, Marines at Beaufort stripped a landing gear door off a mothballed museum jet. The door, found on the flight deck of the World War II-era USS Yorktown, was last manufactured over a decade ago.

“Imagine taking a 1995 Cadillac and trying to make it a Ferrari,” Sgt. Argentry Uebelhoer said days before embarking on his third deployment. “You're trying to make it faster, more efficient, but it's still an old airframe … [and] the aircraft is constantly breaking.”

Due to the ambiguity of the passage, I falsely presumed that the "mothballed museum jet" was directly chronologically associated with the "WW2 era Yorktown". (they did have jets in the late 40s, and since I didn't know the specs on landing gear parts and when various parts were manufactured, I made the wrong assumption, a regretful mistake).

But when you doubted it, out of curiosity I looked further into it, and I believe it was a A model Hornet that was on this WW2 carrier museum. The article didn't say explicitly, but after looking around it appears that it was indeed the landing gear door from the Hornet A.

I apologize for misinterpreting the ambiguous news article.

To make up for it, here's another article from Military.com

Among the Marine Corps' most used fighters, rotorcraft and transports, the problem is universal. Of aircraft that are in-reporting but can't fly, the percentage of those down for parts is as follows, Davis said:
61 percent of AV-8B Harriers
50 percent of MV-22 Ospreys
56 percent of CH-53E Super Stallions
64 percent of C-130 Hercules
~55 percent of F/A-18 Hornets

Thank you for questioning my incorrect report and challenging me to correct myself.
I appreciate your skepticism. My bad.

a reply to: Mach2

Thank you again.

See folks, no one's perfect and I choose to lead by example for what I wish to see from others.

A savvy member here saw an error in information I presented and because I honestly was curious about his exceptional doubt, and wanted to know for absolute sure the specifics, I researched the article I originally read to find out, then obviously had to dig deeper to find out exactly (due to ambiguity).

I then saw that I reported false information, corrected myself, apologized and admitted my fault due to poor reading comprehension and critical thinking on this occasion, and then kindly thanked that member for their skepticism and challenging me to present higher quality information. I even genuinely appreciated their efforts at questioning me.

That's what I really wish I could see from other people here at ATS, because I know that everyone here is wrong sometimes. No one is perfect, and rather than denying it we should embrace and anticipate it, and seek to correct ourselves when we recognize this is honestly true.

There is nothing wrong with making a mistake especially when it reminds you to work harder and do better. And when it also presents an opportunity for one to improve themselves and to allow it to bring out the best traits in humanity, which I am striving to discover within myself.

And I even have a good excuse, due to my recent hospital visit 3 days ago I am on some exceptionally powerful prescription pain killers and other medications right now and am not fully cognizant nor am I at peak mental operations. Though I do concede, I probably would have made this same error in judgment and presented false information had I been completely sober. So that excuse only buys me like 25% slack if even that much.

See I'm not even using my excuse as well as I could have portrayed it, and instead am giving a more honest appraisal of just how wrong I truly was and probably would have been regardless.

MA(ts)GA

a reply to: SR1TX

It is called deterrence. If we had no mission ready aircraft we could not deter aggression from potentially hostile countries like Russia or China. They don’t become instantly flight ready when you need them, you have to keep them that way.
For example a result of our relative military strength decline, China has been more and more aggressive in the South China Sea.

a reply to: TheShippingForecast

They would take the aircraft with the least maintenance required and run them through a quick service. The aircraft that were in the worst shape would have work stopped and the crews pulled off them to get the best ones up and going. They'd probably have the first ones out and returned to the fleet in 30-60 days.

That's kind of what got us here in the first place. They've been pushing the aircraft so hard to meet the requirements they have that they've deferred maintenance on them. They got a little bit of an opportunity to catch up when the carriers had to go down for maintenance, but it wasn't enough. And now we have seven carriers back at sea.

I'm trying to learn how to exercise "Grace", and to be "Graceful".

I want to have poise in challenging situations and maintain my balance without fighting back or becoming rude or mean. Especially when I was actually wrong. That would look really bad now wouldn't it?

And though I likely garnered a bit of honor out of my accepting the loss, my outward admissions of my awareness of the nuanced details of my own reaction and psychological state, and my strategy for handling that, may still withhold much of the humility I also could have exercised in this situation. I do wish I employed much more humility, so I will work on that.

Being honest about my loss and accepting it was very liberating though, and I transmuted my disappointment with myself into something positive and valuable to share with other members. Rather than being crippled by my shortcomings, I turned it around into something empowering that might strengthen me and others.

What a wonderful experience being wrong and being called out on it was today on ATS for me, I feel great about all of it. I get to be in control of my life and destiny and this is exactly how I choose to forge a path forward for myself.

a reply to: nwtrucker

We're still probably better than most. It's a lot closer than it should be, but we are probably still a little better than our potential opponents.

a reply to: TobyFlenderson

a reply to: CharlesT

The thing with the budget, and I've said this many times, is that even after splitting it into the individual services, maybe half of it goes to cover fuel, maintenance, and flying hours. Usually it's less than half. Until they cut down on operations, or go to a smaller, more capable force, we're going to be stuck in a similar position.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nwtrucker

We're still probably better than most. It's a lot closer than it should be, but we are probably still a little better than our potential opponents.

The problem being if a 'second' country, or one in concert with the first adversary decides to act in concert or shortly after the first, we don't have the depth to handle both?

Wasn't the goal to be able, therefore, to wage war on two fronts AND a smaller action elsewhere at the same time.

Sounds like there's no way these days.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Prior to the 2010 QDR, the standard was the ability to fight two simultaneous Major Regional Conflicts. The 2010 QDR turned that standard into a hodgepodge of requirements to determine the required force size, including defending the homeland in an MRC level conflict. Since then there hasn't been a decent definition of the required force size.

a reply to: Zaphod58

The military is always fight the war from 50 years ago. Money would be better spent on locks for commercial jets and better port security for shipping containers.

To get one Hornet flying again, Marines at Beaufort stripped a landing gear door off a mothballed museum jet. The door, found on the flight deck of the World War II-era USS Yorktown, was last manufactured over a decade ago. “Imagine taking a 1995 Cadillac and trying to make it a Ferrari,” Sgt. Argentry Uebelhoer said days before embarking on his third deployment. “You're trying to make it faster, more efficient, but it's still an old airframe … [and] the aircraft is constantly breaking.”

Give the job to a decent sheetmetal worker and he will "build" you a new one..

originally posted by: Zaphod58 As a result, of a total of 542 Super Hornets, only half are listed as Mission Capable, meaning they can fly some sort of mission. There are 170 that are considered Fully Mission Capable, meaning they could launch tonight on combat missions, with no maintenance required.

So compared to certain European Air Forces everything is fine then.

The situation is bad for naval aviation, but i'm not too worried about it. The global readiness rate of the F/A-18E/F fleet doesnt matter much. Virtually all Super Hornet Squadrons except some Fleet Replacement Squadrons are assigned to Carrier Air Wings, they deploy with the carriers.
If i'm not mistaken, carrier deployment is currently at an high point with 7 carriers underway (or will be shortly). But even with just 4 carriers not deployed somewhere it means about a third of all Super Hornet Squadrons (Air Wings composition varies a bit, but you get the point) wont launch combat mission tonight, even if Trump declares war on someone.
As long as the Navy focuses on getting the actually deployed squadrons to full mission readiness, an poor overall readiness rate actually wont directly result in a loss of naval air power.
Doesnt mean its a good situation to be in of course. Falling readiness levels at home will cut into training times and all that. But the sky isnt falling either.

originally posted by: Blackfinger

Give the job to a decent sheetmetal worker and he will "build" you a new one..

Speaking as a former aircraft sheet metal mechanic that is easier said than done.

Assuming that the tooling for the doors still exists, it would have to be removed from storage, setup and checked for accuracy. This is all of the tooling, for the door and every component that is used in it. If I remember the outer skin for the original F/A-18's doors were chem milled. I don't know if they even do that any more. The aluminum components originally used Allodine for corrosion prevention. I think that the EPA might have something to say about that.

Raw materials would have to be ordered. The components would have to be manufactured and then the doors assembled.
The doors would then have to be tested for structural strength and how they fit on the aircraft.

All of this assumes that there are still people available who know how to make the components and assemble the doors.

I'm not even going to get into the paper work like purchasing contracts, funding and other things.

a reply to: SR1TXdid you not see independence day? WE GOT TO BE READY . I DON'T WANT TO BE PROBED RECTALLY. but really only a quarter of the planes battle ready is shameful.

a reply to: SR1TXsaudi arabia , alqeda but in reality saudi operatives well if we had a few more flying off coast of new york and dc they might have shot down 3 of the four planes instead of the one. imagine the lives that if only 1 tower got hit and one hit dc