We have been here before; aging aircraft and underwhelming maintenance management results for the United States Air Force (USAF).
This is the responsibility of flag-level leadership.
Not much has been done to fix the problem except maybe for a few aircraft like the F-15 or F-16. And, even that isn't great.
USAF has a long history of under-funding aircraft maintenance. For instance, in the early 2000's B-1 bombers had a mission capability (MC-rate) of around 50 percent.
It turned out, USAF was under funding that activity at around, 50 percent.
The C-5 is a sad story. It is a huge roll-on/roll-off cargo aircraft that is old, and needed, yet, USAF refuses to have a replacement fielded.
They modified some of the fleet to the C-5M standard long ago; new engines and avionics, but this only brought MC rates up 13 or so percent. And, this modification did not (and was not designed to) address all C-5 maintenance issues.
The C-17 is now getting old. Production for this aircraft should never have stopped. It, like the F-16, was sold to USAF as not needing 3-level maintenance.
3-level maintenance is: flight line maintenance, phased and isochronic maintenance in a dedicated hanger at the unit level, and finally (in the case of the F-15 and others) the aircraft goes to a dedicated depot every 5-7 years for an extensive rebuild. The depot for the C-5, C-17, C-130 and F-15 is at Robins Air Force Base, Georgia.
Yes, C-17. After realizing the sales pitch was nonsense, it joined the F-16 as a 3-level maintenance aircraft.
Years later, the F-35 was sold to the USAF as not needing 3-level depot maintenance. Today... because of the mush of different sub-variant blocks and other design errors, it is, a 3-level maintenance jet.
To be fair, when the program was started, they looked at various maintenance activities to eliminate. The landing gear might be more expensive and not last as long due to corrosion, but they did eliminate a really nasty process of not having to remove and re-add chromium coating as a depot activity.
With all of its faults, it costs anywhere between $44,000 and up per flight hour. The gun doesn't work and it has many on-going problems.
In the case of Eglin Air Force Base, Florida--the schoolhouse for USAF F-35 pilots--they are stuck with older pre-Block3F aircraft that have training incompatibility issues as well as poor MC-rates. One option is to replace those aircraft with new ones. The F-35 program has been in low rate initial production (LRIP) since 2007. And, is suffering aging aircraft issues. Another first for "5th-Generation" aircraft.
Lessons that were learned, have to be relearned. No aircraft should be allowed into service without a solid 3-level maintenance plan.
The F-22 has airframe fatigue issues and gets "dog-year" maintenance credits if it is operated in a dry environment.
With no active production line. It will suffer more.
As a legacy of its design, the vertical take-off and landing, special ops, CV-22, will never enjoy high, MC-rates.
As a legacy of its design, the vertical take-off and landing, special ops, CV-22, will never enjoy high, MC-rates.
A variety of people inside and outside the USAF did their part to warn of these problems.
Today, the USAF still has aircraft maintenance issues with hair on it, mostly because of inaction from flag-level leadership.
| Mission System | 2019 Mission Capable Rate |
| A-10C | 71.2% |
| AC-130J | 86.12% |
| AC-130U | 85.62% |
| AC-130W | 80.22% |
| AT-38B | 74.62% |
| B-1B | 46.42% |
| B-2A | 60.47% |
| B-52H | 65.73% |
| C-12C | 99.05% |
| C-12D | 100% |
| C-12F | 92.4% |
| C-12J | 100% |
| C-130H | 65.51% |
| C-130J | 77.02% |
| C-17A | 82.23% |
| C-21A | 100% |
| C-32A | 90.24% |
| C-37A | 93.85% |
| C-37B | 86.47% |
| C-40B | 89.48% |
| C-40C | 85.9% |
| C-5M | 63.16% |
| CV-22B | 53.45% |
| E-3B | 74.41% |
| E-3C | 73.19% |
| E-3G | 74.36% |
| E-4B | 64.75% |
| E-8C | 67.36% |
| EC-130H | 73.19% |
| EC-130J | 57.38% |
| F-15C | 70.05% |
| F-15D | 72.45% |
| F-15E | 71.29% |
| F-16C | 72.97% |
| F-16D | 70.37% |
| F-22A | 50.57% |
| F-35A | 61.6% |
| HC-130J | 79.81% |
| HC-130N | 68.13% |
| HC-130P | 61.52% |
| HH-60G | 66.20% |
| KC-10A | 79.37% |
| KC-135R | 72.5% |
| KC-135T | 71.11% |
| KC-46A | 63.11% |
| LC-130H | 40.28% |
| MC-12W | 100% |
| MC-130H | 68.65% |
| MC-130J | 77.54% |
| MC-130P | 28.07% |
| MQ-1B | 99.52% |
| MQ-9A | 89.32% |
| OC-135B | 82.46% |
| RC-135S | 90.39% |
| RC-135U | 91.07% |
| RC-135V | 74.1% |
| RC-135W | 69.49% |
| RQ-4B | 75.75% |
| T-1A | 60.51% |
| T-38A | 74.48% |
| T-38C | 63.05% |
| T-6A | 63.29% |
| TC-130H | 26.32% |
| TC-135W | 84.8% |
| TE-8A | 73.42% |
| TH-1H | 74.63% |
| TU-2S | 74.96% |
| U-2S | 78.39% |
| UH-1N | 82.42% |
| VC-25A | 92.86% |
| WC-130J | 56.2% |
| WC-135C | 63.05% |
| WC-135W | 80.14% |
Photo: Wikipedia
Contact:
EP Actual on Twitter
