Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[WatcherZero]

Thats mainly as a lot of the A's aren't being used (partly due to waiting for upgrades and partly due to engine shortage), the fleet is averaging just 10 hours a month in 2023 (about the same as the F-22 and almost a third of the F-15E average monthly flight hours) dropping from 160 hours a year in 2022. The B's on the other hand are averaging 180 hours a year in 2023, up from 160 in 2022, 50% more flighthours than the A's while the C's are averaging 260 hours a year at the same availability rate as F-18E/F and EA-18G .

 

[Scott Kenny]

But the A version is 40% under.

5.1 maintenance hours per flight hour is a very sweet number!

 

[TomcatViP]

Officials in Sweden are considering buying F-35 instead of procuring exclusively the Next Gen Saab fighter:

Security policy influences purchasing decisions​

But there are critics who believe that a Swedish-developed solution could be too expensive. Norway, Denmark and Finland have already chosen to buy American F-35s, which means stronger ties to the US Air Force, and the incoming president. According to Jerker Ahlqvist, chief of staff at Saab Government Affairs, purchasing fighter jets is very much about creating security alliances.

– You acquire a security policy partner by purchasing a fighter aircraft system.

(machine translated)

Trump kan styra Sveriges beslut om nytt stridsflyg

Det råder politisk strid i Sverige kring valet av ett nytt stridsflyg efter Jas Gripen. S och SD vill ge jobbet till Saab. Regeringen överväger dock ett amerikanskt plan, då det skulle kunna förbättra relationen med USA, enligt DN .

efn.se

 

[FighterJock]

Now that is something that I was not expecting TomcatVIP. Sweden buying the F-35? So it looks like the Next Gen Saab fighter has now proven to be too expensive for the Swedish to design and build on their own and now have decided to go and purchase Lockheed's fighter as an alternative.

 

[TomcatViP]

I am not sure that would be as much radical. I think Sweden start to see that there isn't that many interest reinventing the F-35, both financially and on the geostrategical play field.
Honestly, IMOHO it's even more rational for Saab owners to go after what the F-35 or other GCAP and alikes are not, what's left behind the budget gap that no nations will design, test and field in service for others to buy confidently on the shelf.

Just like Saab Automotive in the past made itself the master of high output Turbo engines able to compete with bigger displacement where it matters for their customers, Saab aerospace should take the same rational road to success.

 

[Ozair]

Officials in Sweden are considering buying F-35 instead of procuring exclusively the Next Gen Saab fighter:


(machine translated)

Trump kan styra Sveriges beslut om nytt stridsflyg

Det råder politisk strid i Sverige kring valet av ett nytt stridsflyg efter Jas Gripen. S och SD vill ge jobbet till Saab. Regeringen överväger dock ett amerikanskt plan, då det skulle kunna förbättra relationen med USA, enligt DN .

efn.se

This is clearly not an accurate news report. After all Bill Sweetman said the Gripen E was a 6th gen fighter and there is no way Sweden would move back a generation to an older aircraft...

I am not sure that would be as much radical. I think Sweden start to see that there isn't that many interest reinventing the F-35, both financially and on the geostrategical play field.
Honestly, IMOHO it's even more rational for Saab owners to go after what the F-35 or other GCAP and alikes are not, what's left behind the budget gap that no nations will design, test and field in service for others to buy confidently on the shelf.

Just like Saab Automotive in the past made itself the master of high output Turbo engines able to compete with bigger displacement where it matters for their customers, Saab aerospace should take the same rational road to success.

Agree 100%. Saab to continue building fast jets is wasting the Swedish populations money and stated many times recently within the Swedish political system and military, it just consumes way too much budget for the benefits it provides especially now Sweden is a NATO member. None of the sales projections have hit even half the number expected for Gripen.

Sweden and Saab would be better served moving into the CCA business. The lego assembly that Saab does is much more suited to that market segment and would also suit their manufacturing practise.

 

[TomcatViP]

I was not implying an exit from the fighter jet market per se. A throughout market analysis might show that some form of fast jet to complement the F-35 or a CCA might well be where Saab makes a breakthrough, like you say.

 

[Arjen]

Det råder politisk strid i Sverige kring valet av ett nytt stridsflyg efter JAS Gripen. S och SD vill ge jobbet till Saab. Regeringen överväger dock ett amerikanskt plan, då det skulle kunna förbättra relationen med USA, enligt DN.

There is a political battle in Sweden over the choice of a new fighter jet after the JAS Gripen. The Social Democrats and the Social Democrats {opposition parties] want to give the job to Saab. However, the government is considering an American plane, as it could improve relations with the US, according to DN [Dagens Nyheter].

Wait and see.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Ooh, F-35C is missing its minimum Manhours per flighthour contractual requirements by nearly 15%.

Imagine if Navy were still flying >300 hours/year at 75-80% MCR lol.

 

[Forest Green]

Kendall floats F-35 successor, casts 2050 vision for Air Force

The Air Force and Space Force "need to go through a transformation" by 2050, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said on the eve of his departure.

www.defensenews.com

 

[NMaude]

Imagine if Navy were still flying >300 hours/year at 75-80% MCR lol.

MCR?

 

[Kat Tsun]

MCR?

Mission capable rate. Peacetime MCR requirements are 80%, but most airframes hover around 70-80% typically, and >90% in war isn't uncommon (F-117 and F-16 both managed fine). It's a rare day JSF hits higher than 50%. Maybe in a total war they'll hit 70% when spare parts are unchecked.

 

[Ozair]

Mission capable rate. Peacetime MCR requirements are 80%, but most airframes hover around 70-80% typically, and >90% in war isn't uncommon (F-117 and F-16 both managed fine). It's a rare day JSF hits higher than 50%. Maybe in a total war they'll hit 70% when spare parts are unchecked.

When you say most airframes really you're talking about the commercial transport fleet and the ISR fleet...

In fiscal 2023, those numbers fell to

• One type below 25 percent (the MC-130H, with a zero percent MC rate)
• Nine between 25 and 50 percent
• 26 between 51 and 75 percent
• 28 between 76 and 100 percent

The bulk of those aircraft performing best were in the small and medium cargo/utility categories—notably C-12 variants, with an MC rate of 99 or 100 percent—as well as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance types such as the MQ-9 drone, which specifically turned in an MC rate of 86 percent.

The bomber fleet all performed at less than 60 percent mission capable, with the B-1 at 47 percent, the B-2 at 56 percent and the B-52 at 54 percent. Those figures include a monthslong grounding of the B-2, called a “safety pause” by the Air Force. The previous year’s rates for those three aircraft were 55, 53 and 59 percent, respectively.

Fighters generally checked in between 52 percent—the stealthy F-22’s rate—and 69 percent, the rate for the F-16C, although the brand-new, two-airplane fleet of F-15EXs logged a MC rate of 86 percent. A third F-15EX has since joined the force, and 96 more are coming in the next few years. The venerable A-10C, which the Air Force will divest by the end of the decade, had an MC rate of 67 percent.

Above text and below table from here, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-mission-capable-rates-2023/

AIRCRAFT TYPE	2023 MC%	2022 MC%
A-10C	67%	69.70%
AC-130J	76%	80.80%
AT-38B	70%	74.20%
B-1B	47%	54.80%
B-2A	56%	52.80%
B-52H	54%	59.30%
C-12C	99%	98.70%
C-12D	100%	100.00%
C-12F	99%	95.60%
C-12J	100%	100.00%
C-130H	44%	68.40%
C-130J	72%	74.90%
C-17A	76%	77.50%
C-21A	100%	100.00%
C-32A	88%	88.40%
C-37A	93%	94.50%
C-37B	91%	91.20%
C-40B	88%	89.90%
C-40C	91%	90.10%
C-5M	46%	52.60%
CV-22B	46%	51.90%
E-3B	47%	40.20%
E-3G	60%	63.90%
E-4B	61%	55.40%
E-8C	63%	49.20%
EC-130H	33%	68.90%
EC-130J	63%	67.20%
F-15C	33%	45.70%
F-15D	55%	58.50%
F-15E	55%	51.60%
F-15X	85%	84.60%
F-16C	69%	70.70%
F-16D	65%	68.90%
F-22A	52%	57.40%
F-35A	51%	65.40%
HC-130J	72%	76.40%
HH-60G	67%	68.90%
HH-60W	67%	60.80%
KC-10A	79%	80.40%
KC-135R	69%	72.00%
KC-135T	67%	69.60%
KC-46A	65%	69.90%
LC-130H	48%	54.70%
MC-12W	100%	100.00%
MC-130H	0%	68.50%
MC-130J	76%	79.40%
MQ-9A	86%	89.90%
RC-135S	73%	80.60%
RC-135U	85%	79.50%
RC-135V	71%	70.00%
RC-135W	77%	67.70%
RQ-4B	50%	70.80%
T-1A	78%	76.30%
T-38A	63%	69.50%
T-38C	58%	57.20%
T-6A	62%	71.40%
TC-135W	82%	76.10%
TE-8A	79%	83.00%
TH-1H	60%	71.70%
U-2S	76%	73.50%
TU-2S	81%	69.60%
UH-1N	78%	81.80%
UV-18B	100%	N/A
WC-130J	68%	64.10%
WC-135R	87%	73.30%

Important thing to note from above article,

The Air Force said it generally prioritized modernization over readiness in the fiscal 2025 budget request which went to Congress in March.

I 100% agree the F-35 rate needs to improve but it is still suffering from COVID and production ramp. I expect with production rates stabilising and multi-year buys finally happening there is sufficient certainty to Industry to ramp to the level required for both high production and sufficient sustainment.


I personally think it is a shame the JPO couldn't reach agreement with LM on a PBL, I think it would have ended up working out for both parties but no dice for now.

 

[aonestudio]

Denmark flies home more F-35s for patrols to buffer upgrade delays

Denmark has a total 27 aircraft on order, and the plan is for the F-35 to gradually take over all the tasks from the F-16s in coming years.

www.defensenews.com

 

[Sintra]

Now that is something that I was not expecting TomcatVIP. Sweden buying the F-35? So it looks like the Next Gen Saab fighter has now proven to be too expensive for the Swedish to design and build on their own and now have decided to go and purchase Lockheed's fighter as an alternative.

No, it simply means that the Swedish MOD is doing what it said it was going to do a couple of years ago and what it did when they´ve acquired the Viggen and the Gripen (see the image bellow)...

The Swedish MOD is evaluating three different options, a) an indigenous fighter, b) a colaborative program and c) acquiring a foreign fighter. The decision will be taken around 2031.



There´s nothing new in that article.
Here: https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/sweden-commits-to-future-fighter-procurement-decision-in-2031/

 

[TomcatViP]

Really? You know that they are not anymore edging toward a collaboration, at least with a European partner, something that we learned during the past years.
It also does not seem they have an active manned program. We only heard about a Loyal wingman projectt with elevated criteria around stealth, something that seems at least credible as a natural step toward a manned VLO fighter.

Today, what's new is that informed talk around buying some F-35. We are way past the ugly sequence of:
- Stealth is overrated
- Stealth is dead
- Stealth is easy
- Stealth is only about money...

Today we have a more mature debate, and that is a significant change.

 

[Sintra]

Really? You know that they are not anymore edging toward a collaboration, at least with a European partner, something that we learned during the past years.
It also does not seem they have an active manned program. We only heard about a Loyal wingman projectt with elevated criteria around stealth, something that seems at least credible as a natural step toward a manned VLO fighter.

Today, what's new is that informed talk around buying some F-35. We are way past the ugly sequence of:
- Stealth is overrated
- Stealth is dead
- Stealth is easy
- Stealth is only about money...

Today we have a more mature debate, and that is a significant change.

Really.
And i really dont know where you got the idea that the Swedish MOD ruled out a colaborative program or have "only" a "wingman project".

Saab receives order for Swedish future fighter concept studies

Saab has received an order from the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) regarding conceptual studies for future fighter systems. The contract period is 2024-2025.

www.saab.com

These Are Saab’s Concepts For Its Next Generation Fighter, Drones

Saab is hoping to draw upon “common DNA” to develop a family of crewed and uncrewed future combat aircraft. Saab is hoping to draw upon “common DNA” to develop a family of crewed and uncrewed future combat aircraft.

www.twz.com

Sweden’s future fighter concept studies - AGN

Saab is working on manned and unmanned fighter concepts, with the ambitious aim of producing a next generation combat air platform.

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Again, "the Swedish MOD is evaluating three different options, a) an indigenous fighter, b) a colaborative program and c) acquiring a foreign fighter. The decision will be taken around 2031."

Now, lets get back to the F-35

 

[TomcatViP]

Sadly, it seems you have an outdated vision of the debate. Instead of being confrontational like an old angry man, you could at least re-read your sources.

I would remind the reader that the ugly sequence is also a reminder of your own vehement opinion as it evolved around the years.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

This is clearly not an accurate news report. After all Bill Sweetman said the Gripen E was a 6th gen fighter and there is no way Sweden would move back a generation to an older aircraft...


Agree 100%. Saab to continue building fast jets is wasting the Swedish populations money and stated many times recently within the Swedish political system and military, it just consumes way too much budget for the benefits it provides especially now Sweden is a NATO member. None of the sales projections have hit even half the number expected for Gripen.

Sweden and Saab would be better served moving into the CCA business. The lego assembly that Saab does is much more suited to that market segment and would also suit their manufacturing practise.

And Saab is now a partner on the MQ-28 Ghost Bat program. Also equal partner of the Boeing/Saab T-7A program. Bugs me batshit to see it referred to only as the Boeing T-7A. Argh...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[FighterJock]

You are not the only one who gets annoyed when people say that it is the Boeing T-7A.

 

[Sintra]

Sadly, it seems you have an outdated vision of the debate. Instead of being confrontational like an old angry man, you could at least re-read your sources.

I would remember the reader that the ugly sequence is also a reminder of your own vehement opinion as it evolved around the years.

Article released today (by Jon Lake):

"But the KFS project is just a study, and not a fighter programme, and one of its goals is to provide the evidence needed to support a future decision on which path should be taken to secure Sweden’s combat air capability when the Gripen E/F will be retired (“What comes after next?”). The project will inform Sweden’s decisions as to whether the nation will develop an indigenous next-generation fighter or join (or rejoin) an existing project, or even buy an aircraft ‘off the shelf’ from a foreign supplier."

While focusing on Gripen E, Saab is also looking at “What comes after next” - AGN

Saab has released new images of one of its future combat air concepts, though this is just one of many such concepts, highly provisional and representing one of a number of ‘directions of travel’ and one that may never see the light of day.

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Cheers

 

[fightingirish]

Just before the upcoming inauguration of POTUS 47, the Vice President of Government Affairs Shelly O’Neill Stoneman resigned from the company Lockheed Martin yesterday evening.

Dear members, due to forum rules and to try to keep out politics out of this topic, I don't want to mention or discuss the probable reasons for her resignation, but it will ease the relationship between the company and the upcoming US administration, and a further procurement of F-35s. Thanks for your understanding.

 

[TomcatViP]

@Sintra : still the same. Last quote is March/April. The picture for the manned component is that of a dual domain (manned/unmanned) concept, something we know nobody is following anymore.

Saab has clearly stated they are not onboard GCAP or FCAS/manned. Quotes are on the forum.

EoA.

 

[Kat Tsun]

When you say most airframes really you're talking about the commercial transport fleet and the ISR fleet...

Super Hornet hits 80% MCR more often than not despite lack of Navy funding.

No, I was talking about Cold War MCRs, and immediately prior to Desert Storm going into the early 1990s i.e. the last time we had introduced new air frames like the F-15E, B-2A, F-117A, F/A-18A, and F/A-18E/F. JSF is lagging significantly behind these despite having been in production for nearly a decade. It has a similar MCR to the long out-of-production F-22A.

F-15EX is a great example, being essentially a refreshed -E, and F-117A had a mission capable rate north of 80% by 1988 so it's probably not because JSF is stealth. Rather I suspect it's mostly due to lack of mid level maintainers and general personnel retention problems plaguing the USAF.

This is the real Achilles heel of the USAF and DOD in general, regardless of what new airframes (is JSF really new when it's about to hit 10 years old this July?) introduced, and having a bad plane that can drop bombs is probably better than a good plane that can't fly. It's going to be a rough time in the USAF for the first 12 to 18 months of WW3 while production of spares and maintainers spools up.

 

[bring_it_on]

This is the real Achilles heel of the USAF and DOD in general, regardless of what new airframes (is JSF really new when it's about to hit 10 years old this July?) introduced.

There's constant friction between A) Congress wanting USAF to buy more aircraft , particularly F-35's., B) Congress not increasing O&S accounts as aggressively as needed, and C) Air Force resisting the urge to field more force structure and instead wanting to balance the force structure it has with the O&S dollars it expects to get. If you are running behind your sustainment plans and not doing anything about it then readiness will suffer especially if its the bill payer for modernization. When you did see dollars move to O&S you saw improvements across the board, but particularly with your latest, fighter that is still building its o&S support base. I'm thinking the Mattis years where he drew the line on readiness rates. That lasted for a brief while before we regressed again.

 

[Kat Tsun]

There's constant friction between A) Congress wanting USAF to buy more aircraft , particularly F-35's., B) Congress not increasing O&S accounts as aggressively as needed, and C) Air Force resisting the urge to field more force structure and instead wanting to balance the force structure it has with the O&S dollars it expects to get. If you are running behind your sustainment plans and not doing anything about it then readiness will suffer especially if its the bill payer for modernization. When you did see dollars move to O&S you saw improvements across the board, but particularly with your latest, fighter that is still building its o&S support base. I'm thinking the Mattis years where he drew the line on readiness rates. That lasted for a brief while before we regressed again.

I suspect it won't really get unstuck until we get start hearing the old P-400 joke rehashed either.

 

[Arjen]

@Sintra : still the same. Last quote is March/April.

No.

Article released today (by Jon Lake):

While focusing on Gripen E, Saab is also looking at “What comes after next” - AGN

Saab has released new images of one of its future combat air concepts, though this is just one of many such concepts, highly provisional and representing one of a number of ‘directions of travel’ and one that may never see the light of day.

aerospaceglobalnews.com

Jon Lake

January 14, 2025
[...]
The project will inform Sweden’s decisions as to whether the nation will develop an indigenous next-generation fighter or join (or rejoin) an existing project, or even buy an aircraft ‘off the shelf’ from a foreign supplier.

Some believe that a wholly Swedish development programme could be prohibitively expensive, jeopardising other critical defence investments, and that International partnerships might represent a more cost effective option.

<edit> This is, in fact, somewhat on topic. It doesn't rule out Swedish F-35s. Neither does it rule out international cooperation for Swedish industry.

 

[Sintra]

@Sintra : still the same. Last quote is March/April. The picture for the manned component is that of a dual domain (manned/unmanned) concept, something we know nobody is following anymore.

Saab has clearly stated they are not onboard GCAP or FCAS/manned. Quotes are on the forum.

EoA.

I posted an article released today, by an aerospace journo (that happens to write here) with quotes from Lars Nilsson made in July, August and this December... Including things like:

"Saab and Sweden building fighter aircraft is not going to end with the Gripen. Whether we join someone else or go on our own, there will certainly be something following."

 

[TomcatViP]

You are knitting with the same bits of arguments: the article above use a quote from March/April, as said earlier, and the certainly be something else, as voluntary as it might have been ascerted, is not the an undisputable quote that there will be a manned 6th Gen GCAP/NGAD like component (as it was drafted in earlier time).

This debate here started from a report around how the Sweden gov is questioning buying F-35 instead of pursuing the long road with Saab alone for the manned fighter. The attitude has changed. This is undeniable.

If you are not convinced, try to figure this published in French Le Monde but for FCAS!

 

[Scott Kenny]

F-15EX is a great example, being essentially a refreshed -E, and F-117A had a mission capable rate north of 80% by 1988 so it's probably not because JSF is stealth. Rather I suspect it's mostly due to lack of mid level maintainers and general personnel retention problems plaguing the USAF.

IIRC, there are no mid level maintainers at all for F-35. It's either LRUs at squadron (where the pulled items go to depot/manufacturer for rebuild), or send the whole plane to depot.

@F119Doctor do I have that correct?

 

[Ozair]

Super Hornet hits 80% MCR more often than not despite lack of Navy funding.

??? That is very much a new thing and is completely related to additional Navy funding. SH MCR was down in the 40s and 50s for most of the teens, page 2 here, and prior to the last few years had never been in the 80s.

No, I was talking about Cold War MCRs, and immediately prior to Desert Storm going into the early 1990s i.e. the last time we had introduced new air frames like the F-15E, B-2A, F-117A, F/A-18A, and F/A-18E/F. JSF is lagging significantly behind these despite having been in production for nearly a decade. It has a similar MCR to the long out-of-production F-22A.

I don't think that represents an accurate picture and compares very different times and situations.

F-15EX is a great example, being essentially a refreshed -E, and F-117A had a mission capable rate north of 80% by 1988 so it's probably not because JSF is stealth.

F-15EX is a poor example. The fleet size is way too small for an accurate MCR rate. Once all 96 or so arrive then a real number can be provided. It also benefits massively from existing USAF infrastructure for the F-15 fleet. The same is not true for the F-35 which has had significant under investment in depots and other facilities required to support the ramp.

Rather I suspect it's mostly due to lack of mid level maintainers and general personnel retention problems plaguing the USAF.

USAF F-35 was also expecting all those senior A-10 maintainers to roll over as that aircraft was retired. That has not happened anywhere near the numbers expected.

This is the real Achilles heel of the USAF and DOD in general, regardless of what new airframes (is JSF really new when it's about to hit 10 years old this July?) introduced, and having a bad plane that can drop bombs is probably better than a good plane that can't fly. It's going to be a rough time in the USAF for the first 12 to 18 months of WW3 while production of spares and maintainers spools up.

I see more of the issue being the global supply chain. Too much of the aircraft is built globally. It makes for great export success but in a global conflict provides avenues for adversaries to significantly impact production and support.

 

[Ozair]

And Saab is now a partner on the MQ-28 Ghost Bat program. Also equal partner of the Boeing/Saab T-7A program. Bugs me batshit to see it referred to only as the Boeing T-7A. Argh...

Enjoy the Day! Mark

Is Saab really a partner? Looks to me more like Saab Australia is a supplier, I think partner is a significant level above what has been announced.

 

[bring_it_on]

Equal partner on T-7 ? Was not aware of that. Are they splitting revenue and/or cost equally with Boeing?

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Thats mainly as a lot of the A's aren't being used (partly due to waiting for upgrades and partly due to engine shortage), the fleet is averaging just 10 hours a month in 2023 (about the same as the F-22 and almost a third of the F-15E average monthly flight hours) dropping from 160 hours a year in 2022. The B's on the other hand are averaging 180 hours a year in 2023, up from 160 in 2022, 50% more flighthours than the A's while the C's are averaging 260 hours a year at the same availability rate as F-18E/F and EA-18G .

Any particular reason(s) why the Navy/Marines with their Bs & Cs are doing that much better on MCRs?

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Equal partner on T-7 ? Was not aware of that. Are they splitting revenue and/or cost equally with Boeing?

Equal may not be an accurate description - let's call it a significant partner with the airframe fabrication.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Ozair]

Any particular reason(s) why the Navy/Marines with their Bs & Cs are doing that much better on MCRs?

The USN is currently focused on readiness over modernization and more money is flowing based on that priority.

How the US Navy prioritized readiness, and got more ships too

What happens when the chief of naval operations wants more money to create a more prepared fleet, but lawmakers prefer to buy more ships?

www.defensenews.com

 

[Mark Nankivil]

The USN is currently focused on readiness over modernization and more money is flowing based on that priority.

How the US Navy prioritized readiness, and got more ships too

What happens when the chief of naval operations wants more money to create a more prepared fleet, but lawmakers prefer to buy more ships?

www.defensenews.com

With the Pacific theatre as it is, smart.

 

[GTX]

The USN is currently focused on readiness over modernization and more money is flowing based on that priority.

How the US Navy prioritized readiness, and got more ships too

What happens when the chief of naval operations wants more money to create a more prepared fleet, but lawmakers prefer to buy more ships?

www.defensenews.com

Old news. That article is from April 2023

 

[Ozair]

Old news. That article is from April 2023

Not sure what your point is? The question was asked why are MCR rates for Navy/Marines F-35 higher and the answer is the USN is focusing on readiness and funding it. Conversely we have the USAF who specifically state they are focused on modernization and not readiness. The fact the article is almost a couple of years old doesn't change the truth about why.

If you want a more up to date reference on the USN focus on readiness then here is a reasonably more recent one from Oct 2024, https://www.defense.gov/News/News-S...458/cno-sets-80-surge-readiness-goal-by-2027/

To illustrate her line of thinking as it relates to how she plans to reach the 80% surge readiness target by 2027, Franchetti gave the example of how the Navy was able to improve the readiness percentages for the F/A-18 Super Hornet in recent years.

"In 2018, [then Defense] Secretary [James] Mattis challenged our aviation community to get F/A-18 readiness up from 50% readiness availability to 80%," Franchetti said.

"And now, six years on," she continued, "we've been able to sustain 80% readiness for the F/A-18s because of the processes we've put in place."

 

[F119Doctor]

IIRC, there are no mid level maintainers at all for F-35. It's either LRUs at squadron (where the pulled items go to depot/manufacturer for rebuild), or send the whole plane to depot.

@F119Doctor do I have that correct?

There is no Intermediate level maintenance for the F135 engine. O-level replaces LRUs with the engine installed, or removes the engine and replaces high level modules (Fan, Gearbox, Augmentor, and/or Gas Generator (core, LPT and Fan ducts)), which are sent to depot for repair or overhaul. Believe the rest of the aircraft is similar, but only know the F135 maintenance concept.