(machine translated)
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.
When you say most airframes really you're talking about the commercial transport fleet and the ISR fleet...
| 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% |
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)...
Really.
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...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.
No.
https://aerospaceglobalnews.com/new...aab-is-also-looking-at-what-comes-after-next/
<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.
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.
??? 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.
I don't think that represents an accurate picture and compares very different times and situations.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Any particular reason(s) why the Navy/Marines with their Bs & Cs are doing that much better on MCRs?
Equal may not be an accurate description - let's call it a significant partner with the airframe fabrication.
The USN is currently focused on readiness over modernization and more money is flowing based on that priority.
With the Pacific theatre as it is, smart.
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.
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.
I was focussed upon the comment which could have been interpreted as this being a new thing.
Okay, thank you, much appreciated!
