Why does a brand new aircraft like the F-35 have such
shockingly low availability? According
to GAO, the major reason is spare
parts shortages.
During the report period, Department of Defense (DOD) had a
repair backlog of about 4,300 F-35 parts. (1)
Let’s do some simple math, there are around 380 F-35s in existence as of
10-Apr-2019, according to Wiki. That
works out to an average backlog of 11 parts per aircraft. No wonder nothing’s flying!
So, lack of parts is the major reason why only one out of
four aircraft are fully mission capable.
That leads one to wonder why a brand new aircraft needs so many spare
parts? Wasn’t this aircraft sold, in
part, as a low maintenance aircraft that would perform its own predictive
maintenance analyses (ALIS) to further reduce already low maintenance time? That seems to have not panned out along with
nearly every other promise about the F-35.
Wait, though, it gets worse.
GAO also offers this absolute gem about to spare parts.
DOD
purchases certain sets of F-35 parts years ahead of time to support aircraft on
deployments, including on ships. But the parts do not fully match the military
services’ needs because F-35 aircraft have been modified over time. For
example, 44 percent of purchased
parts were incompatible with aircraft the Marine Corps took on a recent
deployment. (1) [emphasis added]
Seriously???!! 44% of
the parts were incompatible with the aircraft in the field?! This begs two questions:
- What idiot thought buying spare parts years ahead of time was a good idea when the aircraft is still undergoing development? This is exactly why you don’t do concurrent development and production. Because of concurrency, we’re still designing the aircraft even while we’re building it. Of course the current aircraft parts requirements won’t match a parts purchase from years ago.
- Why would you take incompatible parts on deployment?
Side journey: IOC
(Initial Operating Capability) was supposed to be declared only when a fully
equipped unit had all the aircraft, pilots, maintainers, parts, and support
services required. All three services
have declared IOC for their respective F-35 variants and yet, apparently, none
of them can keep the aircraft mission capable.
What did they do … assemble one set of spare parts for the twenty
minutes it took to declare IOC and then pass the set on to the next service for
the next IOC declaration? ‘Cause, it’s
clear that none of the services have enough parts to actually operate their
aircraft fleets.
GAO also addresses parts costs.
In
addressing these challenges, DOD must grapple with affordability. The Air Force
and Marine Corps recently identified the need to reduce their sustainment costs
per aircraft per year by 43 and 24 percent, respectively. (1)
Despite recognizing that sustainment costs would be
critical, they knowingly purchased spare parts sets that contain 44%
incompatible parts. Let me say it again,
this is why you don’t do concurrency.
Well, at least we know what parts we have and what ones we
need, now, thanks to the magic of ALIS, the automated semi-intelligent,
telepathic, clairvoyant, all-knowing, all-encompassing, predictive software
that controls every aspect of the world wide F-35 sustainment network … at
least, that’s how it was sold to us.
However, according to GAO,
DOD
has spent billions of dollars on F-35 spare parts but does not have records for
all the parts it has purchased, where they are, or how much they cost. For
example, DOD is not maintaining a database with information on F-35 parts the
U.S. owns, and it lacks the necessary data to be able to do so. (1)
Another failure for the Pentagon and the F-35 program. Another lie told to us.
At some point, it’s no longer good enough to say, don’t
worry, we’ll eventually fix the problems.
At some point, it’s time to punish people for incompetence on a scale
that defies belief. That time has long
since arrived.
(1)Government Accounting Office, “F-35 Aircraft Sustainment”,
April 2019, GAO-19-321
This is nothing new. Way back in 1977 on the F-4 we couldn't get parts and had over 400 pieces AWP. New toys always trump the day to day business.
ReplyDeleteFrom the Acquisition perspective I have seen the de-emphasis on spares repeatedly from Program Managers. Start holding a few PEOs accountable for initial spares packages that really support the ACTUAL MTBF and not the hyped down MTBF that is touted and maybe you will see some changes.
Until you hold folks accountable, you can't expect things to change.
I agree; the bean-counters want 6 Sigma and LEAN logistics and JITS (Just in Time supply). Logistics hate spare parts stocks and insist on stocking "only what you need". The rot has extended down to MX units and work centers to the point that maintenance squadrons are hiding hard-to-get spare parts above the ceiling tiles to keep inspectors from throwing away good parts that no one makes anymore.
DeleteThe problem with our logo chain is the corporate lingo-bingo cancers that prevent us from buying new parts, and forces us to throw away old ones.
That's assuming none of this is deliberate sabotage too.
ReplyDelete"That leads one to wonder why a brand new aircraft needs so many spare parts?"
ReplyDeleteBasically because it's not a Datsun Honeybee
There will be bits that are replaced every flight, either sent for inspection or just junked.
The entire aircraft will be disassembled by it's 500th flight hour (ish)
"Wasn’t this aircraft sold, in part, as a low maintenance aircraft that would perform its own predictive maintenance analyses (ALIS) to further reduce already low maintenance time?"
ALIS is supposed to predict when componant X needs swapping, but it will take time to learn, maybe it's making the situation better, maybe worse.
"Seriously???!! 44% of the parts were incompatible with the aircraft in the field?! This begs two questions:"
Just 2 😁
Combining the answer.
Imagine, there are 3 variants of the B
1, 2 and 3, each varient requires a specific widget.
You take 10 of each F35 and equal spares.
A 2varient crashes and the fleet is grounded, your taskings are now all met by v1 and 3, a software update kills the BVR on the 3s, so 1 has to pick up that job.
Even more complicated if spares are forward positioned months in advance or if the 2 and 3 can use the same left falangey but have different right falangey.
"DOD has spent billions of dollars on F-35 spare parts but does not have records for all the parts it has purchased, where they are, or how much they cost. For example, DOD is not maintaining a database with information on F-35 parts the U.S. owns, and it lacks the necessary data to be able to do so. (1)"
That's a human issue.
There's not a lot ALIS can do if someone ships a pallet of supplies somewhere and doesn't tell it.
Garbage in garbage out.
"At some point, it’s time to punish people for incompetence on a scale that defies belief. That time has long since arrived"
Yes indeed
The commander of Ft. Bragg just did the yearly readiness alert for the 53,000 personnel on base. He turned off the power for the alert. Wow. Really wow. Within hours the media was telling the world that E1's E'2 who had just spent $127 on groceries had their food go bad. Congratulations to a real leader. We need more.
ReplyDeletePresident Trump just overruled the decommissioning of the Truman!!
ReplyDeleteFord class (Fix Or Repair Daily) sit down.
What is the difference between a LockMart program manager and a used car salesman ?
ReplyDeleteThe used car salesman, knows when he is lying.
Sorry, not buying the excuses. These jets are brand new,even taking into account early mistake jets that aren't concurrent with the later blocks, what the heck is breaking? Computers and motherboards? Avionics? Most of this stuff is brand new and new tech, none of that stuff should break this early in program. Engines? Apart from small stuff and o-rings,gaskets, none these engines need complete tear downs. Forget airframes, they only few hundred hours. We are talking nothing major, probably only Level A and B checks, not C and D levels yet which require major tear downs. And Why is the part list so off??? This isn't first rodeo for USAF and new weapon systems, we have had the Century Series, F4, the Teen series and F22 fifth gen....you telling me USAF still cant get it close enough after DECADES of buying fighter jets?!? Come on! Calling BS!
ReplyDeleteMaybe the Chinese would sell us some spare J-31s?
ReplyDeleteYes! Love it!
DeleteFrom an Australian perspective. I understand spare parts were based on a theoretical model. They are now trying to track actual usage. These are teething problems. The point of ALIS is if USN in Guam need x part they can look up where one is, Australia, Japan, Hawaii, and get it quickly. The F35 recently went to Iraq. Everything it sensed the Australian JSFs know about via the ALIS. I don't know how this was measured - but it is said that every JSF mission has 18 months of intelligence work put in via ALIS. The JSF program is so many different parts to it.
ReplyDelete" The point of ALIS is if USN in Guam need x part they can look up where one is"
DeleteYou caught this quote in the post?
"DOD has spent billions of dollars on F-35 spare parts but does not have records for all the parts it has purchased, where they are …"
While the theory behind ALIS is fine, the execution has been problematic, to say the least. It appears that no one knows where the parts are!
Maybe we should ask Amazon or FedEx to help out with inventory....
ReplyDeleteI know you're being somewhat flip but you make a very good point. If Amazon can nearly flawlessly track millions of pieces of inventory and match those to millions of orders, all in real time, and then track the movements of those items/orders to the orderer, why can't the US govt or, failing that, why doesn't the US govt ask Amazon to build ALIS?
DeleteExcellent comment.
Or Walmart? Or Home Depot? Think about ANY US MAJOR company like those can figure it out, IN REAL TIME, analysis the data and NOW where they need to move stock around and GET IT THERE!...wow, if only DoD would think a little outside the box!
DeleteActually Amazon is about to be awarded a contact to become the cloud server for the entire DOD as the winner of the JEDI competition (no, I didn’t make that abbreviation up, it’s the actual title).
DeletePart of what is wrong with ALIS is the same thing that’s wrong with the F-35, Burke’s, FfG(x) etc. Everything has to be able to do any conceivable mission or task.
ALIS is supposed to take input from the F-35 and not just order but predict what will be needed. In an a sense the plane is more in charge of the logistics chain than the people in supply. Yeah, the F-35 is not only supposed to do stealth attack, air superiority, EW, ISR, and every flying mission but it’s supposed to help logistics and repair as well. But with the continual changes in the 35 it can’t keep up as well as oh, letting people who specialize in logistics and those mere mortals who actually repair the damn things.
"Part of what is wrong with ALIS is the same thing that’s wrong with the F-35, Burke’s, FfG(x) etc. Everything has to be able to do any conceivable mission or task."
DeleteVery good observation.
"27% for the period of May-2018 to Nov-2018"
ReplyDeleteThat is beyond belief w/o heads rolling. You know some 20 years ago I had the opportunity to buy and run my biotech's SAN with some of the its IPO money when everybody got to spend like no tomorrow for a while - 'buy the best make it secure and fully reliable'. If I blew that money (just chump change a few hundred grand) and came back with well its working a 27% capacity and I am not sure any of the spare drives will work - my ass would have been out the door as soon as I finished saying that.
The level of impunity at the Pentagon and senior brass is breathtaking [and the revolving door to contractors and their endless public buffet to feed at].
Also OT but seeing as China or a war with China plays here a round up on the South China sea and navies via Lawfare blog. Could be topical for the future
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawfareblog.com/water-wars-south-china-sea-situation-normal-all-fouled
Is there some particular aspect of the article you'd like to draw attention to?
DeleteJust a reference on look at how things are playing out in the SC Sea. I suppose the two things that stand out are... The way the USGC is being sucked into what should be USN ops and that The Philippines seem to a bit bi polar right now sucking up to China but also coming back for naval cooperation with the US. Sorry to annoy if I did you don't have a open thread for hey did you see this.
DeleteHey, that’s what we can do with the Tico class—we’ll transfer them to the Coast Guard!
DeleteThey have taken USN hand me downs for years. And the Tico isn’t much bigger than some new Chinese CG ships.
USCG gets some nice ships and the Chinese CG gets some serious competition.
(Yes, this is 73% sarcasm... but it also has some weird appeal, don’t you think?)
"The way the USGC is being sucked into what should be USN ops"
DeleteYes, that's an interesting observation. I know there's a tradition of overseas deployments from the CG but it seems a bit odd. The name kind of says it all: US COAST Guard. There seems to be plenty to do along our own coasts and harbors without needing to go overseas. I don't follow CG matters all that closely so I really don't know what the CG's thinking is on this.
"Philippines seem to a bit bi polar right now"
You're right. They seem to be playing both sides. That's not all that unreasonable given the almost no-win situation they're in with a looming China and a pacifist America. Duterte's personal animosity towards the US aside, this is an opportunity for the US to enhance relations with the Philippines and gain some military benefits/basing but we don't seem to be aggressively pursuing it. To the larger point, we don't seem to be aggressively using our State Department, in general.
"USCG gets some nice ships and the Chinese CG gets some serious competition."
DeleteThis touches on 'Kath's' observation about the CG. Why are we asking the CG to do the Navy's job? That's partly a philosophical question and partly a genuine one. I really don't know the rationale behind the CG overseas deployments.
There’s always been a sort of “peaceful intimidation” that the Navy and later the CG have done. The Denver class cruisers of Teddy Roosevelt were called “Peace Cruisers” and were used for diplomatic missions, and disaster relief... and supporting Marines doing intervention in Latin America.
DeleteToday enforcement of laws of the sea are given more to CG equivalents the same way the national guard NOT the USArmy deploys to handle riots stateside.
With the USCG you have what is internationally recognized as a law enforcement organization that does rescue. As part of the law enforcer duties is anti-piracy hence excuse to be overseas in Asia. They deploy teams to the Persian gulf or anywhere there is an embargo because the USN has limited law enforcement power so they do the ship searches. So there is the peaceful part.
But the CG has also had a stick to go with the carrot. In WW2 they did ASW, weather support, rescued GI’a off the coast of Normandy and even spied on Nazi’s in Greenland.
Reagan took advantage of this the most when he outfitted the Hamilton class cutters as basically frigates right down to the hull sonar and harpoon missiles. (Better than the LCS)
So Reagan’s big cutters could be seen as the CG is normally seen, a combination Police and EMT Rescue of the high seas. A positive force in the world that other countries would emulate. Meanwhile the Soviets has to add 13 more frigates as an enemy to account for, and in places where a USN frigate would normally not be seen due to politics.
Now China is borrowing it to “protect their EEZ” which now includes islands they made themselves. And they use cruiser sized CG to “protect fishing easels” when it’s actually about putting a cruiser with a 100mm cannon to intimidate others.
And other than Naval blogs the ruse is working as everyone turns a blind eye.
So the only US response that doesn’t look like “the worlds most powerful navy” taking on a mere coast guard is to respond with our own CG. So then it looks more like border cops muscling each other instead of a military action.
Which is why the thought of an white hulled Tico is intriguing to me.
Well, your idea is intriguing but it would only be effective if we allow our ships to act, in some fashion. You could have a Coast Guard carrier group but if they won't act and they leave the area when instructed/challenged then what's the point? We need to begin acting a little bit aggressively. I point to the Iranian seizure of two riverine boats and around a dozen sailors by three Iranian sailors. The three Iranians, with few weapons and only very small boats, commanded two US vessels and a dozen crew to surrender … AND THEY DID!!! With that kind of mindset, it doesn't matter what type of ship we send or whether it's CG or Navy. Thank goodness the Iranians didn't sail up to a carrier and demand they surrender. We'd have lost a carrier!
DeleteChina has already seized US aircraft and UUVs, aggressively ordered an Aegis cruiser out of international waters (AND WE COMPLIED!), and used unsafe maneuvers to impede our ships. Unless we're willing to resist, what's the point of sending any ships to the area?
So, your idea is fine but it does not address the major problem we have in the area - our own timidity.
Quite true. We have went from being sharks that are aggressive and protective of our territory to jellyfish—a deadly sting but no spine.
DeleteHey. A .270 batting average isn't to shabby in the Majors. A .320 or so average could get you in the Hall of Fame. I agree with your statement, about the level of impunity of the Pentagon and senior brass. What does one have to do to get disciplined ? Order a sub with screen doors ? A carrier that isn't combat ready ? But some poor Private lose a rifle and he is severely reprimanded.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be a constant here, all the waste, fraud that goes on. No one, at any level of Government is really held totally responsible for their actions. You screw up enough, you get promoted or reassigned.
There needs to be some sort of accountability, we need real leaders, those who aren't afraid to call a failure, a failure and punish those involved.
OK so lemme see if I've got this right...the carrier battle group of the future is...1 a Ford (which can't reliably launch or retire aircraft) with 2 an airwing of F35s that can't fly 75% of the time 3 screened by Zumwalts that can't actually do anything 4 helped out by the new frigate based on the non-deployable LCS...
ReplyDeleteDid I get that right???
Well, you left out the sterling leadership and tactical prowess but, yeah, you about got it!
DeleteWow, that was depressing....
DeleteCross fingers on 4, its possible they will go with the version based on the NSC... I mean you know the one that actually sails about and does stuff.
DeleteThis all goes back to when "procurement expert of a quarter century ago though they could beat history and build a single aircraft type that could do everything. That did not work with the F-111s, and it won't work with the F-35s.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that that the one size fit all concept bo only makes all aircraft more expensive, but when fast with real life operation forces major design change to create a functional aircraft that can preform the mission assign to it. To make matter worse those design changes require new stock of spare parts that are not compatible with the older existing aircraft.
I have read where there is only like a 22% commonality of parts between the aircraft types I maybe off but its pretty close so much for the one size fits all theory
DeleteAbsolutely unbelievable!!! I spent years working for a small company. We had about a $1M of parts on hand... Every year when we did inventory, and we were always within $1.00!!! The exception was once we were off by $3.00 and the boss about came unglued!! Theres no reason for this!! The govt already has a parts stock system in place... This is just an absolute lack of accountability at many levels. Nobody seems to care much when its not "their" money....
ReplyDeleteThat's a big problem, nobody cares and I'm not sure how we can fix that. How many Americans follow DoD, budget, weapon systems,etc? If you put out a survey and asked people to respond to how much money USA spends on DoD, I bet the numbers would be terrible. Most Americans can't name their Senators or Congressman. Why would they care anyways: the media and MIC have turned it into: its "geeky", "just more militaristic crap" or just plain boring and only "experts" care which makes it highly suspicious to a segment of Americans that despise knowledge. Or the "experts" are complicit! It's a no win situation for concerned taxpayers, we are seriously out numbered.
DeleteAgreed... Butall it takes is a few people taking their concerns and becoming "active" sometimes to make a difference. While not emotionally driven like drunk driving or anti abuse activists, some watchdog-type groups have grown to the point of having a voice thats heard. Maybe its time for a DOD lobby for not only appropriate program decisions, but fiscal responsibility as well....
Delete@jjab
DeleteIf you were at $1,000,000 +-$1, your staff were falsifying their counts.
Either intentionally or by confirmation bias
If someone tells you there are $19.75 in quarters, count them.
If you count them and get 19.50, you'll count again, if you get 19.75, you wont.
If someone says there a 10,037 widgets, count 10,037 or get fired, you might not even bother to count them.