Reflecting on Canada's F-35 decision: F-35 fighter jets can only fly 55% of the time

The fleet’s mission-capable rate — or the percentage of time a plane can perform one of its assigned missions — was 55 per cent as of March 2023, far below the Pentagon’s goal of 85 per cent to 90 per cent, the Government Accountability Office said on Thursday.

Part of the challenges stem from a heavy reliance on contractors for maintenance that limits the Pentagon’s ability to control depot maintenance decisions. Delays also arise from spare parts shortages, inadequate maintenance training, insufficient support equipment, and a lack of technical data needed to make repairs.

Because of the Pentagon’s inane IP laws, maintenance on these planes is a bureaucratic nightmare: defense contractors are able to limit maintenance of these things to only those they contract because of IP restrictions and are not required to teach the military jack shit. Meanwhile, they’re essentially a paperweight half the time because they’re not getting proper maintenance.

How are we supposed to patrol the Arctic with a plane that needs an American private subcontractor to perform essential maintenance on it?

clutch,

Canada under Trudeau has been a magnet of international friction - first with China and Hong Kong with that Huawei thing, then India with the Sikhs. Maybe Canada should focus more on prevention instead of punishment?

Tired8281,

Didn’t they just lose one, for several days, within the continental US?

MapleEngineer,
@MapleEngineer@lemmy.ca avatar

When the pilot ejected is guaranteed that the plane is a total loss. The ejection system triggers a number of things other that the ejection mechanism. All of the secure communication equipment erases itself to prevent it or is key material from falling into unauthorized hands. The plane doesn’t squak its position so that it is harder for someone you don’t want to have access to the plane to find it. Had the plane been lost in territory that the US doesn’t control or that is controlled by an unfriendly country the US wants it to be hard for them to know that the jet is down and where it is so that the US has a better chance of getting there first. The probably can’t be disabled to prevent an, “Oops, I forgot to turn it on” mistake in unfriendly territory and to reduce the risk of it not working.

CkrnkFrnchMn,

I still maintain that in order to fullfill our commitment to NATO we should get into transport. A lot more demands for air cargo than there is for fighters…

Knoxvomica,

Honestly not a bad idea. We still need current gen fighters though.

MyFeetOwnMySoul,

I think the whole Canadian military could use an overhaul. It’d be pretty sweet if the Canadian military specialized in disaster relief, and medical capabilities. Our military could be regularly deployed within our borders for forest fires, hurricanes, and the like. Plus: if we trained a fuck load of medical staff in the military, then they might filter into provincial healthcare systems post-retirement.

Its a little weird to have thousands of people just waiting around for a war to break out.

anonymoose, (edited )
@anonymoose@lemmy.ca avatar

While I agree, I do also think we need a capable offensive force. The world today seems pretty unstable, and having to rely on our neighbor for our entire security seems a little unwise. Since building out our forces will take decades, we should probably get started on that project now.

Edit: unwise, not inside

zephyreks,

Why would we want an offensive force? We have enough land as it is and our primary focus should be on soft power (so people don’t want to invade us) and defence (so people who try end up bleeding so much it doesn’t matter). Canada is uniquely suited for defence in depth given that our key geographical rival (Russia) would have to invade from the North, literally the furthest they could possibly be from key population centers, and that on the off chance that China decides to invade us, they’d have to cross through the Rockies AND the Prairies just to make it even close to the Golden Horseshoe. In fact, I’d actually argue that our key rival in terms of defence should actually be the US: their instability makes it increasingly likely that we may get caught up in a sort of hostile occupation if war should break out and they have the capability to easily strike all main Canadian population centers.

anonymoose,
@anonymoose@lemmy.ca avatar

Sorry, I am using the wrong word, “offensive” here, when I meant a defensive force. Basically, enough tanks, planes, or whatever we need for the defense you’ve mentioned. If we have enough already, great :)

In the situation our rival is the US, I really have trouble us building enough of a defense to do anything but buy time!

zephyreks,

The war in Ukraine has shown that NATO doctrine is, frankly, not very good against something even close to a peer force.

anonymoose,
@anonymoose@lemmy.ca avatar

Can you expand on this? I thought Russia was doing quite poorly in Ukraine, and in big part thanks to NATO supplies being sent to Ukraine?

zephyreks,

Have you been following Ukraine’s counteroffensive at all? Despite NATO training and being showered by NATO equipment, Ukraine is incapable of making progress in offensive operations. It’s been four months and they’ve just barely claimed a 10km x 10km area of low ground.

anonymoose,
@anonymoose@lemmy.ca avatar

I haven’t, but I did read the offensive was slow. I don’t know enough about the topic to know whether it’s NATO doctrine to blame or not.

zephyreks,

Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines have been complaining that NATO doctrine, which relies on complete local superiority, is basically sending them to die when used against a peer force.

NATO doctrine has evolved into one that is really good at fighting insurgents and completely inferior militaries (e.g. Iraq) but has never been good in a peer war. Even historically, this is evident by the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the War in Afghanistan.

anonymoose,
@anonymoose@lemmy.ca avatar

Fascinating. NATO, or specifically the US, does seem quite obsessed with battlefield domination, which I guess it can afford thanks to its present infinite money and oil. Thanks for the insights!

ForgotAboutDre,

Yes. The better the offensive capability the less likely it would be needed.

zephyreks,

I completely agree, particularly given Canada’s defensive environment. Canada has a whole fuck ton of terrain to play with in the event of an invasion, so why not develop the capability for working in that terrain?

nul42,

I never considered right to repair laws could benefit the airforce.

nik282000,
@nik282000@lemmy.ca avatar

If any changes are made it will be that the military will be required to pay to have their maintenance staff trained by the manufacture then have them sign NDAs. There’s no way arms manufactures are going to give up their secret sauce, “it’s for security!”

zephyreks,

That would still be an improvement, though. I think it’s perfectly fair that US defence contractors get paid for their development, and I’d even accept paying them on a per-repair basis, I just don’t think that Canada’s defence capability should be entirely dependent on when a US company decides to send their repair team.

bioemerl,

Read this guy's post history, it's hilarious to see a genuine angry Canadian nationalist.

anonymoose,
@anonymoose@lemmy.ca avatar

That seems like an unfair characterization, seems like they’ve posted on a bunch of topics and don’t seem particularly “angry”? I’ve only just skimmed though, so I might be wrong.

ShittyRedditWasBetter,

Go ahead and develop your own jets then.

Voroxpete,

The Grippen was an option.

zephyreks,

The Gripen was an option better suited for protecting Canada, while the F-35 was a better option for if we wanted to project power abroad in support of the US.

Canada has its priorities all out of whack.

PizzasDontWearCapes,

We tried that once

Voroxpete,

I mean, it actually went really well. It was politics that killed the Arrow, not design, and the Canuck was a really solid plane for its time.

iforgotmyinstance,

Yawn. Call me when you have actual planes and real problems to whine about. Guy is whining about product not even in service.

Hating on the F-35 is a popular pastime, but do yall know high much work high performance planes require?

Honestly these are the terms for every American-made weapon system. If you seek to use U.S. weapons, you will buy the relevant parts and service from American contractors or contractors solely approved by the U.S. Department of Defense. Article is a nothingburger.

Nouveau_Burnswick,

If they think 55% for a plane fleet is bad, they might be appalled at our actual vehicle out of service rate for the ground fleet.

Edgelord_Of_Tomorrow,

Wasn’t the F-35 a joint development?

zephyreks,

Our other options included no such terms, and, frankly, the F-35’s stealth capability is much more important in offensive theatres than defensive ones where multiple overlapping radar frequencies are both feasible and already exist and active countermeasures can be freely used without fear of detection.

Canada’s military is defensive in nature and it’s primarily focused on patrolling the Arctic. For that purpose, the F-35’s range and payload make it rather… unideal.

zephyreks,

Non-paywalled link: archive.ph/Ehlag

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • canada@lemmy.ca
  • ethstaker
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • InstantRegret
  • ngwrru68w68
  • magazineikmin
  • everett
  • thenastyranch
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • cisconetworking
  • kavyap
  • osvaldo12
  • modclub
  • megavids
  • GTA5RPClips
  • khanakhh
  • tacticalgear
  • Durango
  • rosin
  • normalnudes
  • Leos
  • provamag3
  • tester
  • cubers
  • anitta
  • JUstTest
  • lostlight
  • All magazines
    •