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?

  • Anony Moose@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    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@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

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

      • Anony Moose@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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@lemmy.caOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Anony Moose@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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@lemmy.caOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Anony Moose@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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!