Lord Jim wrote:All of the above is valid but then we had airframes to bin
V true; we were also late adapters of true multi-role fighters. So change the likely engagement model and whole fleets head for the bin (e.g. Jaguar)
Lord Jim wrote: The big question though is the number of airframes available at any one time
We buy the airframes, but won't hire/ train enough maintainers... rather outsource back to the factory
Lord Jim wrote:the available strengths of the F-35 and Typhoon being around 24 and 36 respectively.
I can live with the former, but a third of the fleet being available does not sound "good" for Tiffies. Understandably a lot of them are not just in storage/ maintenance, but rather on a factory tour as we seem to be buying everything to get them upto spec v piecemeal
... or is that just a trick to keep the line busy, w/o buying any a/c and while waiting for export orders?
Compare this with news [that broke earlier this month]" that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis issued a memo last month to the Air Force and Navy departments giving them just 12 months to get 80 percent of their fighter jets fit for combat.
While no one is complaining [...] “Up to now our talking point has been that it took us years to get into this problem, it’s going to take years to get out,” said one officer who asked not to be identified. “We’re in a big hole,” said another.
For example, only 53.3 percent of Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets are rated “mission-capable,” meaning they are fit to fly, but even they may not be combat-ready, which requires a higher rating of “fully mission-capable