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?

  • CkrnkFrnchMn
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    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…

    • MyFeetOwnMySoul
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • Anony Moose
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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

        • zephyreksOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Anony Moose
            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!

            • zephyreksOP
              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
                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?

                • zephyreksOP
                  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
                    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.

      • zephyreksOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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?

    • Knoxvomica
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

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