Less than 1/3 of Marines FA-18's combat capable

Navy Digging Out Of Fighter Shortfall; Marines Still Struggling To Fly At Home

So where's the Commander in Chief who's responsibility is to see that our military is combat ready and combat capable ?
He's been to busy using the military for radical leftist social engineering. For the layman, politicizing the U.S. military. -> Obama marches armed forces leftward -> http://www.politicalforum.com/warfare-military/453959-obama-marches-armed-forces-leftward.html

 

I don't see a problem with the F-35B already in service.

 

Does Obie do aircraft maintenance, too? He's a more impressive guy than I thought.

And, tell me, with a $650,000,000,000/yr. defense budget, why we can't keep more of those planes in the air. Somebody must be doggin' it and I doubt it's Obama. Have we run out of $7000 wrenches?

 

Your own link points out that the problem is sequestration, which hit at a particularly bad time -- just as the Navy and Marines sent a bunch of their planes to the depot for upgrades.

But sure, blame Obama for a stupid plan that Congress passed.

 

Maybe because the Obama administration has ordered the military, especially the Dept. of the Navy in the name of political correctness and climate change. stop paying $2.88 per gallon for fuel and switch over to the PC green fuels that cost $150. per gallon.

A couple of weeks ago in the 7th Fleet AOR the Stennis CSG refueled at sea. Instead of spending millions of dollars refueling tens of millions of dollars were spent refueling the strike group with PC green fuel.


The cost of fueling just one FA-18 with PC green fuel, you could fuel entire FA-18 squadron at the same cost using traditional JP-5 fuel.

Do you know what the Obama White House calls the USS Stennis Carrier Strike Group ? "The Great Green Fleet." That's the main priority of the current Obama administration, political correctness.

This is the Obama administration NUMBER ONE PRIORITY of the U.S. Navy. Not fighting at sea or keeping the sea lanes open or preparing for combat. It's the "Great Green Fleet." The Obama administration never mentions the cost, never. But they have a facebook page -> https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/greatgreenfleet?source=feed_text&story_id=1075516995840478

 

There is an economic reality to accept here, regardless of a particular administration.

All tax revenue will go toward health care, social security, and net Interest by 2033. This isn't that far off. Basically if you have a child born today, by the time he or she turns 16, entitlements + interest will have consumed all of the available tax revenue.

This translates to lean times ahead for national defense spending, unless entitlement spending can be controlled to a greater extent.

It's the Guns vs. Butter economic model.

 

Your entire post is just misinformation.

The green fuels do not cost $150 a gallon.

Three years, ago they cost $26 a gallon, compared to about $4 a gallon for JP5.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-green-military-20131118-story.html

But those were pilot programs -- demonstration programs.

The cost per gallon has come way down, to about $2.05 a gallon this year:
http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdige...-cost-competitive-non-food-advanced-biofuels/


The Navy’s 7-year quest to diversify its fuel supply without paying more or changing its fuel spec reaches a key milestone.

In Washington, The Department of the Navy has obtained 77.66 million gallons of cost-competitive, drop-in biofuels blends in support of the launch of the Great Green Fleet, which will officially debut January 20th in San Diego at a launch ceremony that will attract US Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus and US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

The fuel provided meets the F-76 marine diesel specification — somewhat different and more complex than conventional diesel because of the at-sea requirement for fuels with a higher flash point. The price for the fuel to the DLA is $2.05 per gallon.


The military is trying to develop alternative fuels for security reasons as much as anything else -- it sucks to be dependent on foreign suppliers for fuel. The cost per gallon will come down as production scales up and research improves the project. Only then will the military consider moving entirely to biofuels.

A trash-to-fuel facility from Fulcrum Bioenergy, being built in partnership with the Navy, is scheduled to begin production in late 2017, at a projected cost of $4 a gallon -- entirely competitive with JP5.
http://fulcrum-bioenergy.com/documents/2014-09-19ReidAnnouncesDoDGranttoFulcrumBioEnergy.pdf
http://fulcrum-bioenergy.com/facilities/

 

The sequestration is Obama's sequestration, it was devised in the Obama White House. When Obama signed it into law he said he would veto any attempt of Congress to end the sequestration.

Obama tried the blame the Republicans in Congress until the liberals hero Bob Woodward exposed the (*)(*)(*)(*)ing liar Barack Obama. Don't you remember ?
Or are you going to defend the community organizer who has destroyed one of the best military that America has produced in the name of PC social engineering ?

Obama Caught Lying about Sequester
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341553/obama-caught-lying-about-sequester-deroy-murdock

Obama Made Big Mistake on Sequester
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100491803

Obama’s fanciful claim that Congress ‘proposed’ the sequester
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...651dc6a-1eed-11e2-ba31-3083ca97c314_blog.html

Bob Woodward: White House Threatened Me On Sequester
Bob Woodward said this evening on CNN that a "very senior person" at the White House warned him in an email that he would "regret doing this," the same day he has continued to slam President Barack Obama over the looming forced cuts known as the sequester...
http://www.businessinsider.com/bob-...r-white-house-reporting-price-politics-2013-2

 

All PC propaganda.

DARPA has been working on bio fuels for decades. DARPA said bio fuels are still to expensive to produce for the fleet. The Obama administration said they can't wait.

The Obama administration should have allowed DARPA to continue their research and development. But the PC greenies couldn't wait.

 

Oh my God Obama, you killed us! You care about the environment so much, China and Russia with their broken economies is going to destroy us! Now be a real commander a chief and throw those carbon emissions into the atmosphere.

 

Well the chi-coms and Russians can put a fighter in the air at 1/12 the cost than the United States.
BTW, that chi-com or Russian fighter jock will have ten times more time in the cockpit training on shooting down American fighters because Obama puts climate change above national security.

 

That is utter nonsense. The Su-35 cost around $40-60 million per unit. The US equivalent the F-15 cost around $100 million with the upgrades. Cost per Flight Hour is often measured differently, so there is no official statistic that is measured universally.(The F-22 can cost anywhere between $19,000 to $68,000 per hour depending on time, readiness and mission). However, the Indian Air Force is more likely to buy a NATO style aircraft for their multi-role ground attack and lightweight fighter than just use an Su-30MKI fleet.(which has poor engines)

Ten times? Where did you get that number.

National security? Yeah, tell me, who has the most fighter aircraft in the world? Plus our NATO allies? When have we ever officially engaged with Russia or any nuclear power in the Cold War? You do realize Russia and China can't engage us because they fear nuclear retaliation.

Wow, I am so scared of Russian paratroopers over New York.

By the way, the USMC mission for fighter is to act as CAS weapon. Rarely will they use Fighters to engage other fighters. The notion the Marines will have to control an airspace from the F/A-18 legacy hornet which is being replaced. when their are F-22s and Super Hornets in the air, is just ridiculous.

 

I'm referring to the cost of fuel to put an airctaft in the air.

Not naming any particular fighter squadrons there are pilots who haven't gotten any flight time in weeks. Why ? Because there's no money for fuel.

Three years ago under the Obama administration the average Navy or Marine FA-18 squadron was only conducting 2 out of 5 combat training missions. Why ? The lack of maintenance and even the lack of fuel.

Today it's down to 1 in 5 planned combat flight training missions.

Under the Obama administration in the Marine Corps flight accidents (crashes) have doubled. Why ? Because of pilot errors due because the lack of time in the cockpit or they couldn't find a spare part at one of the military museums for a FA-18C

There use to be a sign at Camp Pendleton, Camp San Onofre to be specific that read "The more you sweat during peacetime, the less you bleed in war."

I wonder if the air-dales have such a sign that reads "The more flight time you get during peacetime, the less chances you have being shot down in war" ?

In Obama's PC military it should be, "Is your life insurance policy up to date ? Because the more flight time you get during peace time, the less chances of you being killed in a crash in peace time."

 

Nowhere does the article say lack of fuel. Mission availability has to do with that specific aircraft. If there was a fuel shortage, in military terms, the reporting will be shortage of fuel. For example, if we are running out of smart bombs for ISIS, we report running out of smart bombs.

For example each military aircraft has it's mission availability rate depending on how well maintained the fleet is. So the rate is based on the percentage of the fleet ready for combat.

 

You aren't going to find anything on the internet about the lack of fuel. It would be considered classified. You don't know anyone on active duty serving with a Navy or Marine fighter squadron ? I personally know more than a few.

 

The entire military as a whole has a lower crash rate compared to 2000s years.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95521&page=1

 

How? The Military measures aircraft by availability rate.

No it isn't. If you know and don't have the clearance, it is likely not classified. Do you have a clearance? And if you do, you shouldn't be saying it online.

 

Combat readiness ratings are usually classified for two years. On another thread on the PF military forum we just recently went through this. As I mentioned back in September of 1970 while serving with the 5th MAB it seem I had sticky fingers and I still have the combat readiness report for the battalion I served with. (Actually I had the entire 5th MAB Combat readiness report. ) At the top it was stamped "TOP SECRET"

It showed as follows for my battalion:

P = C-1

S = C-1

R = C-2

T = C-1

Combat Readiness Score C-2 Reason why not C-1, "R"

Back during the day in the Marine Corps a CR of C-2 was unexceptable. Until the end of the Cold War, every Marine unit with in the FMF had to be ready to deploy into combat with just a 24 hour notice. Today only units that are scheduled to deploy ever reach a C-1 rating.

Why did my battalion get a C-2 under "R" ? I really don't know, it wasn't my department and since it wasn't my department, it was classified. Someone scared that we would be at a nudie bar and some commie spy would be listening. I could only guess one of the M102 105 mm howitzers didn't pop when the lanyard was yanked ???

P= Personnel
S= Supply
R= Equipment
T= Training.

Personnel. The score for personnel is the result of comparing the number of service
members assigned to a unit by the number of positions approved for that unit. Ratios are
calculated and translated into a personnel score ranging from 1 to 4. The four service branches
have different rules for calculating and scoring the comparison. For example, a person who is
assigned to fill a position but does not have the correct training for that position may or may not
be counted in the numerator of the ratio.

Supply. The score for supply compares the amount of equipment, spare parts, and ordnance a unit
has with the targeted amount. For some of the larger and more complex units (such as aircraft
squadrons), the supply score is based on an inventory of thousands of individual items. The
services have different algorithms for aggregating the volume of parts and equipment—including
equipment that is designated as critical and weighted more heavily in the calculation—to obtain a
single ratio and, consequently, a single score. The final score does not reflect whether missing
equipment, spare parts, or ordnance was most important in determining the score.

Equipment. The score for equipment reflects the condition of a unit’s most important equipment
(as distinct from the supply area which measures the amount of all equipment and supplies on
hand). The comparison is between the amount of equipment that is in working condition and the
amount of equipment that the unit is supposed to possess; equipment that is not deemed to be in
working condition does not contribute to the numerator of the ratio. The list of equipment in the
equipment resource area is usually much shorter than the list included in the supply resource area.
For example, an aircraft squadron might include equipment and supplies related to test and
maintenance in the supply area but only the aircraft themselves in the equipment area.

Training. Each service branch and type of unit measures training differently. In the past, it was
common practice for a unit commander to estimate the number of additional days of training the
unit would need to complete its training syllabus; a larger number implied that the unit was less
ready and so the training resource score, too, would be higher. Today, it is more common for a
unit to have a training matrix—a list of training events and a level of completion or proficiency
for each event. The training score for the unit is sometimes calculated from the average
proficiency among all individuals in the unit and sometimes from the percentage of individuals
who attain a certain level of proficiency. Changes to the training matrix can have large impacts on
the training score and thus the overall score. If another task is added to the training matrix or if
the period for which training certification remains valid is shortened, the average proficiency of
the unit or the percentage of personnel that are considered proficient will decrease unless
additional training resources are provided.

 

There are less aircraft flying today, that's why.

I believe they go by how many crashes per flight hours.

The exact number for the Marines is on another thread on this forum. Forget witch thread.

 

The sequestration was proposed by the Obama administration as a goad to Congress to compromise. Its across-the-board cuts were DESIGNED to be stupid, and equally painful to both parties. The idea was that some sort of compromise on spending would be a preferable option to Congress. The White House specifically said it would be stupid for Congress to accept the sequestration cuts.

Congress, it turns out, was stupid. The GOP-controlled Congress passed the sequester, agreeing that it would be stupid to let the sequester kick in -- then failed to reach the compromises necessary to avoid the sequester cuts.

This isn't Obama's fault, no matter how much you try to spin it.

- - - Updated - - -

LOL! Because you say so?

Are you claiming the Navy DIDN'T just purchase 77 million gallons of biofuel at $2.05 a gallon?

 

That's because you just made it up, same as all of your other Obama-Derangement-Syndrome inspired fairy tales. You need to understand that nobody else considers "Ipulleditouttamyass" to be a valid source, and it's the only source you ever have.

That's right, you know special people, who are leaking classified information to you. And then you repeat the classified information here. Which, if true, would be a crime on your part. So, either you're aiding our enemies by deliberately leaking classified info, or you're just making stuff up. You can explain to everyone which it is.

 

It's not gas that's keeping those planes out of the air.

 

Unless taxes are raised, which would be inflationary, but then there would be enough for guns and butter.

 

Obama is focusing on his legacy right now.

All the promises he made 8 years ago, he is scrambling to appease that voting bloc.

This includes reigning in deficit spending, but with entitlements growing, not shrinking he's taking it out on the Defense budget.

Neither Trump or Hillary Clinton are as far left as President Obama was so in a few months we'll have a new administration and as long as it's not Bernie Sanders, which is highly unlikely at this point in the delegate count...a new administration will be better suited to address declining military readiness.

At this point, projecting into the near future and potential conflicts to prepare for, Russia is currently experiencing a similar readiness problem and certainly doesn't look to be picking a fight with NATO, basically just saber rattling. The next likely candidate would be China, and that's the strongest case to keep and maintain a high state of military readiness particularly in our U.S. Navy. The Air Force and Navy are deterrent forces. In many ways their purpose is to be so powerful and over-whelming, a bad guy would be crazy to challenge them. This worked in the Cold War against the USSR and it could work with China also, making them think twice about taking Taiwan back.

The next threat that could materialize is North Korea.

China, believe it or not, could be a potential ally. They don't want millions of North Korean refugees crossing their borders, they don't want a war on the Korean penisula. As they are the only ally North Korea has, China has some influence in their policy.

To sum up, China is currently the only real threat out there.

Russia's economy is reeling from a year of cheaper oil prices and wars in the Ukraine and more recently, Syria.
They aren't ready to pick a fight on anything but regional players.

Our defense budget should focus on making darn sure our U.S. Navy is as military ready as it can possibly be to maintain the status quo as a deterrent force.

What stands between Taiwan and China, is the United States Navy.

 

The source being used a propaganda website probably this one. -> http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdige...-cost-competitive-non-food-advanced-biofuels/

Two things here, the $2.05 per gallon isn't the price of the fuel but the price of the biofuel blend that is mixed with the fuel.

The $2.05 per gallon is just the final payment on the biofuel fuel. Add on the billion dollars that was used as a down payment on the fuel. They forget to mention that.

You're dealing with the Obama administration who plays games with numbers. Remember when Obama said he has deported more illegal aliens than any other President ? Obama included those deported by G.W. Bush and then counted those illegal's caught at the border who were turned back as being deported. Only a federal judge can deport someone.

Do you know what "slop" is ? I sure hope nobody in the Obama White House finds out what slop is, they'll probably force the Navy to use slop marine diesel fuel. Then just like merchant ships owners are wondering why those engines in their container ships or super tankers that were suppose to last 20 years only lasted 15 years.

Note: ( the life span of most ships be they warships or merchant ships is twenty years.)

Remember when they took the lead out of the gas ?

Or when they blended alcohol with gasoline, what happened to the engines and fuel lines ?

Here in California we don't use salt on our roads during the winter and you'll see 1955, 56, 57 classic Chevys on the road. To keep them running you have to play around with the unleaded gas that you purchase at the pumps.
I seriously doubt you'll see any car manufactured in 2016 still on the road 2076.

The U.S. military to give them an edge in combat are suppose to be exempt from all of these PC environmental regulations, Including noise pollution. At least that's the way it use to be when national security was taken seriously.

Ever noticed how freaking loud some military aircraft are ?

When the Boeing 707 and Douglas DC-8 commercial airliners first appeared they were equipped with the same loud military engines.Both aircraft started out as tankers for the Air Force. Boeing won the contract. People started complaining that the 707's and DC-8's were to loud. So regulations were passed with restrictions on noise for commercial aircraft. The military was suppose to be exempt from these regulations.

Do you know how loony the environmentalist loons and the Obama administration are ? They want to take the lead out of bullets !

I seem to remember Hillary Clinton saying something really stupid a few weeks ago. Here exact words were "Taking the lead out of the soil." Where does she think lead comes from ?

We don't have the freaking money for national defense thanks to Obama's sequestration and diverting funding already appropriated by Congress to other PC projects that were never appropriated by Congress.

Green (*)(*)(*)(*)ing PC bullets ?
Those PC bullets cost three times more than your typical FMJ lead bullets ! Where's the money coming from ? Definitely not from mandatory PC diversity classes.
Note:
(I'm referring to the bullets (projectile) not the brass shell, primer or powder.)

I seriously doubt a Muslim gives a camels ass if he's shot by a lead bullet or a green PC bullet as long there's no bacon grease on the bullet.