Loachman said:
You mean groundcrew. They're the ones who fix what we aircrew return to them after a flight.
Sorry about the typo, yes, that's what I meant.
dapaterson said:
Note this is an issue throughtout today's military supply chain, and not merely the F-35. The question is simple: If we do not maintain adequate peacetime stocks of spares, where will these larger stocks come from in times of war?
That is how we delude ourselves - by scrimping at peace, only to find at war that production lines cannot ramp up to meet demand, and that we are then stuck in line with the others, awaiting parts.
If this is your concern, then you should be supporting the F-35. For most aircraft available for Canada to purchase, there won't be a production line to produce spare parts because they have long closed and the part isn't produced anymore. For our CF-18s in Libya, they were forced to cannibalize deployed aircraft to keep others flying because they couldn't obtain the necessary parts and it took too long to fix the ones that needed replacing.
The F-35 being a project currently in development and projected to include 3000+ aircraft over 20 years of production means that there will be constant production of spares for most of the aircraft's lifespan, compared to maybe the first 5 years for some of these programs. So we won't be struggling to fix components because they are 30 years old and have no realistic replacement currently in service. Moreover the JSF will have a global supply pool that will enable Canada to draw upon stocks from different countries and companies. There will likely be several different depots world wide (such as in Australia, Europe, and Turkey), which will aid in its flexibility. None of this exists for any other fighter currently in service, except in a piecemeal fashion with the F-16.
Prognostic systems also aid in this. It can identify future faults with aircraft, which might not need replacement immediately, but maybe in 3 or 4 flights ahead. That means a part can be ordered from our home stocks or one of the foreign depots... so you might have several days warning before a part needs replacement, rather than discovering it when it breaks.
One key part is that the F-35 will require a comparatively greater investment for a stockpile upfront at our bases to get the optimum operation of its sustainment system. This cost will be remunerated over time, as you will have less operational disruption as you wait for components to be sent back to the depot or OEM for repairs. This would assist in times of war, as those stocks can be utilized first and additional items brought in as needed (and providing flexibility in case of disruption.)
As a final note, I think the F-35B and C have had a key influence on the project from an foreign deployed standpoint. Their considerations have forced simplified maintenance process and a focus on deployability. The fact that Bs are expected to be deployed from forward operating bases has been a critical influence on its design. All of the aircraft's components are design to be carried on a C-2 Greyhound (or I think a V-22), and only require something like 6 tools to do all jobs. That's a far more austere environment than the RCAF would generally expect to operate in. The Key Performance Parameters include sustainability metrics for number of flights a day, and the amount of cargo it requires to keep the aircraft flying.
Its a complex system, but its alot more flexible than the traditional approach that almost everybody currently uses. It is significantly more efficient than our peacetime system, and will likely be more effective at war time.
