Comments by "Comm0ut" (@Comm0ut) on "F-16 Fighter Jets plan in Ukraine" video.

Cannibalization management requires at least one cann jet per unit to buffer Supply anyway so if that one has some battle damage no big deal. In fact it can be completely torn down if the airframe is beyond economic repair and that work is fun! The USAF Cannibalization program is a key maintenance strength. I was in before it began and hangar queens were common where documentation was lost and maintainers often harvested parts on the down low to meet the flying schedule.
9
@bobmcnelis3648 I worked Phantoms at Moody and would rather have worked Skyhawk. Avionics on F-4s was more work than engines on Vipers. Tough birds though.
6
@comradeurod9805 That isn't what breaks fighters for the most part. They're interesting systems and most wear is anticipated but a consequence of high performance, like engine hot section parts. Modern fuel controls generally ensure the operator won't hurt the engine but making that much thrust at competitive weight means parts wear out much faster than on airlifters.
4
@arvypolanco What is your conception of conscripts vs. professional maintainers and for how many years did you maintain combat aircraft? Not hatin', just curious to get other perspectives. "Conscript" does not mean less trained but inherently means less experienced. Any fighter can be maintained by conscripts (WWII airframes were far more labor intensive and engine work for example as or more complicated at field level) but optimal combat sortie generation benefits from professionals as a rule because their experience (maintenance is a perishable skill) does not require refresher training and working daily on the same airframes with the same people greatly facilitates speed and efficiency. For example US fighter units have troops with more time on training exercises and deployments than modern conscripts have in total service. Sweden doesn't need that level of experience for its deterrence missions making the Swedish model sufficient for flying safe missions to deter the Russian threat. Horses for courses. It would be a waste of money and humans for Sweden to damage its economy by over-militarization. (My background is avionics on Phantom and Bronco, F-16 engine troop and crew chief with Red X/IPI signoff orders on all systems, run qualified and the rest of the usual stuff. Time in CONUS, USAFE, Korea, Incirlik, KSA and Al Dhafra during Desert Shield/Storm. All huge fun I'd recommend to any young person including women as my wife was also a skilled CH-3. OV-10 and A-10 crew chief.)
4
@jeffk464 That is NOT what that really means. What it means is aircraft are so complex they need a vast variety of parts such that no Supply system can keep up without cannibalization from the line to backshop. (Cann'ing to chase stats OTOH sucks moose balls and I'm not a moose so not a fan!)
2
@TsarOfRuss S-400 doesn't pose much problem for Israel. Ukraine may lose a few but it's war not Hollywood and there is no plot armor in real life. Just ordinary peacetime ops takes its toll in Class A mishaps but if you don't lose a few you aren't training (thus losing more in combat). For example at peak USAF strength during the Cold War our Safety peeps correctly predicted the fighter/attack community would plant roughly a squadron worth (~22ish) per year and by what cause (engine failure, CFIT). That's the cost of doing business. Successful economies can afford it.
2
What PRECISELY in TECHNICAL terms do you mean by "sensitive" and what systems do you expect to fail based on what professional experience? I worked Vipers for a living (engines on Pratt and GE, crew chief on A/B/C/D/CJ models from 1985-2007) and note neither is much problem. Phantoms etc were in VERY long wars and did fine so this is far from a first test of US jet airframes in low intensity nation-state war. Ukraine is more like the Iran-Iraq war than a Soviet Union v. NATO match. Air power is a continuum with personnel careers and airframe lives spanning decades. US fighter units deployed globally throughout the Cold War and exercised hard. It's easy to generate more ready airframes than crew had crew rest, so we did. Every deployment lesson learned over four decades-plus (first USAF delivery was in '79) is instantly available to Ukraine. F-16 airframes don't work harder at war than they do at the high sortie rates we flew during Cold War peacetime exercises which are why Desert Shield/Storm Viper maintenance went smooth and easy. The low intake is not much of a FOD issue if one runs a sweeper over the ramp/taxiway/runway etc. They can suck up light sand all day and do during every Gulf deployment where one may watch the six o'clock dust devil below the intake. It polishes the fan and compressors but little else. I performed many 50-hr borescope inspections so this is not speculation.
1
@taoliu3949 For how many years did you work on Vipers and in which units?
1
@ragingmonk6080 Where did YOU work on fighters? What is your experience in operating from austere locations? Not everyone here is a Beijing shill.
1
@mahoslash You are correct of coruse Runway repair teams are a solved problem. Window-lickers act as if it's exotic. I find it hilarious that anyone without professional military experience in combat aviation imagines their opinion isn't garbage and of course the shills are out in force.
1
@Dan-fo9dk Now post your knowledge of how austere operating areas are prepared for operations. Hooray for tourism but runway prep has been a solved problem longer than anyone reading this has been alive.
1
Conscripts are necessary but aircraft (and other technical) support and maintenance is more effectively done by troops immersed in daily sortie generation and maintenance for several years. Anyone can use conscripts but never forget for a second that's done due to financial constraints. The Swedish concept wisely reflects Swedish realities.
1
As a career Phantom/Bronco and F-16 maintainer (avionics on the first two, engine and crew dog on Vipers) the US training process has always been slow due to peacetime conditions and the other education and training desired by the USAF. It could be GREATLY accelerated by skipping anything that's not pure training and practice. Ukraine can remain in constant touch (Zoom beats the ancient pre-PC era when maintenance was managed by Unix servers with green screen terminals at unit level) with all levels of tech expertise and Vipers are really very easy to work on compared to older machines they replaced. Ukraine maintainers used to MiGs will have orgasms at how much less work is required for example on engines and flight controls.
1
@alamp7640 How many years have you got fixing Vipers or other combat aircraft? Troubleshooting on F-16s is generally fast and easy thanks to advances made over previous airframes like the Phantoms I worked before. Any Viper that can fly is wildly unlikely to be flown off for "troubleshooting" because all of it can be done on the flightline and direct access to anyone including factory tech reps is an email exchange or Zoom conference away. It's easy to train noobs to work on (I trained many and of course was one for two AFSCs).
1
@Qwerty-jy9mj Zoomer time concepts are hilarious. Since when is a few years "forever"? Maybe in Hollywood time...
1
@gravyd316 Math is for Specialist Flight (and for Weapons Load, because bomb dump are fussy about numbers for some reason).
1